In a more serious addition to the list there is Pakistan. It fits all the criteria.
Mustache
Terrorism
Military strongman
Suffering
Cain't we just doctor the photos . . . er better yet, shoot his ass, then have the mortician paste one on the corpse . . .
Well, after the fact won't help the media campaign to get the drums going. But if you need after the fact justification it sounds like a good idea.
With a little spirit gum, I think we could go after Norway.
They've got oil. Dunno about the suffering part, but it does get awfully cold there. We're missing terrorism and a military strongman but hey, they've got oil!
But that's just motive. We need a pretext. And it's not hard, just call 'em bad-guys a bunch of times.
How about Italy? They've got olive oil.
They have an embattled leader. They automatically qualify for regime change.
I forgot two criteria that are perfect as a pretext:
Possession of WMDs (Pakistan fits even this one)
and
Ability to construe them as a "threat" (e.g. China can call Hong Kong a "threat" and invade anytime).
It's very dark in Norway in winter. It's abnormally bright in Norway in summer. They deviate from the mean in this regard. They must be brought into the mainstream.
Invade. Invade now!
There's always Japan. Their economy is worse than ours, they have no real army, and they do have all that yummy sushi.
Come one y'all. I made the pretexts soo easy. You need to sue one of them.
The "bad guys" one is a catch all.
If they are democratic, are not suffering too much, have no WMDs, have no terrorists, etc etc
Then just call them "bad guys". That's all there is to it.
The purpose of our military is to protect our interests.
If someone has a pot of gold, and we are interested in taking it for ourselves, then we must protect ourselves and our right to take that gold because it is in our interest.
Therefore, in order to invade any country with righteous impunity simply give them a pot of gold as a gift.
Also, all interesting people should be detained at will, simply because we are interested in them.
-----
PS -- This is not a joke. This is how the world actually works on a national level. Murder and thievery is socially acceptable, by definition, whenever we make it socially acceptable. With effective social engineering one can rationalize any concept, and the *only* thing that will stop it is the public's intelligence. The public's "intelligence"?!
Craven, your pretexts may sound shabby and scary, but looking at the evidence around us, they are true.
Codeborg you speak sooth. Here, have a pot of gold.
Thanks, but in today's world I prefer dirt!
Really good dirt can grow food. :-) Now for the joke part ...
War is simply an issue of national security.
The lower our self-esteem, the more insecure we feel about ourselves and our ability to remain in dominant control -- of every aspect of the world around us. The best way to improve ones own skills, confidence and self-esteem is not to practice and learn, but to attack anyone around us. The more we criticize and attack others, the better we feel, even as our own situation becomes more desperate.
So, in the interest of national "security" we have an obligation to attack any country that makes us feel bad about ourselves. No country should ever make us feel bad about how bad we are, or insecure about how incompetent we are.
It's important to "feel" secure no matter how much damage it causes. The standards to judge this self-image must necessarily come from the media, which has the most authority and experience in providing our inner judgemental needs.
So, there is a product you can purchase to make you feel confident and clean as a cool breeze on a summer afternoon. That product is called war.
It has wings! It's so comfortable, and has no baggy lines! It never irritates, and is safely free of all organic substances. You'll feel better, look better, and impress all your friends with the special smile that says "I'm secure". You will be instantly proud again, with no work involved. Our product is new and improved, and only costs of fraction of what it used to, especially if you order it now.
War. It's not just for infantile kids you know.
Australia.
You must invade Australia.
OK, we have a stable democracy and only a miniscule number of terrorists - BUT - our current Prime Minister is a bad guy!
He and his cronies came to power initially partly by surfing on the toxic waves of racism and xenophobia and ultra-conservative backlash.
They held power a second time by lying about refugees - to the extent of manufacturing a story that a boatload of them had thrown their children overboard.
The leader has no moustache - but he is balding, does that help?
We have no WMD, and most of our army is in the Solomons - should be easy.
We have nice deserts and such - fab beaches - you could build an all American amusement park here - we got surfing, too.
Oh - and it will give you a nice military base to attack Indonesia from - it is, after all, the biggest Islamic nation on earth - they DO have terrorists - their leader is a woman, which is a bit tough, but she probably won't be there for too much longer, and a moustache is almost certainly in the offing.
Um, haven't you noticed that when the people of the nation want us there we refuse to help (see Liberia) you'll have to appear less eager for an invasion in order for it to be justified.
If you can whip up a true international uproar for us to flout we'll be there in no time.
yes, of course, I had forgotten that bit...how silly of me.
just started reading karl e. meyer : THE DUST OF THE EMPIRE - THE RACE FOR MASTERY IN THE ASIAN HEARTLAND. i don't think it's exactly bedtime reading, a little to disturbing - might not sleep well.he comments on the u.s. invasion of the philippines in 1900. ...."in 1900, the portly william howard taft arrived in manila to end the rebellion and nuture democracy among america's ""little brown brothers"" .... meyer cites the eoitaph by mr. dooley, the chicago-irish saloonkeeper : "poor dissolute uncovered wretches, ye miserable childish minded apes, we propose f'r to larn ye the' uses of liberty. we can't give ye anny votes ... but we'll threat ye th' way a father shud threat his childhern if we have to break iv ry bone in ye'er bodies." has anything changed in 103 years? i really think i'll sleep better tonight if i don't read any more chapters now. wait 'till tomorrow afternoon. hbg ... i do think the book is going to be a good read; it's published under THE CENTURY FOUNDATION.
Hmm. Interesting quote. I really hope things ahve changed but sometimes I wonder.
