u  p  d  a  t  e  d     w  e  e  k  l  y !
24 Mar 03
Chronicling the new Empire of America, the uber-Bully.

Turd of the Week

The United States of America has become the world's turd through its violent extension of chauvinistic might

See full stories

Well Santa came a little late to George Bush's stocking, but our leader gets his way. Regardless of the merit of his desire, George always seems to get his way.

This crap sickened pundit wishes a swift end to the violence, with minimal casualties to civilians and combatants. Given the inevitability of an American military victory, we certainly feel relief at prospects of mass Iraqi military surrenders.

The media is declaring this campaign an unambiguous success - surgical strikes, protection of oil fields, no reports of civilian casualties, polite restraint from shock and awe, happy liberatees, Iraqi soldier surrenders - everything that proponents of preemptive attack believe refutes all arguments against unilateral preemptive regime change. The TV coverage looks great, lots of explosions, groovy graphics, menacing theme music, no troubling images of Iraqi corpses. It doesn't quite add up that this imminent menace against humanity, whose power and evil are so imposing that immediate overwhelming attack was absolutely necessary, is folding like an ill-prepared militarily underendowed paper tiger. But no matter, as America's interest in detailed accounting of events has curiously emerged from its long slumber to now hunger for images that can only be considered vastly inferior to Hollywood's visuals.

We fear that as the war drags on, the casualties will, in fact, mount on both sides. Particularly if Saddam is not found soon, the American effort will drag on and American alienation of world affection will find new levels of contempt. Bush made this bed, but all Americans will sleep in it.


screw all the other stockholders, we're cashing out!

Hey, what do you know? We make money from American militarily screwed up countries in the Middle East!

We're already negotiating with the “new Iraqi democracy” for oil rights!

Selling weapons all over the globe to ensure civilian death and instability which in turn ensures a strong market for years and years...

The Pitiful Lies
One of the most notable aspects of the Bush regime is the lip service of compassion that provides a flimsy, yet apparently effective smokescreen for cruel policies, both at home and abroad. Operation Iraqi AweShock is no exception. Here is a sample of the most insipid lies:

We are reluctant to wage this war - Any observers of the Bush regime's circumventing of global opinion, of UN admonishments and refusal to entertain alternative suggestions pushed from many quarters, including the Brits, know that the Bush regime has done everything in its power to make this war happen. There has been no reluctance. Rather, there has been impatience, arrogance and bloodlust in getting this war started.

We will do everything in our power to keep casualties to a minimum - Well, that's oxymoronically at odds with the whole point of war. The invading forces can choose different tactics, some more likely to visit casualties on the indigenous peoples, but force must be applied to achieve military goals. The Bush regime must choose some sort of balance between achieving its military goals quickly and ensuring the safety of innocents. To choose the course that absolutely minimizes casualties is to not invade at all.

We have no choice. It is all up to Saddam - This is my favorite. We have no choice. By declaring Executive bloodlust as immutable, the Bush regime looks to Saddam for flexibility. In fact, as we all know, there have been, and continue to be many choices throughout this horrific episode in Imperialism.

I recognize it is a unique departure for the Bush regime, but a little honesty would go a long way in winning global support. How about stating the following:

There were many alternatives to dealing with Iraq, but we have chosen to invade. We have chosen to invade Iraq at this time because we believe it is essential that the world fear our power. While we do not wish to visit death upon innocents, we choose a course to achieve our military objectives, which put civilian lives in peril. We reject international cooperation and and knowingly impair, if not deliberately obviate, bodies established for resolution of global conflicts.

Professor Pissed - A little behind the news, but Pisseder than EVER!
After having heard long debates about whether or not the US should attack Iraq, having listened to pro- and anti- war arguments, I have come to the following conclusions.

Those who believe we should attack Iraq (as we have) most often argue from a basis of well-meaning, but poorly informed, sentiments. They focus exclusively on how horrible Saddam is, and on the age-old imperialist argument that the people of the country to be attacked need to be *freed* from their current situation. No one arguing these points seems to have heard the voices of people living in Iraq (all of the statements I have heard or read by Iraqis living in Iraq, rather than by Iraqi exiles, express horror at the US's intervention and want to be left alone). No one arguing these points wants to pay any attention to the crucial issue of international law, which the US has flagrantly broken. No one arguing these points wants to attend to the fact that George Bush's actions have, for the first time in our history, made this nation an international pariah. No one arguing these points wants to question the extent of the USA's or Great Britain's own democratic system (was Bush, in fact, democratically elected, or was he virtually appointed by the cronies of his family members in Florida and on Fox News, and his supporters on the Supreme Court? if Great Britain is a democracy, then why is Blair pushing for war when 80% of the people are against it?).

Finally, let me just ask those of you who insist on supporting this illegal and surely terrorism-spawning attack on a sovereign (if totalitarian and oppressive) nation: if another country were openly to drop bombs on the White House with the openly stated intention of assassinating George Bush, would we accept these actions as *justified* by the beliefs of the bomb-droppers? I think not. The precise reason why we have collectively developed international laws against such acts is that mayhem, anarchy, and mass death would ensue if each country were encouraged to act on its own set of cultural beliefs and to try to change the world accordingly. (I am aware, in saying this, that there are, indeed, limits to letting other countries follow their own way; when Iraq attacked the Kurds, for example, I think we had more of a case than we do now, and, of course, there's always the example of Hitler...)

Each culture has its own beliefs and it's easy enough for one culture to feel itself in the right (the Ottomans in the middle ages did; the Crusaders did; Napoleon certainly thought everyone else in Europe had something to learn from him, as did the Germans in 1914 and in 1939). The difficult thing is for cultures to recognize the contingency of their views, and to avoid trying to impose them on other countries WHEN UNPROVOKED. Some may say that we have been provoked by Saddam's flouting of UN conventions. But this then begs the question of why, as the French so rightly demanded, the inspections couldn't be allowed to continue until they came to a conclusion. They seem to have been working well in deterring Saddam from developing more weapons of mass destruction.

The ultimate question here remains: If we insist that Saddam follow international law, how can we then turn around and flout it ourselves?

Finally, as for the current calls for all Americans to support the troops now that they are in Iraq fighting Bush's war (usually the logic is that we don't want to send a signal that we are divided), isn't that perhaps exactly what the line was in 1939 in Germany? Wouldn't want the world to think there were Germans actually _against_ Hitler's war of aggression. Not to mention the fact that repressing dissent is exactly what the Bush administration accuses Saddam of doing.

Professor Pissed is a South California-based, yoga-doin' mother of two who may still own a copy of Cher's "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves"

Let the Culture Infection Begin!
Images of the happily liberated citizenry are showing up. Soldiers are giving kids M&Ms (the official candy of Operation Iraqi Freedom!) and beginning the process of creating a generation of fat and electronically numbed Iraqi children.

What's next? We'll be giving them PlayStation games that simulate our troops invading their county and killing their friends.

A Few Lingering Issues
So according to CNN and FoxNews, we'll be done soon and the Iraqis will be drinkin' diet coke and chillin' in tanning salons. I guess that settles everything, except perhaps:

1) We are international pariahs. Our Regime-Change-'Cause-We-Say-So policy has given a horrible face to Uncle Sam's global reputation. We are defining ourselves in very unflattering ways.

2) We have begun a policy of preemptive strikes. This is a terrible precedent that seems to have escaped most fast-food-media fed American .

3) There's a lot of work to be done when the smoke clears. Rest assured this crap sickened pundit will watch tirelessly at the process behind Operation: Be-Like-Us-Or-We'll-Invade-Your-Ass-Yet-Again.

The Price Paid
This issue of Sick of this Crap deeply regrets the loss of:

  • Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski
  • Sgt. Nicholas M. Hodson
  • Lt. Thomas Mullin Adams
  • Maj. Jay Aubin
  • Capt. Ryan Beaupre
  • 2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers
  • Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez
  • Cpl. Brian Kennedy
  • Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert
  • Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Watersbey

...who are the known fatalities to date (midday at 03/24/03). We also dedicate it to the memory of Iraqi dead whom we won't likely have names of ever.

   Crap Archives
  Legal Disclaimer: All information on this site has been carefully considered as to its inflammatory value against the backdrop of the prevailing standards of cultural depravity. Research is spotty at best. The resulting verbiage, though dead-on and wickedly insightful (not to mention inciteful) should be considered pure satire, if for no other reason than to deflect lawsuits.