Last night, I was watching the Republican debate on CNN (more on that in a moment), and it suddenly struck me how we can finally solve the problems in Iraq. One of the illustrious Republican candidates… not one of the frontrunners, one of the loons… said we need to get the Iraqi police up to snuff, because this wasn’t a war, this was a crime problem.
That got me thinking, hmmm… maybe he’s right. I mean, it’s not like there are two easily identifiable armies that are fighting here. It’s not really even urban warfare. It’s just nutjobs with bombs and high-powered rifles causing chaos. Heck, we’ve had those kinds of things in the US, just not as concentrated. Remember the DC sniper? How about the West Hollywood shootout? And who can forget el Unibomber.
So, we have all of the same problems here that they have in Iraq. So what’s the difference? Why don’t we have total chaos?
4 Words: L. A. P. D.
We have police forces who are not afraid to profile (in spite of the left’s objections), beat, and occasionally shoot suspects down like dogs. They may not always be right, but the perps out there always have in the back of their mind “Hmm… I could commit a crime, but they might give me the Rodney King treatment… I think I’ll go somewhere with wussier cops.” And then they move to Canada.
The solution to all our problems in Iraq is to either A) Send the LAPD TO Iraq and let them run things for a few months or B) Eliminate our “Rules of Engagement” in Iraq and start profiling and randomly beating and shooting people who look like they might be guilty of something. Either method would be effective, and it has the added benefit of being exactly what all 18 year old boys want to do when they join the military – beat and shoot people.
I’m not judging – sometimes I wish I was in the military so I could shoot people, too.
Ok, on to the debate. I’ll give you my two minute summary.
First, the “little guys.”
Tancredo – Nut who wants to end LEGAL immigration.
Ron Paul – Nut who thinks George Bush orchestrated 9/11.
Jim Gilmore – So unimportant I can’t even remember what he looks like.
Mike Huckabee – One of my favorite candidates who has no chance.
Sam Brownback – By far my favorite, not just because he’s from Kansas, but because he’s a throwback to the 1980’s Republican platform which is where I hang my hat.
And then there were the frontrunners:
Mitt Romney – Mr. “Stay on Message” never answered any questions, just kept saying “it’s about hope and it’s about the future” which is first of all a lame talking point that doesn’t need to be said at all, and certainly isn’t the answer for every question, and perhaps more importantly, has ALREADY BEEN USED by Bill Clinton during HIS first campaign. Give me a break. I do, however agree with Romney that McCain has really sissied out on immigration.
John McCain – A guy who has shown himself to be a real honest-to-god sissy on several important things, like writing his travesty of a bill, the “prisoner bill of rights” and his Kennedy-McCain Immigration ClusterF#@K Bill. Any Republican who writes a bill with Ted Kennedy automatically gets x’d off my list.
Rudy Giuliani – A guy whose name I can’t spell without copy and pasting it from cnn.com, Rudy is, economically speaking, a Reagan Republican, which I applaud and believe we desperately need after this disaster with W. His health care stance is absolutely brilliant, and if he was pro-life, he’d be the perfect candidate. (He recently changed his stance on guns, and now says if you’re not a criminal and you’re not nuts, he doesn’t see the problem.) He’s also said that he would appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Pizza Court, which means that when you boil everything down, he would actually help the pro-life cause, even if by accident.
So, who gets my vote? Well, if I could vote in the primary, I’d vote for Sam Brownback. Who do I think is going to get the nomination? Giuliani. And I’m strangely a-ok with that.