|
|
March 29, 2003
I love to rate comedians. Earlier this week, I was wondering who was going to look funnier -- the protesters, when more people were killed protesting the inhumanity of war than died in the war or the US government when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Now there have been more casualties and clear evidence of chemical warfare preparations have been found, so neither the protesters nor the US government are particularly amusing.
There are two lessons to be learned from this -- 1) If you want to be a successful comedian, stay away from topical material, because it never lasts, and 2) The goddam Arabs are still not civilized enough to follow “q” with “u.”
Another thing that isn’t funny is anti-Semitism, which is a major part of the protesters’ platform. Look at the best case scenario here. Iraq, which combines the size of California with a gross domestic product right between those of Bulgaria and Myanmar (which, between them, barely have enough extra cash for a new pair of shoelaces, much less shoes, much less boots for a couple of gazillion chemical warfare suits and the toxins to go with them) with approximately the arable land of Central Park, has spent at least enough guns to hold off the United States, the United Kingdom, 200 men each from Spain and someplace or other else, and that semi-retired postman from Reykjavik who constitutes the combined contribution of Iceland and the other 39 member states of the “Coalition of the Willing.” That pretty much means that they’ve been spending about 317% of their GNP on guns for some time now, and one thing you have to admit about guns is that they are intended to go off at some point, so we all know that Iraq, or, to put it in correct English, Iragu, intends to fire a lot of guns at said point, which their leaders had fondly hoped to determine without interference from busybodies like George Bush.
Well, who might they have been intending to fire those guns at? That’s one of those questions like, hmmm, most questions, that we can address by examining opportunity costs. If Iraq fires all those guns at another Arab nation, the cost includes the rest of the Arab world siding against them, and that’s a lot of Arabs with guns of their own and a lot of other guns those lots of Arabs can rent with lots of oil money. If they fire them at Turkey, it will probably turn out to be about as much fun as it was to fire them at Iran in the 1980s, and that wasn’t much fun. And so on. Where we find the lowest opportunity costs for the greatest reward for Iraq, it’s in firing those guns at Israel.
Arabs think it’s always open season on Israel, so opportunity costs incurred in the public opinion of Iraq’s basic political/geographical/religious bloc are virtually nil. In fact, if they fire guns at Israel, their stock will rise among Arab states and they’ll get a lot of volunteers to fire as many guns as they can pass out in that direction. Israelis are quite tough, but it’s a small nation, only one percent of the Middle East, and, on paper, it always looks as if the Arabs, who already have the other 99 percent of the Middle East and have no need whatsoever for that other one percent, could probably win a war against Israel. I think Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction to use first against Israel. I think they were planning, as soon as the UN got bored and went away, to offer support and protection to the “Palestinians,” who are the descendants, not of the original inhabitants of what is now Israel, but of the criminals from prisons all over the Arab world, set free in the late ‘40s and transported to the Jewish homeland to rape, pillage and murder Jewish settlers as the first wave of a genocide that didn’t work out the way the world thought it would, after which the Arab nations cut national prison budgets by refusing to let their criminals back into their countries, which left them inside the borders of Israel, where they’ve been criminals ever since.
Two things you can say about the world in general are that it has a short memory and that it has never looked out much for Jews. God himself has played them a series of dirty tricks ... what kind of omniscient deity puts his chosen people between the Moslems and the Christians, who are about the bloodthirstiest sonsofbitches to ever fill a collection plate? If I were God, I’d put my chosen people between the Buddhists and the Confucians, who may not fill many collection plates, but who don’t fill their neighbors with bullet holes and multiple stab wounds every chance they get, either.
I think this is all pretty obvious. Since it is, by demanding that the US, the UK and that semi-retired postman from Reykjavik leave Iraq alone to buy more guns to fire at Israel, the protesters are saying that it’s okay for Iraq to create the inevitability of having all those guns go off as long as they only kill Jews with them, and I call that anti-Semitism. What do you call it?