|
History bears out the fact that the only thing worse than a woman scorned is Americans,
collectively, when angered. The first time was during the Revolutionary War. The second
time was during the American Civil War. The third time was on December 7, 1941 which took
the U.S. into battle, bringing about World War II, and then, of course, there were those
four incidents just this year: the one in Pennsylvania, the one in the nation’s capitol,
and the two in New York City.
The anger that was sparked on September 11, 2001 when alleged terrorists used a couple of
airliners to bring down the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City; when
other alleged terrorists flew a plane into the Pentagon; and when passengers brought down
another airliner in a rural Pennsylvania field, also allegedly seized by terrorists. That
initial anger has been fanned, repeatedly, since then, with taunting statements that
American soldiers are too wimpy to fight in Afghanistan during the winter months; that
America, as a nation, will crumble under a massive jihad, or holy war, though I have yet
to find one thing holy about a so-called Islamic holy war, or any other holy war, for that
matter; among a host of other claims, statements, and challenges.
The American Defense Machine, better known as the politicos in Washington, D.C., is
sparing no expense in the “War on Terrorism," as it’s been called. The expense also
includes humanitarian aid food packs being dropped into various areas of Afghanistan, as
well as data collection in attempts to limit the number of civilian casualties.
As I prepare this column on November 14, 2001, Kandahar, Kabul, as well as a handful or so
of other towns in Afghanistan are evidently free of Taliban control, although nothing is
certain, as yet. Even U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld notes that the situation
is not stable, saying that things are “liquid." His choice of words means that things
could change day-by-day, hour-by-hour, or minute-by-minute. That’s one of the reasons the
U.S. doesn’t want Northern Alliance forces moving into the capitol city of Kabul until a
new form of government, or at least U.S.-approved officials are in place. It’s evident
that the Taliban’s retreat from the abandoned towns is not a designed ploy, at least not a
ploy supported by the populace. How can we tell that? Well, that’s really simple. The
women are ripping off their veils, the men are shaving off their Taliban-mandated beards,
and all sorts of Taliban-banned music is being played in the streets.
In the “Taliban Withdrawal Was Strategy, Not Rout" thread over on the sci.skeptic
newsgroup, I found George Black and the “Ministry of Propaganda" debating the possibilities behind the Taliban’s withdrawal. George says it is so the Taliban just
needed to find some room in the country to wave their white flags.
Over on the alt.history.ocean-liners.titanic newsgroup, LDRS EMV Nica says that she
doesn’t trust the Taliban’s retreat. It’s “almost like they are saying, 'ok... we are
running out...but watch our next move.' The hubby says I’m paranoid."
Discussion on alt.politics.election, however, with Torkelson29 replying in the VA (Victory
over Afghanistan) Day thread, scared me. Coolvio posted the thread, asking, “When the
streets are filled with parties and cheering people, on VA (victory in Afghanistan) day,
what will Clinton be doing? Will he be holed up in his own cave, brooding, angry,
grieved? Will Bill say something like, “I wish it was VUSA (victory over the USA) day,
and the parades were in Kabul."?
Torkelson29 sums up, for the most part, my thoughts on the thread: “You people and your
obsession with Clinton is f***ing weird."
|
"Striking Back, American Style"
