| || |
A cheap, EZ & surefire solution for Ukraine
May 30, 2014 - Harry Eagar
This morning, Bob Corker, who is the best the Republicans can do in the Senate when it comes to foreign policy, gave an interview to deplore Obama's weak sister foreign policy.
This is a favorite theme of the rightwing lately, building, I guess, on their own smashing successes in the foreign field between 2000 and 2008. Corker believes the problem is not, for example, that George Bush wrecked our military. Nor that Bush wrecked the economy, to the point where Republicans have been forced, while crying many bitter tears, not to fund the Veterans Administration at levels needed to deal with the tens of thousands of grievously wounded vets who hobbled home from the defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, Corker says what's in short supply is clarity:
" 'I just didn't hear that clarity, so I would throw that speech in the trash can. I would do something far stronger when I'm in Europe, and then I would back it up,' Corker told NPR's Steve Inskeep."
Like what, asked Inskeep, reasonably and predictably enough. Corker had not thought that far ahead, because here was his answer:
"So I think it's sort of in that air of permissiveness, the lack of clarity, that people miscalculate and really bad things can happen down the road. So that's what I'm concerned about. This is something that's heartfelt, it's of deep concern on both sides of the aisle, and again, I hope when he goes to Europe, he'll speak in a different way but then I hope he will also follow up in a different way."
Come on, Bob, throw us a bone. What, what should the president say and do?
Honest, if he's going out in public to complain that the other guy is running a big clarity shortage, you'd think he would have a clear statement prepared for himself.
Fortunately, the Republicans DO have a clear policy that could be applied to Ukraine at small cost, no risk and with certainty of success. Unfortunately, none of them seems ready to call for it. Although I am not a Republican, I will do it for them.
If they had only done it first, RtO could restate it, but since they have neglected to, here is a clear statement:
Since it is a clear belief of the hardcore Second Amendment folks that the only thing that prevents the government from being taken over and all our liberties being canceled by [FILL IN THE BLANK] the way Crimea was is their arsenal of mean-looking personal firearms (although these are NOT assault weapons, they are always careful to make that clear), clearly the thing to do is to give the democratic Ukrainians similar firearms. (Is that enough clarity?)
In fact, I propose giving them the rightwingers' AR15s and similar guns.
This would not lessen the arsenal of America's loudest patriots significantly, since there are 300 million firearms in the US but only 45 million Ukrainians. Subtract the bad Ukrainians who are trying to become Russians and the old Ukrainians over 85 and the youngsters under fighting age (about 10, if what I read on the gun blogs is to be credited), and it wouldn't take more than 30 million non-assault (but really cool-looking) guns. A mere 10% of what we have on hand.
Since most Americans do not have even one gun, it follows that the nation-in-arms averages at least 3 or 4. And since responsible gun owners probably need no more than one or 2, then the people like the brave patriots of Tarrant County Open Carry must have upwards of 6 or 10 each. Heck, they wouldn't miss 1 or 2, and they'd still have enough to protect the local Chipotle from whoever it is that's attempting to take it over (aside from Tarrant County Open Carry).
Eh, voila! Problem solved. If guns in the hands of patriots are sufficient to repel a leftist putsch from the most powerful military in the world, then standing off a few amateur insurgents armed with nothing better than armored cars and mobile antiaircraft artillery will be EZ. No need to thank me, Republicans. I'm sure you'd do the same for me, if you thought of it.
Post a Comment