![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenite0One of bloggers at Winds of Change came up with an interesting metaphor for the war while discussing the atrocities in Russia:
Smoking contributes to cancer. Russia had a three pack a day habit going in Chechnya for too long, so they shouldn't be too surprised now when the doctors hand Putin the X-Ray and shake their heads. But to suggest now . . . that the solution lies in quitting smoking, is ludicrously inadequate.
The terror has now metastasized, linked up with tumors elsewhere in the body of the world. It is a systemic disease and it requires a systemic cure that acknowledges the true nature of the disease.
The cancer of the jihadi mentality is ready to attack anywhere the tissue is weak. Those who advise against weakening the tissue further are correct, but they insist that the cure go no farther.
Give them what they want? Sure, stop smoking. But the cancer doesn’t want you to stop smoking. It wants you to die.
America's smoking habit has been propping dictators to maintain "stability" in a region that desperately needs change. We've cut back, and hopefully we'll completely quit soon. But the important thing is going after the worst of the cancer wherever we can. Right now that means cutting out the tumors easiest to get to and causing the most damage, not just one the one that made us go to the doctor. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11--so what? He's contributing to the problem and Iraq's the best place to start on the solution.
I hope we can beat this without resorting to radiation therapy. But that's going to take aggressively using all the other treatment options first.
Smoking contributes to cancer. Russia had a three pack a day habit going in Chechnya for too long, so they shouldn't be too surprised now when the doctors hand Putin the X-Ray and shake their heads. But to suggest now . . . that the solution lies in quitting smoking, is ludicrously inadequate.
The terror has now metastasized, linked up with tumors elsewhere in the body of the world. It is a systemic disease and it requires a systemic cure that acknowledges the true nature of the disease.
The cancer of the jihadi mentality is ready to attack anywhere the tissue is weak. Those who advise against weakening the tissue further are correct, but they insist that the cure go no farther.
Give them what they want? Sure, stop smoking. But the cancer doesn’t want you to stop smoking. It wants you to die.
America's smoking habit has been propping dictators to maintain "stability" in a region that desperately needs change. We've cut back, and hopefully we'll completely quit soon. But the important thing is going after the worst of the cancer wherever we can. Right now that means cutting out the tumors easiest to get to and causing the most damage, not just one the one that made us go to the doctor. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11--so what? He's contributing to the problem and Iraq's the best place to start on the solution.
I hope we can beat this without resorting to radiation therapy. But that's going to take aggressively using all the other treatment options first.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: A Post That Sums Up What's Wrong With Neocon Policy
Date: 2004-09-12 04:34 pm (UTC)BTW, SA is (using the terms you use) both the tumor "easiest to get at" and the one "causing the most damage," not Iraq.
I'd the it's the absolute reverse that is true. I've had more than a few cancerous tumor operations myself, to the tune of 7 major ops alone.
Tumors are considered inoperable when removing them would cause more damage than good. The same holds true for SA. Surgical removal of that regime woud kills more people, uncluding innocent Saudis, than not.
When you can't 'cut' out a tumor, you have to attack it with other means - radiation, iodine, etc. Alternative treatment for the saudi tumor includes making assocoiation with/dependance upon them obsolete. Treatment in progress.
That treatment progresses in two ways: Researching new methods of energy, and obtaining il from other parties. That other party will be Iraq. Oh, we'll pay for it, mind you. Regardless fo the liberal battlecray, this ain't about stealing oil from Iraq. It's about paying for it.. but that money will be less likely to be tithed to a rabid mosque and used by terrorists, if it's being paid to a people who find themselves increasing grateful for our intervention with Saddam, as word on the ground increasingly convinces me is the case.