E-mail of the Western Infidels

This was sent by a friend of mine to me:

Hi everyone,

I saw this news article today in yahoo news and I just
had to pass it along and say a few words. Before,
during and after the Iraq war, many media venues gave
large quantities of airtime to protesters. As we all
remember, these protesters claimed that the war was
fought so that Americans could control the Iraq oil
reserves and so that the evil right wing politicians
could bribe the American people into electing them
again. Further more, many American liberals claimed
that American service men and women were being
brainwashed to fight and die for the greed of evil
corporate America.

I remember very clearly a group a protesters in
downtown Berkeley chanting No blood for Oil,
screaming and pumping they picket signs up and down.
I walked to the local McDonalds (about a block away
from the protest) and I witnessed a protester speaking
to a mentally handicapped man. The woman was
convincing the man to repeat the slogans and then
invited him to join their protest. It did not take
long for the two to join the ranks of the protesters.


Now, I know that this is an isolated incident and that
99.9% of anti-war protesters do not engage in these
practices. But the memory stayed with me.

This news article cites evidence that analysis knew
before, during and after the war that America would
NOT benefit from cheap oil by invading Iraq. The
protesters could have asked the experts if their
arguments were in line with reality. Why didnt they?

In addition, there is the very real chance that
President Bush will lose his job over the Iraq war.

So here are my main points:
1. This blood for oil business was a lie. Any human
who uses logic and reason could have told you this.
Anyone who believes this has been misled.

2. See if this news story is reported with the same
intensity as the story on the blood for oil
protesters. This is a qualitative test for how bias
the media is (it would need a LOT more controls to be
quantitative but I dont have the time to figure those
out.)

3. Anyone who believes that President Bush wanted the
war in Iraq for political gain is misleading himself.
All evidence indicates that his stance on Iraq has
hurt him politically.

Yes, I guess Im getting a bit fed up with people
around here that can be so very logical and methodical
when it comes to science, but they check their reason
at the door when it comes to politics. Logic and
reason are to be applied to all aspects of life. This
is the conservative way.

If anyone has an opinion on this, especially one that
differs from mine, I welcome hearing it.

From the Ivory Tower, SMC

Here's my response:

Hey SMC

I read the social commentary on the protesters and I, for the most part agree with you. Though the notion of "blood for oil" seems bogus, their ideas are not totally unfounded. Consider this, how much in contracts are the US politico's making in authorizing them and what would happen if there is a fuel crunch in the next 5 years and the US effectively owns the Iraq? Would the US stand to gain a large amount of clout both in world energy policy and fiscal backing? Maybe I'm too much of an opportunist or a "capitalist pirate", but as far as I see it, if the US owns Iraq as an ally or just as and out right tyranny, it only secures the future of the US. Though I'm not too fond of the tyranny thought.

As I see it, the American public keeps forgetting that is was through brute force that we gained many of the things we have today as to maintain the ideals of equality on the land we effectively discovered, borrowed, or just wrested away. Look at California. In the end, we still made it better than anything the Spaniards could ever fantasized it to be. Yet, ask most of the protesters there if they would like to sign a petition to re-join California to Mexico, you would probably have a fomenting band of patriots trying to speech you to death. It was also this underlying idea of separatist strength that allowed the creation of a nation such that people banded together under an ideal of equality; if in only religion and race. If Iraq is serious about not wanting the US there, then it will lay down its petty grievances within its clans and either fight the US with a non-racist united mentality or rebuild in an accepting one (then ask us to leave). The protesting US public has also forgotten that this is how we were created, as well as other FIRST WORL NATIONS; and how we have those freedoms that allow for them to protest with their SUV's, Starbucks, education reforms, and social problems. Stupid power hungry Muslim clerics.

If we get kicked out, fine. It's like if I was a cop on patrol: I can respect somebody that doesn't want me in their house, even if I just stopped a domestic violence dispute... It is their house. But I don't want my partner (the protesters) to just bail out on me because he's a weenie of forgot that we have a job to do and there was a dispute that we were asked to investigate. The waiting around part as a cop is to make sure nothing stupid occurs since it usually dose after the cop leaves, unless somebody is arrested. Seeing that Iraq has been "raped" it's hard to say if the "cop" should leave because when one rapist is arrested, another lies in wait (other religious clerics vying for power). I'd just feel more comfortable as a cop to be able to leave knowing that Iraq is able to fend off other rapists with a loaded .45cal than with an empty can of mace.

Wow, teaching the retarded to protest, now that is just outright satanic. She should be brought to trial on that since well, she's no different than the situation she's protesting. (Manipulating the unknowing/uncomprehending into something that is potentially dangerous.) I highly doubt she's going to wipe the drool from that man's chin after he gets riot-gassed.

Wow, I think I really am beginning to think like a conqueror. Maybe this "Rule the World" gig might work out for me. Now that's something to protest. But at least I won't be accused of manipulating the homeless or retarded.

From Pax Americana

DB