Wednesday, May 12, 2010

My New Foreign Policy

Let me ask you something. What, exactly, is this country's stance on terrorism and/or terroristic acts that are taken against us? Because from what I can tell, it's an awfully pansy-assed stance at best.

Let's just take a look back at what Hillary Clinton said on 60 Minutes this past Sunday. According to
Fox News (well, and 60 Minutes), Mrs. Clinton was asked questions about our stance on Pakistan. Now, look, we all know that Pakistan can't be trusted. But for some reason, we felt the need to help them with their nuclear reactor research program back in 1960. Hard to say exactly what the reasoning was behind that, but what's done is done (apparently). It's also hard to say what's behind her Florence Henderson hairdo there, but I guess what's done is done in that regard as well.

When asked about Pakistan's commitment, Mrs. Clinton came across as saying that "...she did not want to meddle and alienate the Pakistani government at a time when the country's military is complementing U.S. efforts across the border in Afghanistan." Hmm. I don't know. I'm thinking that when it comes to anything having to do with Pakistan, I think there's always room for meddling. It wouldn't have to be a big meddle. Perhaps just a teensy meddle. But whatever it is, for cryin' out loud, don't let those guys just figure out on their own what to do and what's going on. Remember? We don't trust them.


Actually, her quote was "I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking." Aren't we the most powerful country in the world? What say you tell them what stands to take else wise we blow them forward into the Stone Age? What? Too harsh? I'm sick of this stuff, can you tell? There are reasons why we have bombs. One of those reasons is compliance. The other reason is to keep me from getting a headache every time I have to keep reading about the same thing over and over and over. Enough already. Let's get a little bomb-y and speed things up, all right?


Yeah, I'm pretty much the only one who takes that stance these days. I'm over it. We're too soft as a country. Don't believe me? Let's look at what Fox News called Hillary Clinton's "...stern warning in reference to the Times Square case."

She said, "We've made it very clear that, if, heaven forbid, that an attack like this, if we can trace back to Pakistan, were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences. " Uh, wait a minute. What now?

So let me get this straight. TRY and attack us all you want?! But it's only if it is SUCCESSFUL that we're going to do anything?! What in the hell kind of a position to take is THAT?! Why are there not consequences for TRYING to blow us up? Why are we telling the terrorists that "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"? It's already sounding like this Times Square moron and his evil (not to mention extremely inept) plan can be traced back to Pakistan (where their bomb making instruction seems to have waned a bit). So, there aren't severe consequences for THAT?! Why in the world not?? Anyone? Anyone? Great.

We're doomed. We are a pansy assed country who thinks that sternly worded memos are going to get other countries of this world to keep themselves in line. We can't have a policy that only inflicts a consequence for an attack that is successful. We need to be bombing the bejeezus out of anywhere that terror plots are financed from. I know that sounds harsh, but I prefer to be able to go about my business in my own country without having to worry about being blown to bits by a weird beard from one of the sand lands. I have no beef with anyone...right up until they come over here and start trying to get all 'slpode-y with us. That's when I get angry. And if I'm in charge, that's when I start bombing. It's very simple. Leave us alone.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

No comments: