Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Why It's Not A "Civil War" In Iraq

A "civil war" in Iraq? Are you kidding me? What a bunch of malarkey. I haven't heard this much public policy manipulation since Time Magazine announced that Lance Bass was gay. Why not just blackball the poor kid at Hooters while you're at it. It's disgusting. (Not being gay. Being gay is fine. Stylish, even. Gay is the new "it" girl, as it were.)

If you bury your head in that sand any deeper, you're gonna strike oil, especially if you happen to be at the gulf coast, where there's oil aplenty we're not allowed to drill for, for whatever reason. Thanks, liberal everglades huggers!

We may be on the cusp of losing 3,000 American GIs. We may have inadvertently killed possibly over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. We may be in the middle of a quagmire the likes of which we haven't seen since Clarence Thomas was pointing out pubic hairs on cans of Coke for the enlightenment and bemusement of his coworkers. (Face it: It was funny. Real funny.)

But one thing we can be sure of? It's not a civil war in Iraq. Why? That's easy.

Because Matt Lauer said it was

Yeah. That's quite the endorsement. If I'm not mistaken, isn't this the same crew at The Today Show, that crack staff of investigative journalists who broke the red hot story that the flooding in New Orleans may or may not have been caused by rising water levels? Whatever, Matt. You might want to stick with getting the skinny on Nicole Richie's weight loss. (Pun so intended.)

Because NPR kept implying it was all weekend

I mean honestly. Those pinheaded communists constantly asking me for my money so they can spread trumped-up lies and persiflage over the airwaves have a lot of nerve, especially considering the fact that they laud that overblown anti-Semite, Jimmy Carter, on Fresh Air (with your host, Terry Gross, lesbian [how convenient]), a former president, no less, who all but comes out and says that the problems in the Middle East all stem from the fact that Israel deserves to exist and that every non-Jew who wanted peace in the region was subsequently assassinated by some Zionist whack job intent on keeping Palestine on a short leash. Who's the insane retard now, Jim? Take a good long look in the mirror, Asshat P. McDoofus. All Things Considered, huh? Right. More like All Things We, The Liberal Media, Deem Pertinent, Relevant And Biased Toward Furthering Our Own Leftist Agenda Considered.

Because the alleged participants in this so-called "civil war" are not clearly differentiated by the color of their uniforms

E.g., blue versus grey? Ring any bells? Wake up!

Because it's just a phase Iraq is going through

Come on. We've all been there. You get to be around 12 or 13 and your body starts to change. You have urges, anxiety, depression. You're confused. You lash out. Next thing you know, you have a party when your parents are out of town, there's underage drinking, drugs, and 74 people have been blown up into a million pieces because Jason and Amber broke up after Kim had an anxiety attack. This is nothing more than Iraq's "going through puberty", but it's certainly not a "civil war". Please.

Because no one tried to free any slaves

Unless you count the regard in which women are held in Islam. But that's not the point. The point is that a civil war has to be about political ideology, not about religion, defense contracts, and oil. Case closed.

Because "civil wars" must have good guys and bad guys

I'm really beginning to feel sorry for you. Okay, let's back up. Remember back in middle school American history, with the textbook you had to sign your name in reporting the relative condition of the book, and your responsibility to report any damage to it, before and after it was issued to you? Remember? Well then think back to the nearly 4.3 pages devoted to that North/South conflict. Remember who the good guys were, and the bad? Wrong! In Iraq's case, that criteria just doesn't hold water. Because they're all bad. It's so mind-boggingly obvious.

Because everyone's confusing a surge in "sectarian violence" with a surge in "civil war"

Which, if you think about it, is pretty easy to do. "Surge"? "Urge"? "Urges"? Yet again, historical puberty on a national scale rears its ugly head. Again.

Because "civil war" implies, well, "war"

It's right there in the title phrase. Iraq, however, is, like Korea, a "police action". Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm not exactly seeing footage of GI Joe directing traffic, unless it's at a checkpoint, which is about to blow up, or GI Jane handing out parking citations or "rounding up perps". That doesn't count. If it's a "war", then where are the front lines? You can't have a "war" unless you've got clearly demarcated lines of battle, like the diarrhea-filled trenches of France circa 1917, or the "behind enemy lines" of Germany circa 1944, or the jungles of Vietnam circa 1985's Rambo: First Blood Part II (with the revered director, George P. Cosmatos at the helm). Looks like it's not so quiet on this western front after all. You lose.

Because it's an "insurgency", not a "civil war"

Here we go again. "Insurgency"? "Surge"? "Urge"? Aww. Iraq's first "that time of the month". I suspect that if you were feeling bloated and moody, it's not any stretch of the imagination that you might feel like taking out an orphanage with a 50 caliber Gatling gun. Clearly you've never met my ex-girlfriend whilst she was "on the rag", which seemed, basically, like, I don't know, all the time. Looks like it's about time America broke out the Midol. Chamomile tea on the march! It's so devastatingly cute. Girl, you'll be a woman soon/Soon you'll need a man… Sing it, Neil!

Because we're losing

Don't you see? By virtue of the fact that we, America, are losing means, by default, that it, by definition, can't be a "civil war", because we aren't one of the "sides" that are fighting. I.e., you cannot, ever, have more than 2 "sides" in a "civil war". It doesn't work that way. Obviously.

So, to sum up: It's not a "civil war" in Iraq because of "Let's see what's happening in your neck of the woods", Robert Siegel not using "the math" when analyzing polls, Old Glory/Johnny Reb, awkward boners, Uncle Tom's Cabin, "Good, Fair, Poor", more awkward boners, Richard Crenna was robbed at the '85 Oscars, proof of insurance, "I'm now talking to the 19 people inside of Sybil", and "We'd like to get that number up to 3,000 by the first of the year."

Any questions? Class dismissed.


TenaciousK said...

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Thank God you were here!