Last weekend while I was staring at Pacific Northwest tide pools, Newt Gingrich (shudder- flashback from 1994) was sending vicious ripples through time and space courtesy of his (self-declared) Churchill-like prognostications of us being already embroiled in WW3.  No sooner had he banged the WW3 drum than pundits further to the right started acting as if everyone's known about this WW3 business for, like, EVER, and former New Republic correspondent Michael Ledeen retorted, "no way, Newtie- this is World War FOUR!"  I guess I slept through one somewhere in there.

So a couple of sloppily dropped statements from a former professional liar (Contract with America?  Broken long ago), and suddenly everyone's looking for a definition of a World War.  Does it take superpowers fighting over smaller countries?  Does it have to involve Germany somehow?  Doesn't France have to surrender first?

I'm unconcerned with such definitions, as if we assume that there's some World War going on, then people will be quick to say, "the U.S. needs to jump in there and finish this mess."  After all, we tipped the scales in the Great War, and more or less brought Japan to its knees single-handedly in that war's sequel.  Those events, though, differ tremendously from the current slew of disgusting events in many ways, most of which I'll ignore, except one: this time, we're the bad guys.

Now hold on a sec- US?  The aggressors? Didn't those fundamentalist Islamists start this thing back in 2001?  Yeah, that's what the aggressor always says.  The aggressor always likes to blame the aggressed.  See, the aggressor moves in to territory that isn't his, and then cries foul when whomever lives in said invaded territory fights back.  In that way, the Germans and Japanese didn't start World War 2- the Polish and Chinese did when they started objecting to being raped and killed by Huns and Japs, respectively.

When the US jumped to Kuwait's aid in 1991, we started a global conflict whose bills we're still paying.  We hunkered down in a country that had no love for us, and whose regime maintains power only through draconianism.  We offended a whole generation's worth of the fastest growing religion on Earth, and did so blatantly in the name of keeping down gas prices.  When we lingered after the first Gulf War, we overstayed our welcome and became the aggressor.  We're the bad guys.

But it doesn't have to be that way.  The solution to the problem is straightforward and simple- pull out of the Middle East.  Take ALL of our troops out of that region.  Maybe keep the NATO forces in Afghanistan, but everywhere else, bolt.  We do it in such a way as to boldly and clearly let the people of the Middle East know that they can solve their own problems now, and that we're sorry for overstaying our welcome.  Then we can sit back and watch as the Sunni-Shiite war that's been brewing for 1300 years reaches a new, completely insane peak.

The right-wing pundits that I've tapped in to usually claim that this WW3 nonsense is being fought over ideals.  Hogwash, I say.  Wars are not fought over ideals, neither religious nor political.  Ideals are what END wars, and they can certainly be used to rally the troops.  Wars are fought over resources- iron ore, water, agricultural land, manpower.  This war is being fought over oil.  And that's a lousy reason to fight a war.

Poem for the Day:

When is a bad idea a bad idea?

When first it's thought up, smoke rising

From the glowing coals of some twisted imagining?

Or maybe when it's played out

to disasterous headlines, sad 3 minute spots

accompanied by melancholy Sanyo chords? 

Or is a bad idea only a bad idea

when someone finally actually contracts his or her vocal chords

in such a way as to say 

"uh, this is a bad idea."

Or is a bad idea actually a GOOD idea,

until the goofball who cooked it up in the first place

finally admits that, "okay, I was drunk that night,

and we never should have gotten into this mess

in the first place. Sorry..."? 

Have a nice day...