I am often amused by the warning signs of chaos.
People are very much amusing. They wander about the face of this Earth and impulsively react to whatever might be going on around them. It is most entertaining. I look to the appearance of things like "freedom fries" and grin broadly. Chaos is coming. Let me get this straight. Maybe I misunderstand the concept of freedom. I am, after all, very naive. Freedom to me means the ability to think and act in accordance with your own beliefs and not be tied to a way of thinking that is prescribed for you. Freedom from the tyranny of old monarchies and empires that dictated what you were to think and do. So, one nation, the self-professed standard bearer for this concept of freedom, declares that the world must act in unison on a problem that concerns it. Another nation has a different viewpoint on the topic and exercises its freedom of speech and its freedom to disagree. This nation is judged to be opposed to freedom for doing so and products that inadvertently bear the name of that nation are changed. The name of that country and its people are removed and the word "freedom" is put in its place. Why? Because they disagree with the standard bearer for freedom and thus must be opposed to freedom. What kind of freedom are we talking about, anyway? The freedom to do what you are told?
Let me get this straight.
Now remember, I am very naive and have trouble remembering where I parked my car, so bear with me here. One nation seeks to punish, by force, another nation that in its mind has violated the commandments of a worldwide collection of nations. When that worldwide collection of nations threatens not to endorse the use of force against this nation, the nation that desires to use force says it will disregard the commandments of the collection of nations and act on its own to punish the other nation for disregarding the commandments of the collection of nations. It decries the proliferation of "weapons of mass destruction" and then proudly unveils its own new weapon of mass destruction. Oh, I forgot, this is the standard bearer for freedom in the world, so it is important for this nation to have weapons of mass destruction so they can enforce the principles of freedom throughout the world. My fault. My bad.
I'm probably just confused.
If you authorize the use of military force to launch a pre-emptive strike against a nation that has behaved very badly in the past to make certain they don't behave badly any more, doesn't that open the floodgates to doing the same thing in three dozen other countries worldwide? Isn't it a little too easy to come up with justifications to attack a nation using this foundation? I guess if you do something that the standard bearer of freedom doesn't like, they can find some justification. They'll talk about how a new regime needs to be in place because the old one was bad. Is a forced regime change in the best interest of the people of a nation? Of course. Such plans worked out marvelously well for the people of a number of Central American nations back in the 1980s. Opposition was crushed and freedom reigned. It could not be questioned or doubted. Isn't that what everyone wants? Unopposed freedom? One unquestionable voice of freedom? Of course. That would be rad.
Chaos is coming.
Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?