To Pee Or Not To Pee is Not the Question

Ilana Mercer, January 20, 2012

The force of the to-pee-or-not-to-pee position is just up Beavis and Butthead’s philosophical alley ~ilana

It’s okay to kill ’em, but it’s not okay to pee on them once they’re dead.

This sums up the piss-poor discussion over the LiveLeak clips of “four United States Marines urinating on three dead Taliban fighters.” According the New York Times, the videos, “posted on public video-sharing Web sites including YouTube, began ricocheting around international news Web sites on Wednesday,” January 11.

The urinators “are members of the Third Battalion, Second Marines, which completed a tour of Afghanistan this fall before returning to its base at Camp Lejeune, N.C.” They kicked off the wee odyssey in the northern part of Helmand Province.

Quick to distinguish themselves were the pro-pee pundits. For a ghastly moment, I was back in 2002, watching the anchorwomen of Fox News countdown to obliterating Iraq. How like watching bitches in heat that experience was!

The force of the to-pee-or-not-to-pee position is just up Beavis and Butthead’s philosophical alley. The repartee of the two animated MTV characters, the products of Mike Judge’s genius (think “Idiocracy”), would go something like this:

Butthead: “Beavis, check this out. What’s better; to have a dude waste you or whiz on you, uh huh huh?” (Sound effects are here.)

Beavis: “Yeah, yeah, I’ll take the whiz, Butthead, gimme the whiz, yeah, yeah.” (More grunting.)

As the Daily Mail noted, the dead Afghans may have been civilians or insurgents, we simply do not know. Whichever is the case, they would have, I wager, welcomed the kind of options even Beavis and Butthead are capable of entertaining.

For the truth about the people we are pissing on and pissing off in Afghanistan is quite simple. America’s indisputably brave soldiers have been ordered to, at once, woo and war against a primitive Pashtun population. These Pashtuns disdain the central government we desperately want them to obey. So it goes: We help local groups believed to be patriotic, but, at the same time, end up establishing an authoritarian protectorate they despise.

According to Matthew Hoh, a former member of the Marine Corps, who was cited for uncommon bravery in Iraq, we “are losing soldiers and Marines in combat to people who are fighting us really only because we’re occupying them. … In Afghanistan, everything is much more localized,” Hoh explained in numerous interviews, in 2009.

“Allegiance is really to your family and then to your village or your valley. And that’s what they fight for. There has not been a tradition of central government there and I don’t believe central government is wanted.” Currently, and consequent to US colonization, these poor primitives, hankering after communal autonomy, have come to conflate the central government and the foreign occupiers, and are fighting both.

Matthew Hoh went on to take a position as Foreign Service Officer in Afghanistan, only to resign in protest over the Afghan war, having “lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan.”

But Hoh is no hero to the war hos at home.

Yes, America’s neoconservative pundettes are back. Never underestimate the contribution neoconservative women in the scribbling and broadcasting professions have made to sexing up war. When babes with bursting décolletages quake and quiver for action, their fans do more than just look, they listen. Babes in Brownian Motion have been instrumental in keeping their fans tuned-out, turned-on, and hot for war. Mistaking jingoism for patriotism, their atavistic followers have rewarded them with lifelong loyalty (and royalties).

And the silly sex clearly likes water sports.

One gushed about the Golden Shower, calling it “a victory tinkle.” Another promised she’d “drop trou and do it too.” Still another woman for war heaped scorn on Afghani Islamist culture, alluding to its proclivity for “child rape (sanctioned by polygamous ‘marriage’), to normalized pederasty (dancing boys), beheadings, Islamic male supremacism and zero freedom of conscience.” As if the vileness of their faith justifies our vanquishing of Muslims—and our prosecuting a decade-long, futile war against them in Afghanistan. Let us leave the Afghani to their horrible habits and stop inflicting ours on them.

Aghast, Russia Today (RT) editorialized about CNN contributor Dana Loesch, who egged on the Dana Show listeners, during a January 12 broadcast: “I want a million ‘cool points’ for these guys. Is that harsh to say? C’mon people, this is a war. Do I have a problem with that as a citizen of the United States? No, I don’t.”

Still and all, I disagree with the impressive Allen West, a Republican Representative from Florida, and an ex-Army lieutenant colonel. West joined Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in advocating “maximum punishment” for the urinators. “It is absolutely inconsistent with American values and the standards we expect from our military personnel,” crowed Clinton. I don’t believe the Marines are at fault. Blame the people who keep them in that country, aided by the King’s comitatus—battle-crying babes included.

Who can forget Hillary’s crassness and cruelty when informed that Col. Muammar Gadhafi had been butchered by her Libyan proxies, the National Transitional Council? “We came, we saw, he died,” cackled Clinton, conjuring Julius Caesar.

The gorgon who heads Caesar’s state department did everything but squat on Gadhafi’s corpse. Now she expresses “total dismay” and wants the Marines to pay.

Spare us.

January 20

* Screen pic credit

CATEGORIES: Decentralization, Federalism, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, History, Neoconservatism, War