posted
I recently had an epiphany. In the midst of the rigors of AP us history, I realized that the one repeating feature of the great men in history is that they are all gloriously bewhiskered. The Civil War being the prime example, men rose through the ranks based on the relative magnificence of their cookie dusters, Stonewall Jackson, Lee, and Longstreet all had preeminent soup strainers, and the Union tried unsuccessfully to imitate their tactics with McClellan, Meade, and Burnside, eventually leading to their finding a suitable leader in Ulysses S. Grant and his beard, Doctor Fuzzenstein. The magnificent facial hair of the time led to the bloody war of attrition, neither side had the ferrat-tude to win through to full victory.
The great victors of the twentieth century also had their nose neighbors. Hitler and Stalin subverted massive populations and conquered vast tracts of land thanks to their mustaches of authority. Fidel Castro, Mr. Tickles, and his small guerilla army of 300 men managed to defeat clean shaven Batista’s 10,000 troops and seize control of Cuba. How? The answer lies in the beard.
This leads to an obvious conclusion about the lack of success in Iraq. How can we hope to succeed when tens of thousands of our clean-shaven men at arms are being hurled into the midst of the most bewhiskered population on Earth? How can General Abazaid Compete with Osama Bin-Laden
We need to send the United States government a message, this war cannot be won through strength of arms alone, we need to draft ZZ Top, and put them in command of our fighting men and women, or else we’re surely doomed.
Some final evidence.
Genghis Khan? Beard
Satan? Beard
Gandalf? Beard
Think about it.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was the coolest post ever made by anyone about anything. Seriously. I'm not just saying this because I am trying to convince my parents to let me grow a beard. It's getting longer, and longer. I like my beard...
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're closing down the forum and going home.
We need the folding chairs over there, the folding tables over there, and we need to vacuum the room. Does anybody know where the internet keeps the vacuum cleaner?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait! don't go, you guys can stay, we still need a runner up and I totally saw you swipe that fork, we were cleaning up not looting the place.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I don't want to grow a beard. It grows in so badly. Though that would be funny having ZZ Top in charge!!
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want a beard. Give me a year and I may be able to grow one. Actually, I just want a goatee. Can I still be in power?
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why, mph? Yeesh, mine came with a free remote, and it didn't require me to hook up a little gizmo to my Roomba that looks terribly likely to snarl up the works.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would I be more likely to get impressed into the military for having facial hair?...
Is the United States really prepared to go toe-to-toe with the superior beard-growing technology of the Middle East?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ah, I was wrong. No beard though. Although ... he did have everyone else cut off their beards (IIRC). So no one would threaten his power! It all becomes so clear now.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Anti-war liberals in this country, too busy demonizing President Bush to be supportive of an emerging democracy in Iraq, apparently think the upcoming elections will fail to produce stability in that country. I happen to think otherwise, taking the optimistic view that the elections will help to stabilize the situation by proving to the murderous terrorists that Iraqis want to take control of their own country. However, should things deteriorate as the savagery of the terrorists goes unchecked by Iraqis desiring freedom, I offer a solution. I propose we colonize Iraq. Send in American colonists to tame this wild landscape, as our ancestors did here in America.
Now, I'm only suggesting this as an alternative to defeat. No one listened to my earlier suggestion to drop a tactical nuke or a MOAB on Fallujah when the savages in that city chose to hang American contractors from a bridge. Imagine the message that would have sent. Stringing up a few terrorists from lightpoles might help, too. While hoping for the best, the possibility does exist that Iraqis cannot or will not stand up to these murderous heathens. IF that becomes apparent AFTER elections are held, what would be so outrageous about offering American citizens what Iraqis are unwilling to fight for?
The chance to seize opportunity and fortune in an untamed and savage world is a part of our American heritage. Iraq could be a new frontier for thousands of Americans who would prove up to the challenge and adventure of life in a new land. It could be the Great Land Rush of the 21st Century. While we're at it, pay for much of this venture by seizing Iraq's oil. After all, our enemies abroad and at home assert that this was a war for oil and empire, right? We've sacrificed much blood and treasure in Iraq to help these people.
Certainly there are several possibilities here. Land grants could be used as a reward to veterans, grossly underpaid for their military service to our country. These veterans could also serve as leaders for the militia units that would be needed to protect the settlements from attacks by hostiles. Working in conjunction with the American military and Iraqis desirous of peace, these settlements would serve as a base from which to strike out at remaining groups of terrorists in the region.
Colonizing Iraq could also serve to spread Christianity. Missionaries from the United States could prove instrumental in countering the impact of the radical elements of Islam. Aside from the adventurous sorts, the opportunity for Christians to make inroads in the Middle East would be a very strong attraction for many Americans. Another group that should be considered would come from our prison systems. Wouldn't it be more humane to offer a new beginning to those who may never see freedom again? It worked out pretty well in Australia and would relieve the burden American taxpayers face from having to support these hardened criminals.
Let's face it, for the sake of humanity we cannot afford to lose control of Iraq. Iraqis will have been given every opportunity to join and participate in a civilized world. We cannot cede control of a lawless Iraq to the corrupt and inept United Nations. Once elections are held, time will tell if the people of Iraq are willing to do what it takes to take control of their country. If they fail, then we should consider allowing a new generation of American pioneers the opportunity to tame a new, wild frontier.
Jon Alvarez presently resides outside of Syracuse, New York. He is a graduate of the University of Texas and taught 8th grade U.S. History before embarking on a career in sales. Jon became interested in politics and political commentary after 9-11 (that's when he, along with many of his countrymen, woke up from their peaceful slumber).
Posts: 14 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
When my father was in the Marines they had strict beard growing rules. Each marine was requred to shave thier face each morning unless it already contained a beard at least 2 inches long.
My father thought this rule was designed to discourage facial hair in the troops. Apparently it was a secret plot to uncover military genius. If you could actually grow a 2 inch long beard in one day, you were macho/beardly juju enough to defeat the Soviet menace. This was kind of like Ender's Game meets Samson meets the Barber of Seville.
(Unfortunately all this bearded regulations discovered is that people who liked to grow beards volutneered for jobs at distant/remote locations where no one could prove that their new beards didn't grow in one day instead of the 6 months they spent manning radar dishes in Iceland)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There IS some hidden potential in that post, though. I completely support any plan that encourages us to ship all our evangelical Christians and violent criminals to Iraq.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
A quick message arrived from the good people of Iraq. "No thanks, we have enough religious manics and violent crimminals. In fact, we would be interested in exporting. Can we send some to you?"
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Despite the endless repetition from campus Trotskyists and unreconciled supporters of Ohio Senator Robert Taft’s 1952 presidential bid, the United States of America is not now, nor has it ever been, an empire.
If the United States were an empire, the Stars and Stripes would today be flying over Ottawa, Mexico City, Havana, Panama City, Managua, San Salvador, Manila, Madrid, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul, Saigon, and Kuwait City. At least.
The United States does not have colonial ambitions, and that defines imperialism. We back friendly foreign regimes and sometimes aid even unfriendly ones, when we perceive it in our strategic interest. Too often the enemy of our enemy is a friend, even if the “friend” is as miserable as Stalin, Mao, Marcos, Somoza, or Saddam, and too often we’ve had to clean up the mess afterwards.
But there is nothing that I can find in the Federalist Papers, in the Constitution of the United States -- even in the writings of Old Rightists and New Leftists -- that says the maximum number of states allowed in the Union is 50, or that for a state to be added to the union its people have to be English speaking.
America is not a territory. It is a revolution. Its founding document declares,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence is not merely applicable to a particular time and place. The least important thing about it is the secession of colonies from its homeland. It is a statement of how human affairs should be organized, and is as applicable in Asia - or on Mars - as it was to Massachusetts and Virginia.
So the question needs to be asked. If the peoples of Iraq, just liberated from a brutal dictator, ever voted in a referendum that their future lay with the Americans who have spent their blood and treasure to free them, would it be imperialism, or merely American, to welcome them into the Union?
We say we believe in separation of church and state. Should we keep a state out of the union because the majority of its people are of a different religion than most of us? Utah doesn’t seem to have been much of a mismatch, has it?
English is not their first language. But if one added up the square mileage of all the neighborhoods in the United States where English isn’t spoken as a first language, might not it equal the square mileage of Iraq?
Iraq would not be physically connected to the United States. But neither is Hawaii. And just a few years before it became a state, the most common first language of Hawaii was Japanese.
I can hear the howls already: This proves American imperialism! It’s about the oil! He wants Iraq’s oil!
Not me. I want orbital solar-power satellites, interplanetary nuclear spaceships, and countertop cold fusion. If fifty years from now the United States is still burning petroleum, America will have failed the test of progressive capitalism.
Like most Americans, I’m a provincial isolationist at heart. It took hijacked American commercial passenger jetliners being crashed into American office buildings for me even to notice that there were foreigners who really hated us. Americans like me don’t even like foreigners enough to want to colonize them.
But we don’t define America by race, religion, or ethnicity. If our cultural strength has come by inviting diverse foreigners to immigrate to our shores, is it much different to invite twenty-four million of them to bring their country with them? I don’t recall reading anywhere that a necessary precondition for becoming an American was being homeless and penniless.
I know this is a long shot. The American Bill of Rights is a Harsh Mistress. Becoming an American – becoming a person who defines his or her identity not by the past but in possibilities for the future, and habituating easygoing tolerance rather than inbred xenophobia – is hard work.
But wasn’t that the point of America in the first place?
Posts: 14 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There IS some hidden potential in that post, though. I completely support any plan that encourages us to ship all our evangelical Christians and violent criminals to Iraq.
And here I thought we all agreed there is TOO MUCH religion in Iraq, naturally the correct response is to ship atheists and agnostics there as a sort of foil for the fanatics. Fight matter with anti matter I say. Naturally once you all succeed is breaking the grip Islam has on the country you will NATURALLY declare freedom of religious expression in the country and Christians won't have to wait for an invitation.
posted
I believe that most of America is too xenophobic to allow that many new people, not Americanized, into its hallowed halls.
Not to mention the cost of welfare for that many people below the poverty line would break our already broken bank.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a fun academic discussion, considering we'd never go for it, and neither would they.
But before it ever got to that, we'd offer them the kind of status that Puerto Rico has, a US territory and protectorate, rather than full fledged state. Then we'd spend the next ten years upgrading them to our standards, which, with American financing of their oil industry would probably pay for itself.
THEN we'd talk about joining the US. There's a big difference though between Hawaii, out in the middle of the Pacific, surrounded by a massive US naval base and such, Alaska, not contiquous, but also sparsely populated, full of natural resources, and with no one really surrounding it...and Iraq, with millions of new people, massive problems, social instability, surrounded by people who want to try their hardest to destablize what we'd be trying to fix.
They'd come in with about as many electoral votes as New York state, which isn't a ton compared to the rest, but it's a nice little bloc.
It's not Xenophobia really, we don't dislike non-Americans, we're leery of non-Anglicans (in large numbers). If Canada decided to be a part of the US, I'd be willing to bet we'd welcome them, with little reservation. Mexico is a different story. People like things the way they are, and they know the world is hostile to us, so they're afraid of what welcoming someone from the world into our nation would mean for us.
If it was a hundred years ago, I don't think it would be as much of a problem, that was back before the country was really set in stone and we weren't really sure yet what "American" meant.
Now we ARE pretty sure, and whole we're still a more welcoming nation than most, despite the stereotype to the contrary, we're set in our ways now. We're established. Adding new member states can't rock the boat too much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: We're closing down the forum and going home.
We need the folding chairs over there, the folding tables over there, and we need to vacuum the room. Does anybody know where the internet keeps the vacuum cleaner?
posted
In Ancient Egypt, beards were so much a sign of authority that Kings (male and female alike) wore fake beards as a symbol of kingship and power.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... we don't dislike non-Americans, we're leery of non-Anglicans (in large numbers). If Canada decided to be a part of the US, I'd be willing to bet we'd welcome them, with little reservation.
Anglican? Canada has at most 2 million Anglicans out of 30 million. I may also note that the Republicans would be dead-set against this plan, the addition of Canada (and its much more left-wing population) would be enough to ensure that they'd never be elected again.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, that makes a lot more sense. It is an amusing hypothetical, if not very probable, I wonder if the Quebecois would be any happier in a United States, rather than a united Canada Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the new Mexican president can really do what he claims, which all his predecessors tried to do and failed (clean up their damned country and create new jobs), and depending on what the world is like in fifty years, I see North America getting very, very chummy with each other. Just as I see the EU getting even more chummy (parts of it anyway).
I think Quebec would consider joining in a united North America, if everyone else were jumping on board, and there was a universal recognition and protection of the histories of the individual nations that made up the new giant nation.
Integrating North America would be mutually beneficial for everyone. The United States would get vast new resources, Mexico would get stability, technological advances, economic advances the likes of which they can't probably imagine, and Canada would get to be a major player on the world stage, would get billions of fun money to play with, access to, believe it or not, better medical care (the problem with Canada isn't a shortage of money, it's a shortage of certain personnel, something America doesn't have the same issue with), a massively more powerful combined army, etc etc.
The only thing standing in the way is social differences. Quite frankly, I support a unified North America. Rename it the United States of North America. It'll appease Americans, who don't like change, and really, it fits. There'd need to be one more level of government created I think. City, County, State, National, and then a new High Federal government would have to be created. That way nations will act much like States currently do, though for the first 50 years I bed the High Federal government will be quite weak. We'll need to be culturally integrated before we feel like one nation, and before an overarching government can really take hold, but I like the idea. NAFTA was step one, on a long, long journey.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The only thing standing in the way is social differences. Quite frankly, I support a unified North America. Rename it the United States of North America. It'll appease Americans, who don't like change, and really, it fits.
If I had to guess, I'd say it would become a unified North America under Mexico. Why?
George Bush - Beardless
Stephen Harper - Beardless
Vicente Fox - Geraldo mustache of authority
In all seriousness (shame on you for making me go serious when I was having so much fun) major changes like that don't happen unless something isn't working. If North America were brought together under a single weak federal government, we would see the same problem the US had under the Articles of Confederation. In a democracy, a weak federal government causes more problems than it solves when it is bringing together several strongly independent entities.
The other option, a strong federal government, would only be implemented if the US was a driving power behind the acquisitions, and it would be nearly impossible to get the citizens of the United States to accept acquiring Canada and Mexico without openly declaring a desire for Empire, and that would be a major demographic change that would require some pretty heavy prerequisites, ones that we haven’t met yet and aren’t likely to meet anytime soon.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I support a unified North America. Rename it the United States of North America. It'll appease Americans, who don't like change, and really, it fits.
Um, no.
United Provinces of North America, perhaps. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
.
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
