In support of USA unilateralism

One of the biggest criticisms of George W. Bush is that he is accused by his enemies (it is no longer necessary to be polite and call his democratic critics his opponents…they hate his guts) of fighting an illegal war based on a lie, and we did so unilaterally. At this point liberals need to quit the drugs that were popular in the 1960s, as well as the hatred (ironically enough the drugs were supposed to make them mellow and peaceful and loving), and become hooked on phonics instead.

That’s right, hooked on phonics. Those who criticize the president and his father for, horror, of horrors, fracturing their syntax, need to work on their own vocabulary. Time does not permit trying to explain to these linguistically challenged liberal primates what the word “lie,” means, or they would know that President Bush told the complete truth about the war, including WMD. Those who supported President Clinton, rendering them unable to distinguish truth from lies, also do not know the meaning of the word “illegal.” Lying under oath is illegal, even if lying about sex. Going to war after getting permission from the United “group of corrupt” Nations is legal.

Explaining lies and illegalities to liberals is like explaining why murder is wrong to Al Capone. Ted Kennedy is a senator, rendering hopeless the notion that democrats will grasp certain concepts.

However, the word “unilateral” is a simple concept. The word “uni,” means “one.” Singer Al B. Sure had a “unibrow,” as opposed to the two eyebrows most people have. Some people ride “unicycles.” If the United States was the only country that attacked Iraq, the attack would have been unilateral. The attack was multilateral, if one assumes that England, Spain, South Korea, Italy, Australia, and a host of other countries are considered actual nations. Despite some liberals describing them as “window dressing,” apparently these are actual nations consisting of human beings, similar to red state Americans that are often overlooked when elitists are discussing who actually counts.

So we did not go to war unilaterally. We went out of our way to be multilateral. This argument should be rendered next time, and there will be a next time (Are you listening Syrian and Iran?). Next time we should not be so defensive about being unilateral. We should just announce that we are embracing unilateralism unless others choose to help.

That’s right. We will do whatever we want, because we can. If other nations have a problem with that, Dick Cheney’s approach to Harry Reid works for me. A few strategically placed F-bombs would be appropriate.

Unilateralism to most liberals means “every nation except France and Germany.” Yes, the Axis of Weasel apparently should have a veto of US foreign policy. One year ago, my response would be to dismiss Germany as the nation that killed my family for being Jewish, and France for collaborating with them, in addition to simply being and acting like France.

However, to the chagrin of blue state surrender mavens, Germany and France are changing, and for the better. Germany has a Prime Minister in Angela Merkel that wants better relations with America. France is on the verge of electing Nicholas Sarkozy, who is rabidly and appropriately Pro-American (If Segolene Royal wins, they will simply remain France, in all its glorious irrelevance).

Therefore, without those two obstacles, what is left? Shall America refuse to defend itself without permission from Zambia? How about Madagascar? Greenland? Maybe Monaco can object. Better yet, perhaps we need permission from Syria and Iran to eliminate them. Funny, Al Queda never sought my permission before murdering my fellow New Yorkers.

If John Kerry wants to take a global test, he can repeat 7th grade Social Studies. The adult world of foreign policy understands that each nation has an obligation to defend themselves. If America is about to be attacked, America and America alone gets to decide what to do about it. If other nations do not want to be obliterated, stop trying to kill us.

The next president should continue the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war. Then he (Yes, it will be a he since the US Constitution prohibits Lady Thatcher from running) should announce to the world that America will unilaterally defend itself against any and all enemies. The nations of Old Europe exist because we saved their bacon in World War II. 

Some will debate for ages whether or not the war was unilateral, while supposed linguists like Noam Chomsky (yes, apparently he did at one point have a skill and a job) will decipher what the word actually means and when it means it depending on which party is in control. The real issue is that this debate should never have to take place, because defending America is nothing to apologize for. The war was multilateral, and if it was unilateral, I would have been fine with it.

The war in Iraq was, is, and will be right for eternity. The fact that other nations chose to help us is heartwarming, but without their help, the war was equally right.

American Unilateralism is legally, morally and strategically an honorable course of action. No amount of liberal linguigymnastics can change this. Despite liberals, America will continue to behave unilaterally, because our responsibility is to our nation. This responsibility will be moral, decent and right.

Iran and Syria…the clock is ticking. Our friends might want to help us…but we will not be under any obligation to ask them. So I will say to Assad and Armageddonijad what I say to liberals in general…Knock it Off! Then go (insert f-bomb here) yourself, before we enthusiastically do it to you.


No Responses to “In support of USA unilateralism”

  1. Brian says:

    You seem upset…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.