March 17, 2003

attack iraq? fuck you.

In a demonstration of large-scale strategerie, thousands of sophisticated drivers and homeowners across the country have taken it upon themselves to broadcast such political masterpieces as:

"Attack Iraq? NO!"
"No War On Iraq"
"Boycott France"

I have one thing to say to all these people: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

After months of speculation, over-dramatic buildup, and useless ultimatums, we are finally going to attack Iraq. If you're still in denial of this fact, remember: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Everyone has an opinion. We're hearing them everywhere, from public protests, to televised debates, to water cooler conversations.

And then there's the problem.

Think about it. We are talking about international affairs. For those who are not aware, allow me to explain how this works. International politics begin when big, exclusive clubs with millions of homogenic members disagree on some issue (say, the price of oil, for example). Seeing as how it isn't very practical to put these hundreds of millions of people in a room together to sort out their problems, select ignormasuses are appointed to lead the lemmings. The millions of oblivious, happy-go-lucky imbeciles that we call "population" can then go on their merry way, trusting their appointed dipshits to work out whatever dispute is at hand.

These "world leaders" aren't superheros - let's just say they are a little less than perfect. Just like you, these people have varying levels of egos, ethics, insecurities, corruption, apathy, close-mindedness, greed, and vanity. Do you really expect them to consistently run their countries with utmost levels of ethics, righteousness, honesty, and morality? Replace "them" with "you" and you will realize the answer is NO.

Now, let's turn to a simple analogy, so you can begin to see why you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You're watching a football game. It's 4th & Goal, and the driving team is down by 3 points with only 30 seconds left to go. A decision needs to be made: Does the team make the less-risky play for the tie, or do they go for the win? Depending on your favorite team, whether you got laid last night, and how many beers you've had to drink, you might have a strong opinion on what the right play is.

Bad news: You still don't know what the fuck you're talking about. In this scenario, the coach is the only one qualified to make the call. It's the coach that has the unique and most complete perspective on the game at that moment. He has direct input from his advisors and the players on his team. He knows the specific strengths and weaknesses of the opposing team, because he's studied video tapes of their previous games. He knows if his quarterback is exhausted and won't be able to pull off a touchdown. He can strategize over whether the team has the energy or the edge to pull a win in overtime. You, on the other hand, have none of this insight, all of which may be critical in making any sort of useful decision.

International politics are no different. It is impossible to comprehend the extent of historical conflicts, ulterior motives, classified intelligence, and complex tradeoffs that you are not privy to. You simply do not have the information you need to even form an opinion on whether we should attack Iraq. Nobody in this country does - except for the coach.

Love him or hate him, you elected him, and now you have no choice but to trust him. Whining won't do shit. Debating won't do shit. Protesting won't do shit. Nothing you can say about this issue matters. The coach needs to call the play, and it's way too late to change coaches.

If you don't like the play that's called, your protests aren't going to change anything. Shut the fuck up and try voting next time.


Posted by eviljack in reality at March 17, 2003 11:16 PM