Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Libya Free or Die!

Or maybe Liberace?
I know, that was a terrible play on words, but it will make total sense shortly.  Ever since the revolution in Egypt seemed to succeed, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the moral implications of this whole Libya thing.  For instance, do we really want to help oust a guy that dresses like an African Elton John?

On a slightly more serious note, let me say that as a guy who majored in American History in college, I am particularly fond of the American Revolution.  So when I see all of these oppressed people around the world rise up against their douche bag oppressors, I start to salivate.  That being said, I fully support the notion that a people who are brutally oppressed have the right, the duty, to revolt and establish a new government, regardless of hilarious wardrobe choices.

I have to say though, with as much opposition that the U.S. met on the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan,I was a little bit surprised that so many nations thought it necessary to help the rebels in Libya.  I mean, I suppose we can all guffaw and say “well it’s just because Libya is driving up oil prices,” but surely the second coming of Christ (Obama) is above such influences.

Whether aiding the Libyan rebels is based on economics or ideology, I suppose it’s good either way that we’re helping them.  Gadhafi is not a good guy.  Any psycho that draws an imaginary line on a parallel and calls it the “Line of Death,” is clearly wacked out of his gourde and probably shouldn’t be in a position of authority over the lives of his countrymen and women.

But how many Americans are okay with this?  Obama has caught a lot of flak from Congress;  I suppose they weren't too pleased with him bombing something without their permission.  I remember that there was somewhat of a stink when Clinton bombed the piss out of Milosevic (Wag the Dog, anyone?), but are people more okay with military action that doesn't involve ground troops?  I guess Clinton was vindicated in the end though, I mean they did build a statue of him in Belgrade or something.  Maybe Obama wants a statue of himself in Tripoli?  I don't blame Congress, or anyone for that matter, for not being okay with this.  I mean there's no entrance strategy, exit strategy . . . or any strategy from what I've read.  Obama doesn't necessarily even want to depose Gadhafi.  Perhaps Obama was bored?

Apparently this is how intimidating
world leaders watch the sunset
Then you have scary, undertaker-like asshats like Vladimir Putin telling everyone that helping the rebels is akin to some medieval crusade.  That’s laughable at best.  Everyone knows that Putin and Gadhafi pal around and have family barbeques.  I guess I don’t blame them, after all they do have a lot in common.  For example, neither of them hardly ever smile, and when they do smile you get the sense that someone, somewhere, suffered a random "heart attack."  I do find it funny, though, that both China and Russia opposed U.N. action, but both abstained from the security council vote, and neither vetoed the U.N. resolution.

Sure the world might be less colorful without Gadhafi, but on the bright side we still have Kim Jong Il to laugh at for at least a little while longer.

(no clever caption necessary)


Nightman said...

How do these maniacs take such funny pictures?

Jack Camwell said...

Because if they didn't have any fun they'd probably fucking kill themselves. I'd dress like Richard Simmons on a date with Rock Hudson, too if I killed babies for a living.