Saturday, February 19, 2005

In the Land of the Ice and Yoshida

Ah, what the hell. Having already soiled my hands writing about Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin this week, I might as well go for the hat trick of looneydom and cover Adam Yoshida, too.

Our Canadian basement blogger writes this week that...
"Ongoing problems in Iran, North Korea, and Syria demand a serious response. I’m sympathetic towards the position that, in order to send a message, the United States has to occasionally pick out someone and throw them up against the wall. I call this the 'Hama Solution.'”

Further developing his previous column, what young misanthropic Adam proposes is something along the lines of the bombing of Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo, even of the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the self-loathing wanker puts it,
"What’s now required is something to shake up the situation. What’s needed is something to convince the plotters of American power. Something needs to happen that reaches out to them and says, “Don’t fuck with us. What’s called for is an action so extreme that the whole world will get the message. What’s needed is an action which screams out, 'attention must be paid.'”(Do they study Arthur Miller in Canadian Lit classes?)

In case anybody wonders what such a proposal, coming from the mother of all chickenhawks, means, little Adam makes it clear, "Naturally, this would require more than a simple pin-prick strike. In order to ensure the complete destruction of North Korea’s nuclear war-making potential, it would be necessary to strike with nuclear weapons."

Yes folks, there you have it. In order to tell the rest of the world that the US is not to be trifled with, we ought to nuke North Korea. Because that's sure to settle down the international situation.

But there's more. Since we're already rooting around in yoshida-world and have to shower anyway, we may as well look at that previous column I mentioned. In the previous post, entitled "Collective Punishment," our brave warrior justifies such actions, the preemptive destruction of cities, because "no government, even a totalitarian one, truly rules without the consent of the governed." What's odd in this entry by the noble keyboarder is that he is specifically talking in terms of our conflict in the middle east. He is proposing that, in a middle eastern country in which we are currently at war, we ought to level a city (actually, as he puts it, "a few of their cities"), because the people of that city, whichever city it turns out to be, have bloody hands for supporting the ruler we went to war against.

Except...and feel free to help me out here if I missed something...except, the wars we are currently fighting in the middle east are in countries in which we have already deposed the leaders we originally went to war against. In one of those countries in particular, oh, let's call it Iraq, there were other reasons originally bandied about for going to war but they didn't turn out so well and we were left with only one reason, deposing the dictator. And now we're supposed to nuke one of the cities in this country, where we have already locked up the old boss, to punish the people for making us come in and do what they should have done? Is that the point? WTF, mate?

Oh, one more thing about that particular post and its point. Is baby Adam's concept of "collective guilt" and his belief that those who "fail to actively resist the Islamists are, to one degree or another, complicit in their atrocities" qualitatively different from Ward Churchill's "little Eichmans" comment?
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by