Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, January 30, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 5
Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, January 30, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 5
Why does most of the military love President George W. Bush? If you believe that the symbol called military means ant like person, then you can easily explain the love of the military of George Bush. Otherwise you cannot easily understand why he is loved.
There is a symbol called war leader in the military. Let me show you some of the symbols that they see surrounding him.
Bush arrived on the aircraft carrier Lincoln via an aircraft that had to use a trip wire. To many people this was a symbol meaning Bush was grandstanding. In the Marines, the symbol aircraft carrier means fear, massive fear, because any given Marine is out of control of the environment has to depend on the pilot. An aircraft carrier landing can end with the plane hitting the back of the ship or a tripwire breaking. It's a very very frightening experience. The military respected Bush for doing the aircraft carrier landing. The symbol he was sending was that he had courage. For those who wanted to know, that was how it was interpreted.
While Bush was on the Lincoln, he cut the turkey into slices for the men and women of the aircraft carrier. That too was a symbol. It meant "As You serve me, so I serve you." It also means that he was humble. A man full of himself wouldn't lower himself to do such a menial task. And he did it without making a big deal out of it.
The flight into Baghdad was a symbol. It was defined as courage and unpredictability. A war leader must have courage, if he keeps the enemy guessing as to what he will do next, then that is better. Landing in the hot zone is frightening to most ground soldiers. By doing that, Bush proved to any who doubted it that he had courage. And again, he served the men and women in that Quonset hut a meal. People made a big deal about him raising up a turkey to the camera. They missed the point. He would have liked to cut slices for the mean and women there, but was unable to do it.
Decisiveness is a symbol. A war leader has to be clear about what he is going to do and why. Bush gives speeches and people do not want to understand that he says what he means. The military knows that what he says he is going to do, he does. He keeps his word.
Bush will be judged in the future by Iraq and the War on Terror. Most of you weren't listening after 9/11. Bush got up and said that we were in a war that spanned 30 years. I believe he is correct.
The Left's definition of the symbol called Iraq makes no sense to me.
My definition of symbol called Iraq is Georgia. Yeah, kind of a crazy definition. Here's what I am talking about. Look at the map of Georgia and think about the Civil War. When Sherman marched to the sea, he split the South. In that march, cities, houses, farms, railroads and bridges were burned. By making it impossible to easily move food supplies from Alabama to Virginia, the South could no longer fight. There was a general for the South called Nathan Bedford Forrester was a very good guerrilla warfare specialist. He had responsibility for the military in Alabama and Mississippi. When Lee surrendered in April of 1865, Forrester said, "I don't know about you, boys, but I'm going home." He had looked at the devastation that Sherman had wrought and decided that he was not going to allow that to happen on his watch. Lincoln had proved to him that he was willing to do whatever it took to win. Had Forrester fought a guerrilla war in the South, it's no telling how long Reconstruction could have taken. Forrester accepted defeat, because he saw that victory would be futile.
What has that to do with Iraq? Regardless of what you may think, we are in a war that is thirty years long. The conquest of Iraq is a means of splitting Syria and Iran, just as Afghanistan splits Iran and Pakistan.
The war in Iraq can be seen as a way of drawing a set of jihadis into Iraq so that they can be killed. The jihadis are from the upper middle class. They are far from being poverty stricken individuals driven to killing Americans because of having a meaningless life. By killing these people now, we are cutting off the leadership of the future. Leaders of any movement normally come from the upper middle class. How can they get experienced leaders, if they continuously kill them off? That's what's happening right now. The leaders of tomorrow for radical Islam are being killed right now. In addition, their trainers are dying as well.
The symbols that the jihadis are giving off make me believe that this is a thirty year war. In all the speeches that the jihadis in Arabic are giving they are saying that they will continue to fight until every person on the planet is Muslim, a second class citizen and a slave. Yeah, radical Islam is REALLY into slavery. By their standards, slavery helps them become better Muslims. I have said this before radical Islam wants slavery to come back so that they can spend all day sitting, sipping sweet tea and discussing the Koran. That symbol sitting on a Persian rug, sipping sweet tea and discussing the Koran is their Utopia. To us that symbol is indolence and laziness. Which culture is correct? Who cares? We can't debate this. It's a silly idea to try. If one culture disagrees about what a symbols means, how are you going to convince them that it is not what they think it is? No way... as long as they don't try to implement it.
Now... what I trying to get across, just as the jihadis and Western culture cannot agree on definitions of common symbols, just as the Left and the Right cannot agree on common symbols. The Left looks at the war in Iraq and sees a dark skinned race being attacked by a light skinned race and assumes racism. The assumption on the Left is that the dark skinned race has a grievance against the Western culture. The Right looks out there and sees a set of people who want to kill us, forcibly convert us to Islam, or enslave us. How can the Left and the Right see such different things from the same set of information? I don't know.
A good resource to see what the jihadis are saying is to look in on www.memri.org. That site translates the Friday sermons from various mosques in the Middle East. That site also translates speeches given by major players in the Middle East. It was always fun to compare what Yasser Arafat said in his English broadcasts and what he said in Arabic. The two were like night and day. The Saudis are also an interesting study of what is said in Arabic and what is said in English. Damn, the Saudis want to be our friend in their English broadcasts. In Arabic, they say that no Muslim should have anything to do with an infidel.
After 9/11, almost immediately, the Left took the position that if we paid off the jihadis, they would stop killing us. As time has passed, since 9/11, the Left has become more and more adamant that we in the United States have done the people of Islam an injustice that the jihadis in Iraq are the same as our Founding Fathers. The problem with redefining the symbol of our Founding Fathers as terrorists is that our Founding Fathers stood for freedom, radical Islam stands for slavery. Why can't the Left see that? I mean, we on the Right have been scratching our heads for four years trying to figure out how the Left can possibly look at radical Islam and see a symbol for freedom.
If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound. Radical Islam is in favor of slavery and tyranny. Those two statements are true. Radical Islam wants the Caliphate to be reborn. The Caliphate would be nation state with an expansionist foreign policy. The goal of the Caliphate would be to rule all of humanity. In order for the Caliphate to be born, every person on this planet must convert to Islam, be killed or become a slave. Why doesn't the Left in this country and in Europe see that? I don't know.
I don't care if you agree with me. That is not what I set this program up to do. I do not want to convert you to my point of view. I want you to acknowledge that you are looking at the symbols differently than I am. I want you, if you are on the Left, to acknowledge that your symbols are without substance. I want to realize that there IS a way of making your symbols HAVE substance, but you haven't done it so far. I want positive social change. If you on the Left will not accept that your goals cannot be achieved by using the tools that FDR built during the Great Depression, then you are doomed to failure, because the tools don't really work. They have never worked. If they were going to work, they would have worked SOMEWHERE in some other country or some other time.
Ah, well, I have said all I am going to say tonight. I now turn it over to MacKenzie Pequa the Third who will play you an eclectic mix of music throughout the night.
Take it away Mac.
Why does most of the military love President George W. Bush? If you believe that the symbol called military means ant like person, then you can easily explain the love of the military of George Bush. Otherwise you cannot easily understand why he is loved.
There is a symbol called war leader in the military. Let me show you some of the symbols that they see surrounding him.
Bush arrived on the aircraft carrier Lincoln via an aircraft that had to use a trip wire. To many people this was a symbol meaning Bush was grandstanding. In the Marines, the symbol aircraft carrier means fear, massive fear, because any given Marine is out of control of the environment has to depend on the pilot. An aircraft carrier landing can end with the plane hitting the back of the ship or a tripwire breaking. It's a very very frightening experience. The military respected Bush for doing the aircraft carrier landing. The symbol he was sending was that he had courage. For those who wanted to know, that was how it was interpreted.
While Bush was on the Lincoln, he cut the turkey into slices for the men and women of the aircraft carrier. That too was a symbol. It meant "As You serve me, so I serve you." It also means that he was humble. A man full of himself wouldn't lower himself to do such a menial task. And he did it without making a big deal out of it.
The flight into Baghdad was a symbol. It was defined as courage and unpredictability. A war leader must have courage, if he keeps the enemy guessing as to what he will do next, then that is better. Landing in the hot zone is frightening to most ground soldiers. By doing that, Bush proved to any who doubted it that he had courage. And again, he served the men and women in that Quonset hut a meal. People made a big deal about him raising up a turkey to the camera. They missed the point. He would have liked to cut slices for the mean and women there, but was unable to do it.
Decisiveness is a symbol. A war leader has to be clear about what he is going to do and why. Bush gives speeches and people do not want to understand that he says what he means. The military knows that what he says he is going to do, he does. He keeps his word.
Bush will be judged in the future by Iraq and the War on Terror. Most of you weren't listening after 9/11. Bush got up and said that we were in a war that spanned 30 years. I believe he is correct.
The Left's definition of the symbol called Iraq makes no sense to me.
My definition of symbol called Iraq is Georgia. Yeah, kind of a crazy definition. Here's what I am talking about. Look at the map of Georgia and think about the Civil War. When Sherman marched to the sea, he split the South. In that march, cities, houses, farms, railroads and bridges were burned. By making it impossible to easily move food supplies from Alabama to Virginia, the South could no longer fight. There was a general for the South called Nathan Bedford Forrester was a very good guerrilla warfare specialist. He had responsibility for the military in Alabama and Mississippi. When Lee surrendered in April of 1865, Forrester said, "I don't know about you, boys, but I'm going home." He had looked at the devastation that Sherman had wrought and decided that he was not going to allow that to happen on his watch. Lincoln had proved to him that he was willing to do whatever it took to win. Had Forrester fought a guerrilla war in the South, it's no telling how long Reconstruction could have taken. Forrester accepted defeat, because he saw that victory would be futile.
What has that to do with Iraq? Regardless of what you may think, we are in a war that is thirty years long. The conquest of Iraq is a means of splitting Syria and Iran, just as Afghanistan splits Iran and Pakistan.
The war in Iraq can be seen as a way of drawing a set of jihadis into Iraq so that they can be killed. The jihadis are from the upper middle class. They are far from being poverty stricken individuals driven to killing Americans because of having a meaningless life. By killing these people now, we are cutting off the leadership of the future. Leaders of any movement normally come from the upper middle class. How can they get experienced leaders, if they continuously kill them off? That's what's happening right now. The leaders of tomorrow for radical Islam are being killed right now. In addition, their trainers are dying as well.
The symbols that the jihadis are giving off make me believe that this is a thirty year war. In all the speeches that the jihadis in Arabic are giving they are saying that they will continue to fight until every person on the planet is Muslim, a second class citizen and a slave. Yeah, radical Islam is REALLY into slavery. By their standards, slavery helps them become better Muslims. I have said this before radical Islam wants slavery to come back so that they can spend all day sitting, sipping sweet tea and discussing the Koran. That symbol sitting on a Persian rug, sipping sweet tea and discussing the Koran is their Utopia. To us that symbol is indolence and laziness. Which culture is correct? Who cares? We can't debate this. It's a silly idea to try. If one culture disagrees about what a symbols means, how are you going to convince them that it is not what they think it is? No way... as long as they don't try to implement it.
Now... what I trying to get across, just as the jihadis and Western culture cannot agree on definitions of common symbols, just as the Left and the Right cannot agree on common symbols. The Left looks at the war in Iraq and sees a dark skinned race being attacked by a light skinned race and assumes racism. The assumption on the Left is that the dark skinned race has a grievance against the Western culture. The Right looks out there and sees a set of people who want to kill us, forcibly convert us to Islam, or enslave us. How can the Left and the Right see such different things from the same set of information? I don't know.
A good resource to see what the jihadis are saying is to look in on www.memri.org. That site translates the Friday sermons from various mosques in the Middle East. That site also translates speeches given by major players in the Middle East. It was always fun to compare what Yasser Arafat said in his English broadcasts and what he said in Arabic. The two were like night and day. The Saudis are also an interesting study of what is said in Arabic and what is said in English. Damn, the Saudis want to be our friend in their English broadcasts. In Arabic, they say that no Muslim should have anything to do with an infidel.
After 9/11, almost immediately, the Left took the position that if we paid off the jihadis, they would stop killing us. As time has passed, since 9/11, the Left has become more and more adamant that we in the United States have done the people of Islam an injustice that the jihadis in Iraq are the same as our Founding Fathers. The problem with redefining the symbol of our Founding Fathers as terrorists is that our Founding Fathers stood for freedom, radical Islam stands for slavery. Why can't the Left see that? I mean, we on the Right have been scratching our heads for four years trying to figure out how the Left can possibly look at radical Islam and see a symbol for freedom.
If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound. Radical Islam is in favor of slavery and tyranny. Those two statements are true. Radical Islam wants the Caliphate to be reborn. The Caliphate would be nation state with an expansionist foreign policy. The goal of the Caliphate would be to rule all of humanity. In order for the Caliphate to be born, every person on this planet must convert to Islam, be killed or become a slave. Why doesn't the Left in this country and in Europe see that? I don't know.
I don't care if you agree with me. That is not what I set this program up to do. I do not want to convert you to my point of view. I want you to acknowledge that you are looking at the symbols differently than I am. I want you, if you are on the Left, to acknowledge that your symbols are without substance. I want to realize that there IS a way of making your symbols HAVE substance, but you haven't done it so far. I want positive social change. If you on the Left will not accept that your goals cannot be achieved by using the tools that FDR built during the Great Depression, then you are doomed to failure, because the tools don't really work. They have never worked. If they were going to work, they would have worked SOMEWHERE in some other country or some other time.
Ah, well, I have said all I am going to say tonight. I now turn it over to MacKenzie Pequa the Third who will play you an eclectic mix of music throughout the night.
Take it away Mac.
posted by aRandomTexan at
4:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home