Fun With Mad Libs
"Moronic Meddling"Tony BlowsMy friend's youngest daughter just introduced me to a great game called Mad Libs. Darned tootin' clever, ya know, and she showed me how very fun it can be to play, mainly because it takes otherwise normal storylines or someone's thoughts on a subject, and changes the meaning altogether! Check out my original article, which I titled Moronic Meddling:
"IT IS DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY a reason for our newborn war against Serbia, unless it be the right of global elites to impose their tastes on lessers through the force of arms.
"Never in our history has a call to combat seemed as perplexing and hollow as this one. President Clinton and his aides have tried repeatedly to persuade themselves and Congress of the need to enter a far-off civil conflict in the Kosovo, but no single reason seems satisfactory. The White House thus has offered a shifting menu of justifications:
"Reason: We must act to stop the slaughter of innocents. This is an admirable goal. Yet, we could achieve the same aim far more grandly, with much less risk to American blood and treasure, if we decided to invade Rwanda or the Congo. Kosovo and Serbia don't rank among the top dozen bloody civil crises raging on our planet today.
"Reason: Administration officials warn that the fight could widen into a global conflict unless we act quickly to put out the fire. They point to the first world war.
"But the present situation differs from the first world war in critical respects, the chief of which is that no major power has a defensive alliance with the feuding parties. If anything, we could ignite a wider conflict. The best way to duplicate the casus belli of the first world war would be to plunk an international force into Kosovo and stir up resentment among Turks, Albanians/Muslims, Macedonians, Greeks, -- and heaven knows who else.
"Reason: We feel an obligation to get NATO out of a mess. This is the honest explanation. This is not a war to save children, snuff out genocide or starve warlike appetites. It is a fight to save face.
"This enterprise seems breathtakingly high-handed. A bunch of outsiders, lounging in well-appointed conference rooms, have studied a far-off civil crisis and forced their way into the conflict without a clear invitation from either side. If that isn't imperialism, nothing is --- and the ultimate result of this fight could be a fatal weakening of the notion of national sovereignty.
"We do not have enough available troops to win a ground war (or to handle predictable flare-ups in such places as Bosnia and Macedonia, and one doubts European powers have the will to send hundreds of thousands of their finest into harm's way. After all, we're not fighting a territorially ambitious ideology, such as Nazism or Communism.
"If this is a war to save face, we ought to get in and out quickly. This is not a satisfactory way to resolve the ongoing horror of Kosovo, but it's a much better option than throwing our young men and women into a battle we don't know how to fight or intend to win." Now, let's turn it into a Mad Lib: "IT IS DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY a reason for our newborn war against (nation) _______, unless it be the right of global elites to impose their tastes on lessers through the force of arms.
"Never in our history has a call to combat seemed as perplexing and hollow as this one. President (name) _______ and his aides have tried repeatedly to persuade themselves and Congress of the need to enter a far-off civil conflict in (troubled region) _____________, but no single reason seems satisfactory. The White House thus has offered a shifting menu of justifications:
"Reason: We must act to stop the slaughter of innocents. This is an admirable goal. Yet, we could achieve the same aim far more grandly, with much less risk to American blood and treasure, if we decided to invade Rwanda or the Congo. (Two troubled regions) ________ and ________ don't rank among the top dozen bloody civil crises raging on our planet today.
"Reason: Administration officials warn that the fight could widen into a (cause for concern) __________ unless we act quickly to put out the fire. They point to (combative aggression) __________________.
"But the present situation differs from (combative aggression) __________________ in critical respects, the chief of which is that no major power has a defensive alliance with (combatants) ___________. If anything, we could ignite a (cause for concern) __________ . The best way to duplicate the casus belli of (combative aggression) __________________ would be to plunk an international force into (troubled region) _____________ and stir up resentment among (occupants of troubled region) ________, ________, ________, ________, -- and heaven knows who else.
"Reason: We feel an obligation to get (presidential embarrassment) _________________________ out of a mess. This is the honest explanation. This is not a war to save children, snuff out genocide or starve warlike appetites. It is a fight to save face.
"This enterprise seems breathtakingly high-handed. A bunch of outsiders, lounging in well-appointed conference rooms, have studied a far-off civil crisis and forced their way into the conflict without a clear invitation from either side. If that isn't imperialism, nothing is --- and the ultimate result of this fight could be a fatal weakening of the notion of national sovereignty.
"We do not have enough available troops to win a ground war (or to handle predictable flare-ups in such places as (troubled region) ________ and (troubled region) ________, and one doubts European powers have the will to send hundreds of thousands of their finest into harm's way. After all, we're not fighting a territorially ambitious ideology, such as Nazism or Communism.
"If this is a war to save face, we ought to get in and out quickly. This is not a satisfactory way to resolve the ongoing horror of (threat to peace) ___________________, but it's a much better option than throwing our young men and women into a battle we don't know how to fight or intend to win." So far so good, right? Wrong! Check out what happens when you fill in the blanks with ridiculous answers: "IT IS DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY a reason for our newborn war against Iraq, unless it be the right of global elites to impose their tastes on lessers through the force of arms.
"Never in our history has a call to combat seemed as perplexing and hollow as this one. President Bush and his aides have tried repeatedly to persuade themselves and Congress of the need to enter a far-off civil conflict in the Middle East, but no single reason seems satisfactory. The White House thus has offered a shifting menu of justifications:
"Reason: We must act to stop the slaughter of innocents. This is an admirable goal. Yet, we could achieve the same aim far more grandly, with much less risk to American blood and treasure, if we decided to invade Rwanda or the Congo. Iraq and Israel don't rank among the top dozen bloody civil crises raging on our planet today.
"Reason: Administration officials warn that the fight could widen into an increase in anti-American terrorism unless we act quickly to put out the fire. They point to the attacks of 9-11.
"But the present situation differs from the attacks of 9-11 in critical respects, the chief of which is that no major power has a defensive alliance with the terrorists. If anything, we could ignite an increase in anti-American terrorism. The best way to duplicate the casus belli of the attacks of 9-11 would be to plunk an international force into Iraq and stir up resentment among Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, -- and heaven knows who else.
"Reason: We feel an obligation to get an incompetent domestic administration’s failed domestic policies out of a mess. This is the honest explanation. This is not a war to save children, snuff out genocide or starve warlike appetites. It is a fight to save face.
"This enterprise seems breathtakingly high-handed. A bunch of outsiders, lounging in well-appointed conference rooms, have studied a far-off civil crisis and forced their way into the conflict without a clear invitation from either side. If that isn't imperialism, nothing is --- and the ultimate result of this fight could be a fatal weakening of the notion of national sovereignty.
"We do not have enough available troops to win a ground war (or to handle predictable flare-ups in such places as Baghdad and Fallujah, and one doubts European powers have the will to send hundreds of thousands of their finest into harm's way. After all, we're not fighting a territorially ambitious ideology, such as Nazism or Communism.
"If this is a war to save face, we ought to get in and out quickly. This is not a satisfactory way to resolve the ongoing horror of anti-American terrorism, but it's a much better option than throwing our young men and women into a battle we don't know how to fight or intend to win."
Isn't that nutty? Wow! Who would've thought you could so horribly twist my sentiments? Not I!
 Should the US be a Police State? Should we meddle in the affairs of nations that pose no threat to us? Ask Tony Blows today what he thinks, and then ask him in five years! It's a hoot! Tony can be heard occasionally substituting for other FAUX personalities on WNUTS 450 AM Talk Radio. |
