Dilbert creator Scott Adams has been taking a lot of heat on the web and in his own comments for his “satire” the other day in which he appeared to show sympathy for Amahdinejad. Today he issued a mea culpa:
In reading the comments to my post yesterday, I see that many of you were confused about my positions. Evidently all of you are brilliant, so I assume the problem is on my end.
He clarified a few things, most importantly on Israel and the Jews:
If Israel had an enemy that it could make peace with, then I might feel different. But it doesn’t, so Israel’s best interests dictate keeping the neighbors too economically weak to purchase expensive weapons, and to control as much territory as possible. I don’t begrudge any country that makes rational decisions in support of its own safety. I don’t even begrudge Israel’s influence on American foreign policy. I respect them for how well they do it.
Aren’t there any Iranian words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present?
What would be a healthy level of influence for the holocaust to have on current affairs? I’d say it doesn’t have enough influence, just look at Darfur, or the Western Sahara. But anyway, you have to question the motives of anyone who appears to be kvetching about Jewish influence. I won’t call him an Anti-Semite, because that would be poor form, but I would just ask – based on that comment above, what else could he be?
When was the last time you read something and thought: “Holy crap, I’ve never heard that before”? Right so – here it is – “Bush was right”. Got it? But wait, there’s more! ‘Bush has solved the Al Qaeda problem.’ – brilliant.
I knew a guy who worked privately as “muscle” to get rid of stalkers for women who could afford his services. He was an expert on stalker mentality. His view, based on years of experience, is that you can’t make a stalker give up stalking. The best you can do is encourage him to stalk someone new. His job was to make it so dangerous to stalk his client that the stalker would move on to a new and more accessible victim.
We have the same stalker mentality situation with Al-Qaeda. Our best bet is to divert their focus to more accessible targets, just as the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan shifted their focus to us. Ironically, the civil war in Iraq might have accidentally accomplished through irrational means what good foreign policy could not. Al-Qaeda is using far more resources fighting other Muslims than fighting the U.S.
I think for the most part he’s right. No matter what we do we could never piss off Al Qaeda as much as the Shia could. Does this mean we should leave Iraq? No, it means we should stay in Iraq. As long as America is there, it’s fighting and showing Al Qaeda it’s the meanest, toughest guy on the block. If it runs away, it starts to look like a soft target.
Don’t take my word for it, listen to Bin Laden (pre 9-11) talking about the American retreat from Somalia:
“You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear,” he said. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”
And according to Dilbert, if you have a live horse that can kick you and a dead horse that won’t – you’re gonna beat the dead horse.
