I've received an email (from someone who will remain anonymous for reasons which should become obvious) annoyed with the popularity of a new website, The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog. The name alone explains why some of my friends might not like it. But never fear, it is really just a funny parody.
I'm including excerpts. Now for my liberal readers, please understand that I know this doesn't refute your arguments.
From Good Neighbors, Bad Neighbors in which the author first describes a fight he had with his neighbor (bolded emphasis mine):
We (are foreign policy) was bothering Arabs Muslims governments in the Middle East. NOT being good friendly neighbors (if you ask me), just like me with my indoor hackysacking. No. We were constraining their behavior / preventing various regimes from doing what they want to do/ expanding as they wish / arming to defend themselves / etc. In short: we offended them.
On 9/11 we received our "note" (like note Arun to me) asking (kindly, gently) (ok 3000+ kill (stock brokers mostly) to make point better) to stop our behavior. This was a chance (an opportunity) to make a mends by LISTENING (like I did, to polite note from C&C Music Factory fan) and changing are behavior accordingly as per all there wishes (ie. no American troops or citizens on Arabian peninsula anywhere/ dive vest from Israel completely,udderly / stop blockade of Iraq i.e. let Saddam trade with whomever however do/kill whatever he wishes / kick non Muslims out of Sudan / kick Russians out of Chechnya / kick Serbians out of Easter Europe / kick Indians out of Indian peninsula / etc.) Whatever - just good friendly neighbor behavior. This would of been civilized thing to do.
From Contained Really:
A helpful metaphor here, borrowed from another context, is the "lockbox". Just say it this way: We had Saddam contained in a lockbox. Examine that sentece carefully. That sentence proves all you need to know, relly. (Frankly I don't understand why the Kerry people don't say this kind of thing more often)
This (containment) (lockbox too) is a geopolitical term of art. It means, when someone (i.e. a country) (Iraq, say) is contained, what has happened is, you have set up an International web of regulations and inspectors and adnimistrators to make sure they do no bad stuff (i.e. you make a list of bad stuff to prohibit and that's what they'll be prohibited from). Thus, no bad stuff (from them) becomes possible (not within realm of possibility).
And from my favorite Sans-France:
The United States initiated and fought a war without (sans in French) France! This just makes NO sense whatsoever hestorically!
I don't know if Bush is just ignorant of history, or seeks to rewrite it. (Talk about Orwellian). But the United States fighting a war in which the French Army (l'Armee Francais) is not particpiating. It just boggles the mind!
Kerry would of not fought the (wrong) Iraq war at all. But if he did (which he WOULD NOT OF), he SURELY would of got the French Army to fight alongside are troops (which he would not of sent in the first place, to be honest). Clearly the French people are were eager (drooling even) to send their young men to fight and die in this (wrong) Iraq war they disagreed with, and they would of happily done it, it's just that Bush is such a cowboy and they didn't like him (personally). Waht an International Disaster!
Just thought I'd share. But to my conservative friend, it's a parody. Don't worry about it.
How can you tell?
Posted by: Dave Schuler | August 26, 2004 at 10:03 AM
It's a shame they have such a lax grasp of the English language. Or are phrases such as "he SURELY would of got" and "changing are behavior accordingly" part of the OH SO CLEVER satire as well?
Posted by: McDuff | August 26, 2004 at 10:08 AM
More fun: the argument for going to war:
(a) We are fighting a war on terror, which requires drastic measures. Going to war with Iraq is a drastic measure. So we should take it. Anyone who says we shouldn't is a wimp who thinks we should just sit on our hands until the next attack.
(b) Besides, Saddam Hussein is a bad guy and an Arab. Osama bin Laden is a bad guy and an Arab. So there's a connection between them. Anyone who says otherwise is just not facing up to reality.
(c) We don't need to consider any possible downsides to this war. Only wimps and defeatists do that. Besides, if we spot an objection to going to war, we can just repeat it in a French accent and laugh, and it will slink away in shame.
Voila! A parody. Of course, I know it doesn't answer Sebastian's arguments, but it's funny, non?
Posted by: hilzoy | August 26, 2004 at 10:41 AM
It absolutely is hilzoy. At least to me. I especially like your (c). :)
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 26, 2004 at 11:01 AM
huh? It looks like a bunch of people jerking off for each other. Do all the posters know its a parody?
Posted by: heet | August 26, 2004 at 01:42 PM
hilzoy, you spelled your objections correctly and used proper grammar, which really reduced the otherwise overwhelming hilarity.
Posted by: sidereal | August 26, 2004 at 02:11 PM
J'ai essaye d'imiter l'analphabetisme de l'originale, mais helas! je 'ai pas pu me forcer de le faire. L'absence des accents dans ce commentaire doit suffire.
Posted by: hilzoy | August 26, 2004 at 03:25 PM
Clearly, it's a scientific study designed to test whether conservatives have a sense of humor. Result: Some do. Some don't.
Posted by: Kathryn Cramer | August 27, 2004 at 03:39 PM