... than defending Ukraine.
Hey, don't dis me, man. I'm just taking the WaPo's idea and running with it.
 |
| This is not insane. No, really. It's totally not insane. |
So yes, war is hell — but have you considered the alternatives? When looking upon the long run of history, it becomes clear that through 10,000 years of conflict, humanity has created larger, more organized societies that have greatly reduced the risk that their members will die violently. These better organized societies also have created the conditions for higher living standards and economic growth. War has not only made us safer, but richer, too.
OK, I'll agree with that for the sake of argument. War makes everything better. Great! Now let's figure out which war to wage. I say we invade Mexico. Heck, half of their population is already in the US anyways, why not just annex the dang thing and put an end to the Mexican invasion of the US?
Then there's the logistical comparison. Why send an insufficient number of troops to the other side of the world when a perfectly good armored division is already sitting right there on the Mexican border in Texas? It's a heck of a lot easier to get gasoline, beans and bullets to our heroes on the front lines when the front lines are only 80 miles away.
And then there's the payoff. What do we get if we defend Ukraine? We side with one pack of sclerotic, dying, alcoholic losers against another pack of sclerotic, dying, alcoholic losers. If we just give them another generation, their populations will be cut in half because they can't figure out how to do the Horizontal Monkey Dance any more. Meanwhile, if we whack Mexico, we can "accidentally" take out the drug cartels that are killing our citizens by the tens of thousands. Whoops! It looks like we dropped ten Daisy Cutters on Culiacán and now the place looks like the Mojave. Well, you have to expect some collateral damage. Fortunes of war and all that.
So, yes, by all means, let's have war. Lots and lots of war! But let's do it prudently. Let's attack Mexico.
2 comments:
Actually, given that the Canadian Parliament just voted to approve (technically rejected the rejection of) the Emergencies Act, it might make more sense to attack Canada. They are very divided. A big chunk of the population might fight to help us. [NOTE: That was more sarcastically intended than it reads.]
My deepest sympathies to the once free citizens of Canada.
Are we next?
OOPS... That was supposed to start "Actually, given that the Canadian Parliament just voted to approve (then they rejected the rejection of) the..."
Post a Comment