Every time I turn on the radio or go online, I hear about how the Bush Dictatorship has plunged us into another Vietnam or how I’m a redneck just like everyone else who ever voted Republican. And at work, I’m buried in Backup Exec problems, a program so bad that it continues to make me think its main purpose for being written was industrial sabotage.
Am I glad it’s baseball season? You betcha. I need a distraction. Take your pick: baseball or booze. I’ll take baseball. It’s cheaper and healthier.
So we’re 12 days into this war and it’s another Vietnam. People seem to have forgotten it took us 6 weeks to drive the madman out of Kuwait. Did we really expect him to roll over and play dead when we hit his mother country?
And for some reason people seem to think appeasement is the way to go. A little over 60 years ago, people said the same thing about a guy named Adolf Hitler. You might have heard of him. Neither man had any qualms about overrunning their neighbors or killing their own people. Fortunately for us, they have comparable technology.
But I’m either preaching to the choir or a redneck. So I don’t think I wanna talk about it.
The Royals, on the other hand, I’ll talk about. They shut out the Chicago White Sox 3-0. That doesn’t happen often. Shutouts are rare in Kansas City anymore, especially against pennant contenders. And on opening day. Nice. New rookie closer Mike MacDougal got the save. That’s a good sign, because for the past four years or so, a three-run lead has been an adventure. You couldn’t count on Roberto Hernandez or Ricky Bottalico to hold that lead. There was a time when you could count on Jeff Montgomery, but not in his final season. So it’s been 1998 since a three-run lead in the 9th was a given.
And they did it in front of a sellout crowd at home. And visions of 1985 danced in Dave’s head. I know it’s too early to believe. But I think I’m gonna anyway. When it comes to baseball, I’m hopeless. I’ll grasp at anything that looks like you can hold onto it.
David Farquhar is a computer security professional, entrepreneur, and author. He started his career as a part-time computer technician in 1994, worked his way up to system administrator by 1997, and has specialized in vulnerability management since 2013. He invests in real estate on the side and his hobbies include O gauge trains, baseball cards, and retro computers and video games. A University of Missouri graduate, he holds CISSP and Security+ certifications. He lives in St. Louis with his family.
Personally, I’m pretty divided over the issue of whether the US had justification for invading Iraq. I still believe that the main reason why the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq’s association with Al Queda; that was just a nice side benefit. What it boils down to is economics. War creates jobs – it helps corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other defence contractors by allowing the government to purchase munitions from them, giving them money to give their employees jobs, etc. It also gives the US Government a steady source of oil. Let’s face it – Americans aren’t exactly a much-loved country in the Middle East, and even ‘historic’ allies like Saudi Arabia is having second thoughts about providing the US with a constant supply of oil, and with oil & natural gas prices going through the roof and seeing what havoc that played in the American economy at the turn of the century, Bush & his advisors probably wanted a more stable oil resourse that the country could rely on, rather than shaky Middle East countries that waffle on supporting the US to not.
Is that a good reason to invade Iraq? I don’t know. IF the US could prove, definitively, that Iraq (right now!) was breaking all the UN resolutions prohibiting them from making weapons of mass destruction, if they could prove that they were a huge threat because they were providing Al-Queda with weapons of mass destruction, ok, then such a war could be justified. But none of the evidence that they brought forth did that. The US HAD such evidence, 10 years ago, during the first Gulf War: that’s when they should have dealt with Saddam Hussein. All this war is doing now is creating more misery and killing more innocent civillians, and increasing the Anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. As for Bush & Blair’s arguments that Hussein has continued to oppress his people by not feeding them and so on, the reason why so many Iraqis have been dying over the last 10 years has more to do with the UN Sanctions against Iraq than with Hussein killing his own people.
Would removing Hussein be a benefit to the Middle East? Probably. Will it bring peace & stability to the Middle East? I don’t think so. Will it polarize the Middle East, even more so than it currently is? Probably.
Congratulations Dave! I know you love your Royals!
Regarding the current war situation, I know you are a journalist, which requires you to be aware of the traditional mainstream liberalistic media (do I sound conservative?), but there are several other news sources that will keep your spirits positive.
I agree it is sad that people are dying. Very sad. Sure the people have been dying over the years under Hussein’s rule and perhaps due to sanctions–UN sanctions. So there was some agreement there. However this war can end very quickly if Hussein would just give up himself and his family and retire in luxury under the safety of some ally. However, we know he chose not to do this and has decided to place his own people in peril when the U.S. came through with our threat to seek out all terrorists. There is a lot of overlap of issues, but this war did start on September 11, 2001, if not considered earlier in 1991.
A famous quote comes to mind that the rest of the world seems to forget: “Evil exists when good men do nothing!” Too bad good men need to die to extinguish that evil. Good civilians were dying anyway.
“baseball or booze. I’ll take baseball. It’s cheaper and healthier.”
But certainly not more natural. Baseball, in fact, is an unnatural act – repeated nine times, I understand. The only proper bat-and-ball game is cricket. But of course, the underprivileged nations don’t have the opportunity to appreciate this fact.
“As for Bush & Blair’s arguments that Hussein has continued to oppress his people by not feeding them and so on, the reason why so many Iraqis have been dying over the last 10 years has more to do with the UN Sanctions against Iraq than with Hussein killing his own people.” Lawrence Kim
Saddam signed agreements with the world when he surrendered at the end of the first Gulf War. He has controlled everything that has occured in Iraq since.
His control will soon be terminated and the Iraqi people will better off for it.
One question to you Mr. Kim, from an East Texas Red Neck. If America is such a bad place, why are over a thousand people a year, literally dying, trying to get in?
Breaking one UN resolution is a violation of the terms of surrender signed by Hussein. It is not a requirement for him to break all of the resolutions. The UN sanctions were put in place to force Hussein to come in line with the agreement. If Iraqis died because of UN sanctions, while sad, it is a result of the actions of one man. The UN proved it was unwilling to back up its own resolutions. It is like the parent who constantly threatens to discipline its child, but never does. Soon, the child learns that the threats are empty, and it can get away with anything it likes. My question is what have other countries learned from the UN’s treatment of the situation in Iraq?
I’m not a big sports fan, but I do love watching a game in Busch stadium. My mom and I make the couple hour drive north a few times every summer to see the Cards play. There’s nothing more pleasant and relaxing, in my opinion. Every now and then, it gets exciting too, but that’s not why we drive two hours to watch. 🙂 The pleasant part of the year begins officially with the opening day of baseball season. Golf starts getting (more) interesting, too with the Masters.