Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts

Thursday, February 9, 2012

God's Work

For some unknown reason, I receive emails from the American Family Association. I do not know when this happened, nor why, but it happens. And I've not yet sent their emails forever into the morass that is my spam box. Once again for completely unknown reasons.

Actually, I think I might know why, just a little. Because it's so utterly amusing to get emails like this, sent direct to me!

In case you're too lazy to click the link (and because I want to relieve my feelings), the AFA is now upset because the Rapid Capabilities Office removed from their patch-logo-thingamajig a reference to God. That was in Latin. And replaced it with Miracles. Which is basically the same thing. But I digress. Apparently, the removal of that little "Dei" on the logo will forever change the way the military is allowed to worship.

Because, obviously, one little office represents the entire military, and one little change in its inside-joke-oriented logo will counteract every Christian chaplain, Republican/Christian soldier and Christian-oriented harping from home. Obviously.

What I find even more ironic is what this little logo actually said. Translated, it stated that the RCO is "Doing God's Work With Other People's Money."

So apparently, according to the AFA, "God's work" is no longer feeding the poor and helping orphans and widows, it's now stealing from citizens and figuring out how to more effectively bomb people.

Who knew.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Depressing Current Events

North Korea attacked South Korea. We were all duped by a shopkeeper in Afghanistan. Tom DeLay was arrested for money laundering or some such. The TSA is still being a pain in the neck. I found out that each aircraft carrier we have commissioned carries the equivalent of many countries' actual air force. And we have these all over the world. And we wonder why people feel threatened by us. I wonder why we feel threatened by them.

Just your typical, happy-go-lucky Thanksgiving week, in other words. I hope everybody had a good one...I got to cook nearly our entire Thanksgiving dinner because my mom wasn't feeling well. It was actually pretty fun- I ran down the battery on my iPod and got to get very hungry cooking it all.

Since all that was going on, I don't actually know that much about the whole Korea thing. As near as I can tell, North Korea apparently shelled a small South Korean island, which of course made South Korea a little angry. North Korea subsequently issued a warning that war could follow if things got too heated. Like, if we got involved, things might get a little tense.

But, of course, we have to stick our big noses where they don't belong. Why we have to conduct military maneuvers with the South Korean navy in the first place...I have no clue. But I think that qualifies as butting in and getting involved. Just a little.

I still don't understand why we think we should have to be involved in every thing that happens on the planet. Or why, like the substitute on the Glenn Beck Program said this morning, other countries should "fall in line" with us. Yeah. Because we're the world's mommy. We have to save them from themselves.

Of course, I don't think North Korea will actually do anything. With the power shift currently going on there, I'm inclined to believe this is just saber-rattling to make sure people don't think that now, as their power structure is changing, would be a good time to attack them. Amidst all this, China isn't even trying to get involved. They don't want war breaking out in their backyard. Again. And I understand why not- they're in the middle of prosperity. They don't want to mess it up. ^.^ If we only had as much sense.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Randomness

Well. It's been awhile since I posted, and for that I'm (sort of) sorry. Life has been nuts for me. ^.^ My mom and I attended a Students for Liberty conference in Austin, Texas on the 6th, which was awesome...except for the eight-hour drive to get there. Thank God for iPods and big books. (In addition, I'm participating in NaNoWriMo, and planning for another missions trip next year...and trying to raise money....but that's a whole 'nother subject, and we won't go into it.)

In any case, I figured I'd be a good blog author and post some stuff, just because I think that would help make my blog more interesting...and stuff.

The Pentagon has decided that repealing DADT would do practically nothing to the nature of our conflicts overseas and the makeup of the military. Really now? How surprising. Imagine that..."people are people, no matter how..." uh.... "strange." There we go. There are some pretty strange people in the world, let me tell you. Anyway, I don't think this study comes as a surprise to much of anybody except people who think gays are a literal abomination and that they should all be railroaded out of the military, along with Muslims.

In other news, a couple people in Washington are beginning to see that, hey, if we want to cut spending...we're going to have to give up some stuff! Like, we might have to stop handing out money like it grows on trees, or something. Huh, imagine that. That's...weird. I'm wondering when more people will catch onto the truth that we're not going to be able to have a utopia where we spend tons of money and reduce the deficit. Sorry, folks, it doesn't work that way. So, future retirees, buckle up and start saving money, because you're going to need it if you want to retire. Kids, save for college. Single mothers, find a good guy and settle down. Because this isn't going to be pretty, and people are going to be hurt in the short term. Loss and having to live a less exorbitant lifestyle sometimes is part of life. Get used to it.

However- and this is a big however- it would be far better to both cut $200 billion (or more) from our budget....but not increase taxes and "squeeze" an extra $100 billion out of Americans. Because people aren't going to like it. It's not going to go over well. "Yeah, we're cutting spending...but we need more money to do it!"

....Right.

My favorite quote of this whole article? "It would stabilize borrowing within the next three years, balance the budget by 2040 and bring the debt more in line with historical norms."

We're going to stabilize borrowing. Not stop borrowing. Stabilize it. Yeah. We're going to stabilize the Titanic after that.

Oh, and don't forget this one: "Spending cuts outweigh revenue increases by about three to one, a ratio Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, called lopsided."

Wait. Isn't that...the point? That...you don't have enough revenue. So you're cutting spending. Yeah. Wouldn't that be sort of the purpose of this venture?

Well, there you go. Your daily spurt of cynicism.

In other news, today is Veteran's Day! In the spirit of the holiday, I thought I'd copy my Facebook status from this morning relating to it:

A thank-you to all our veterans. Your sacrifice is appreciated, even if our politicians are dingbats and have put you (and are putting the current generation) in unnecessary danger.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Didn't we already do this?

Right. So now we're about to sell $60 billion in weapons to our very near and dear radical Muslim friendly friends in Saudi Arabia! Because it's so smart to do that. It's worked so well in the past.

I mean...Iraq never turned on us after we sold her weapons. Nor did Russia. Or Syria. Or Iran. Or Pakistan.

Not at all. Why, selling our weapons to other people just makes them love us so much! They think- "Wow! America really loves us! Let's not attack her now!"

If only...

DADT

The don't-ask-don't-tell policy is back in the news. Again.

Frankly, I find the significance of this policy questionable. I mean, what do you want? Should we make everybody in the army carry a big sign clearly proclaiming their sexual orientation, that way everybody's clear and we all know whether you like guys, girls, or both?

Frankly, I just flat don't see how this should matter to much of anybody. As far as I understand, in the military, your sexual orientation just doesn't really matter that much, seeing as you don't go there to find a date: you go there to go kill people, or whatever else it is the military does. Where, exactly, does having the ability to tell which sex you like better matter in any way in that setting?

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Current Events

Yes, yet another combined-issue post. I've been pretty busy lately, trying to raise funds for a missions trip to Africa I'm taking this summer. But I thought I'd just go over a few recent issues, and give my take.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abdulmutallab too

The Obama admin caved. They're not going to hold Mohammed's trial in NYC anymore, which really shows yet another incredible lack of political backbone. But I digress. Apparently, too many people found it unpalatable for him to be tried in NYC, which for myself I see as a very proper venue. It would show that we're not afraid to face our past demons.

(And of course, any event like this can't go without its mention of the most recent big, bad, scary terror plot- this time in the form of the "Underwear Bomber". Dianne Feinstein, a senator from California, stated-
"Without getting into classified details, I believe we should view the attempted Christmas Day plot as a continuation, not an end, of plots to strike the United States by al-Qaeda and its affiliates," (!!!!) "Moreover, New York City has been a high-priority target since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The trial of the most significant terrorist in custody would add to the threat."

I find it quite hilarious that people actually think this kid who couldn't even light the bomb right was actually part of al Qaeda. We're talking about the organization that managed to coordinate attacks on some of the most famous landmarks in the US, not to mention plan and execute simultaneous attacks on embassies thousands of miles apart. And this kid, who had a bomb that wouldn't even take out his own seat, is representative of their organization?! Yeah, sure.)

Anyway, back to Mohammed. A bunch of people have been protesting trying Mohammed in NYC- or anywhere on US soil. Why? Well, you never know- it just might be that American values might forever be undermined if we were to take this incredibly drastic step.

Of course, this move is not without precedent. Bush also tried al Qaeda and other terror suspects- in civilian courts. 87 terror suspects, in fact. And (just an interesting little tidbit), Bill O'Reilly (one of the most outspoken voices against trying Mohammed on US soil) vigorously defended Bush's decision to allow these trials to move forward!

Healthcare and Scott Brown

Scott Brown the Republican Liberal won Massachusets, and thereby ensured that a watered-down version of healthcare reform will get through. I say watered down because he does want socialized healthcare, but just doesn't think the current plan will adequately fix things.

I happen to agree with him on the latter point. But I also happen to think we don't need another plan. I think his idea that individual states should take care of healthcare (though he seems to only half-heartedly believe in that, at best) is a good one, not to mention Constitutional.

'Course, Obama has already decided his healthcare bill ain't doing so hot, and has switched to other issues, probably in an attempt to dispel murmurs against him in the Democratic phalanx. (I think his time could be better spent trying to get DOMA or the PATRIOT act repealed, like he promised.

Middle Eastern Issues

So we're toughening sanctions on Iran (and planning to launch missiles at them), Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban, an imam got shot by American troops in Kabul, and the Brits are doing investigations into Tony Blair's (Former Prime Minister of the UK) conduct concerning Iraq.

To start with Iran- I have to wonder what morality we're appealing to that gives us the right to impose sanctions on anyone, especially someone who is innocent. And Iran, to all appearances, is innocent. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that they don't have nukes, have never had nukes, and have no intention of having nukes anytime in the near future.

And, lets face it, sanctions do very little except make third-world countries even worse off. Cuba, a country that has had sanctions against it for years (while we simultaneously do business with them) is no closer to getting rid of Communism now than it was ten years ago. The people are starving, but our lofty goals of ridding the world of evil...mm, well not much progress. That is all sanctions do, in any case- rid the average people of food and supplies they need to survive.

Karzai, our lovely puppet-President in Afghanistan is opening peace/"moving forward" talks. At least he's trying. In fact, the Taliban (with the interesting stipulation that they must be "moderate" Taliban) is invited to said talks.

And the Brits are investigating Tony Blair, their former Prime Minister. Why? Because of Iraq, and his ardent support of it (and his friend, Bushie). I applaud the Brits for their ability to do so. I think we ought to do the same thing to Bush, but that might just be me. Of course, we lack the British capability to detach ourselves from our emotional turmoil. It might not work here.

Corporate Campaign Contributions?

As most of you probably know, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a 2001 ban (Feingold-McCain) on corporate campaign contributions. I agree. Sort of, and let me explain.

I see nothing wrong with corporations exercising the first amendment right to free speech, which includes using money as leverage in a political campaign. But I also think that voters should be informed enough to watch where their prospective elected officials are getting their money.

Hence, if prospective Senator Ronald McDonald has gotten $200,000 in campaign donations from McDonalds, it might be wise for voters to wonder if there is some sort of ulterior connection between said Ronald McDonald and McDonalds, and decide their vote accordingly.

***

I can't help thinking there was something else I needed to cover. Oh well. I'm going to be doing a post on the President's State of the Union sometime this week...a week after he gave the speech. But it should be up here soon. :)

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Afghanistan Part I

I went through and read the transcript of President Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan speech.

And my thoughts on the matter are still unchanged. But I'm going to go through the speech and detail why, just to be objective and all that.

"Many people in the United States and many in partner country that have sacrifices so much have a simple question. What is our purpose in Afghanistan?"

Really? You're just now noticing that is a question? Hmm. What was your first clue? The upswell of public opinion on the polls?

The fact of the matter is that we have no purpose, despite his professed reasons- which sound eerily like something out of the Bush administration. Say hello, once again, to the Bushama Administration.

"Al Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Oh. I see now. And it makes so much sense to attack an entire country just to get at a few underground people who are hidden where you'll never find them. Ah, but he already knows that:

"They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, and communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan."

Ah. So we're going to fight not one, not two, but three senseless wars on the basis of the fact that these men are...hidden? Uh-huh. I see how this makes sense. We're going to throw our entire army at an underground organization that we will probably never track down.

I say we will never track them down because we haven't yet. We've managed to get what, five of the men who actually knew a single thing beyond "Oh yeah, we were gonna' blow up a building." Yeah, our track record is impressively amazing.

Let's see- Osama bin Laden was first put on the FBI's Most Wanted List in 1998 or thereabouts. Al Qaeda was formed in 1988. That means we have had almost twenty years to catch he or his organization leaders. Twenty years. Twenty years in which we fought four years and wasted lots of time- oh, and we launched some cruise missiles at where we thought bin Laden might be.

Also, one bit of trivia that never ceases to amaze me- we helped the Afghanis get weapons. In fact, we gave them weapons. During the 80s', when the Soviets were locked in a war with the Afghanis for control of their country, we gave the Mujahideen weapons and money. Bin Laden benefited from this in a rather round-about way, by joining a man named Abdullah Azzam in Afghanistan- who was a Mujahideen.

Bin Laden and Azzam created the splinter group Maktab al-Khidamat- which, in the long run, only trained 100 mujahidin and only funneled $2 mil to the Afghan Mujahideen. Al Qaeda rose out of Maktab al-Khidamat. During the Afghan-Soviet war, the US and bin Laden were basically working together, in the common pursuit of getting rid of the Soviet threat.

The Taliban also rose out of the Mujahideen- they replaced the constant fighting of the Mujahideen, with some sort of stability and order. This gave them great popularity amongst ordinary Afghans. And the Taliban also took advantage of the weapons we channeled to Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war. We created the monster we all hate now.

How ironic.

"But this is not simply an American problem, far from it."

I didn't know Afghanistan was an American problem. Or maybe it is- since we created it, we should fix it....despite the fact the Afghanis didn't want us to fix it. They're tired of us being there, tired of us destroying their way of life, and they just want us to leave.

Neither is Pakistan our problem. Bin Laden may or may not be our problem, but a full-scale invasion of a sovereign country is not the answer.

"For the Afghan people, the return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people, especially, women and girls."

And that works for them. Just like having Saddam worked for the Iraqis. What, are we the International Meanness Police now too?

We have enough problems here at home. Like our economy. This constant warfare is killing us. It is killing our economy, it is killing our military, and it is slowly and surely killing our country. We cannot maintain this steady rate of warfare and conflict without serious consequences.

"A return in force of Al Qaida terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence."

Perhaps President Obama should study his history. Before the Taliban took control, there was constant in-fighting between the Mujahideen. After the Soviets left, the Mujahideen aimlessly turned on each other. The Taliban conquered them. Too bad for the Mujahideen.

And the Taliban brought stability to the region. They established a steady government that worked for them. True, they were a bit kooky and some weird rules (according to us) but it worked for them.

"We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future."

Oh really. So we're just there to....ruin their infrastructure...and kill their people...and destroy their government....and stay there forever...and....dictate...what they can do.

Not the same thing at all.

"We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends, and our allies and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists."

President Obama has a mistaken idea of what terrorism- and terrorists- are. Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists are the people that use the tactic. In this case, they are Muslim extremists. We cannot 'confront' the terrorists, for the simple reason that a) we have absolutely no idea where they are, b) they won't let us know where they are, and c) did I mention we don't know where they are?

Once again- the decision about their regime is the Afghani peoples'. Yes, the Taliban had quite a hold. But the Afghani people have proven time and time again that they can conquer despite a stronger enemy. If they truly wanted out from under the Taliban, I have no doubt they would do something about it.

They do not need our help for their freedom- especially not so we can impose our idea of what freedom is.

"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future."

Ah yes. And how do you plan to do this again, Mr. President?

I guess he shares the mistaken ideas of his predecessor- if we tear up enough roads, kill enough civilians, and dismantle enough regimes, bin Laden will hand himself to us on a silver platter.

Sorry, but I don't think it works that way. Bin Laden has proven that our meddling merely makes his resolve stronger. The more innocent civilians we kill, the more territory of theirs we take over, the more Muslims come around to his way of thinking and join him. We cannot fight a radical ideology with guns and troops.

And maybe, just maybe, the man has a point. Even Hitler had some sort of logic under his depraved, mentally unstable ravings. Bin Laden's point is simple- Americans are inhabiting their countries. We need to leave.

I do not agree with his way of trying to get us to see that. But I definitely agree with his point. We are meddling way too much in the politics and dynamics of that region. We need to stop while we're ahead. And by stop, I mean cease and desist completely. Not leave a few half-hearted squads of soldiers to guard their state secrets, not leave advisors there to continue telling their new regime what to do.

"And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same. We will defeat you."

Keep saying that. If you say it often enough, it might come true!

That we will defeat the terrorists has been the mantra for the past eight years. Guess what. The terrorists are still at large, and there is no indication that our inept intelligence services and our futiley struggling army will be able to catch them any time soon.

"To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter, and comprehensive strategy."

I have one for you- leave the people alone! After all, the strongest way we can make these people see that we mean them no harm is by showing that we trust them to make their own decisions.

Ah but yes...they're just like the average American- too dumb to know what's best for them.

"To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support."

That might be difficult to do. Especially in light of the fact that Britain isn't all that keen on the way they got into Iraq....I doubt they'll be feeling too eager to jump head-first into yet more conflicts.

"And to defeat an enemy that heeds no border or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan..."

If they heed no borders, then we cannot fight them in the conventional sense of the word. They don't have borders. They don't recognize borders. They spread like a disease. There are terrorists everywhere- there are even terrorists here in the US!

The fact of the matter is that we cannot pinpoint where the terrorists are. They could be anywhere in the Middle East, in North Africa, East Africa...practically anywhere in the world. It is impossible to fight them with conventional means.

"Al Qaida and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They've killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state."

And what are we going to do?

We're going to go in like we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, destroy their infrastructure, take over their government...and when we get down to it, the terrorists will be long gone.

Look out for Part II.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

The War and the Troops

Once at a monthly meetup I attend, we got on the subject of the Iraq war. I'm no fan of the war, as you've surely guessed, and so it had the makings of a rather volatile subject. The lady I was speaking with was for the war. When I stated that I thought the war was wrong, she instantly accused me of being 'against our troops.'

Does this make any sense, that opposing the war is synonymous with opposing our troops? That wanting an end to the war without further violence is just the same as wanting all our troops to fall down dead?

Does that connect?

No.

The Iraq war was a preemptive action on the part of the US, against a sovereign country that was no threat to us as of our attack. Iraq was not behind the 9/11 attacks, ruling out the excuse of a war of holy retribution. Attacking a sovereign nation without provocation is wrong, not to mention unconstitutional, whether for the purpose of 'furthering democracy' or no.

But why does speaking out against the war equal attacking our troops in the minds of many?

Frankly, I really don't know. Would anyone care to shed some light?

Bookmark and Share


Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Afghanistan

Our lovely President is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan. After all "There’s broad agreement that for many years, our effort in Afghanistan has been under-resourced politically, militarily and economically," as Robert Gibbs put it.

Sorry, but I don't think we need to be in Afghanistan, anyway.

Let's face it- more than likely, the reason the Afghan people are throwing bombs at us is- get this, it's totally unexpected- we're in their country. We've moved in like their country is ours, for...well, we're not really sure what. To stop Taliban activities, to further the cause of democracy, to...

OK, let's face it- we have no idea what we're doing in Afghanistan, we just like seeing things explode I guess. And I suppose we can't see things explode when our 'war effort' is 'under-resourced.'

Seems like the most logical explanation to me. (Or, of course, they're 'rogue nations' that must be 'dealt with'...)

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Pentagon-Implanted Chips

The Pentagon is looking in to chips that would be implanted in soldier's bodies- basically, some sort of inner GPS and medical monitoring machine. I see the logic in this- we want to keep our soldiers safe- but at the same time, such an invasion of privacy is truly not necessary.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Coercion and the UN

A new finding shows that the CIA and the Pentagon were preparing to use 'harsh coercive techniques' to find out information eight months before the Justice Department lawyers (who aren't in charge of finding out everything about the enemy) had gone through all the red tape needed to authorize 'harsh coercive techniques'.


And what, exactly, are 'harsh coercive techniques'? Well, basically torture. What does torture make you think of? For me, it brings up images of dark dungeons, medieval devices, and screams echoing down a stone corridor, sort of like in some movie.


But anyway- that's not what 'torture' the CIA/Pentagon have been using. They've been using things like sleep deprivation, music playing (such torture!!), and water boarding.


Sorry, but I don't think that not being allowed to sleep is all that terrible. It may not be very pleasant, but it's much nicer than what the opposition would do to our soldiers if caught.


Sorry, but I find that having water dumped over my head or not getting to go to sleep as preferable to, oh, being tied behind a car and dragged. Just a little, teeny, itsy little bit.


As a final note- and this really got me steamed- what business does EUROPE have holding the UNITED STATES accountable for what she or her soldiers do? Oh yeah. The UN. The organization that has stripped us of our sovereignty. Because, dontcha' know, we have to be accountable to the rest of the world.

Why?

I have no idea, but Washington thinks it's a great idea.

So now, if any of the people accused of 'torture' try to go overseas, they may very well be detained and thrown in jail! If that's just not...wonderful enough for you.

Sometimes, I think the world needs....

A good, swift kick in the rear. Or the head. Depending on if you want to kick them out or wake them up. Or both.

There we go.

Friday, April 10, 2009

MORE Money?!

Alright, so I know this is probably absolutely no surprise to anyone, but...President Obama is requesting Congress for over $80 billion to channel into military operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

I've said it once; I'll say it again. This is stupid. And, I'll ask another old question. What happened to 'let's get out of the Middle East'?

Actually, I'd better amend that question. He never said the Middle East. He said Iraq, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

This still makes absolutely zero sense to me. Why do we have to be over there? Iraq is still a struggling republic, yes, but they're never going to figure it out on their own if we stay in their business.

So, let's let them take care of it. That's why God gave them brains. Yes, I know I've been over this territory before, time and again. So, I won't waste your time with my rant, LOL

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Obama Sending Troops...

To Afghanistan? Um, what happened to 'I want to get us out of the Middle East as quickly as possible'?

We're sending more soldiers over there. It's stupid. Let's bring our boys back home- from everywhere- and leave the rest of the world to it's business. They're sovereign countries, as strange as that concept may seem, and we have no business interfering with their business.

But,of course, we're much to civilized and rich to just sit here!! Right?

No. We're much to indebted and problem-overwhelmed here at home to be running off to help the entire world 'stabilize'. Eventually someone will rise up and bring some semblance of order to the Middle East. We hope. And, if they don't...well, then they'll all kill each other.

It's how it's been over there for thousands of years. Helping them regain stability (which they've never had, so 'regain' is a misnomer), giving them money so they can research, isn't going to do anything but help them figure out more efficient, deadly ways to kill each other.

Just like in Africa. Those people are constantly fighting among themselves. Let's not give them technology so they can figure out more weapons. More efficient, clean weapons, at that. Yeah, that's smart.

Sometimes it's just so stupid. Why in the world do we need to be messing in everybody's else's business?

Mr. President, didn't your mother ever tell you to mind your business?