The Cat's on the Roof
Nov 6, 2009 General Nonsense |
I saw in the news today that The United States is going to withdraw most of its military forces from Afghanistan. Okay, the news didn't say that in so many words. But they did say, "The cat is on the roof," which means the same thing.
Allow me to explain "The cat is on the roof" to those of you who are unfamiliar with the joke. It goes like this: Bob goes on vacation. He asks his moron brother to take care of his cat. After a few days on vacation, Bob calls to say hi. The moron brother blurts out "Your cat is dead."
Bob is beside himself with grief. And he chastises his moron brother for breaking the news to him in such an abrupt manner. The moron brother asks how he could have done it better.
Bob explains "Well, for example, you could have told me the cat was on the roof. The next time we talked, you could say the Fire Department is trying to get him down. The next time, you could say the cat fell during the rescue and was in the veterinarian hospital. The next time I called, you could say the cat succumbed to his injuries and passed away. That way I would be prepared for the bad news."
The moron brother says he understands. Then he adds, "Oh, by the way. Mom is on the roof."
With that in mind, I saw in the news that Prime Minister Gordon Brown is warning Karzai to clean up the corruption in the Afghan government or else Great Britain will withdraw its forces.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEBlJJibsvBmFQK5iQvBXDIIJRQAD9BQ3BQG0
That's the "cat is on the roof," as clear as I have ever seen it. Obviously Afghanistan isn't going to get rid of corruption. That gives Great Britain an honorable reason for withdrawing, which I assume they have already decided to do. Once that happens, Obama will be forced by public opinion to do the same, leaving behind some terrorist-hunting forces only.
Allow me to explain "The cat is on the roof" to those of you who are unfamiliar with the joke. It goes like this: Bob goes on vacation. He asks his moron brother to take care of his cat. After a few days on vacation, Bob calls to say hi. The moron brother blurts out "Your cat is dead."
Bob is beside himself with grief. And he chastises his moron brother for breaking the news to him in such an abrupt manner. The moron brother asks how he could have done it better.
Bob explains "Well, for example, you could have told me the cat was on the roof. The next time we talked, you could say the Fire Department is trying to get him down. The next time, you could say the cat fell during the rescue and was in the veterinarian hospital. The next time I called, you could say the cat succumbed to his injuries and passed away. That way I would be prepared for the bad news."
The moron brother says he understands. Then he adds, "Oh, by the way. Mom is on the roof."
With that in mind, I saw in the news that Prime Minister Gordon Brown is warning Karzai to clean up the corruption in the Afghan government or else Great Britain will withdraw its forces.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEBlJJibsvBmFQK5iQvBXDIIJRQAD9BQ3BQG0
That's the "cat is on the roof," as clear as I have ever seen it. Obviously Afghanistan isn't going to get rid of corruption. That gives Great Britain an honorable reason for withdrawing, which I assume they have already decided to do. Once that happens, Obama will be forced by public opinion to do the same, leaving behind some terrorist-hunting forces only.
Votes: +8
Comments
User Name: jacklang0001
Nov 22, 2009
0
====================== http://www.ebusybiz.com ================== ====================== http://www.ebusybiz.com ==================
<<<<<<<<<> short time <<<<<<<<<><<<<<<<<<> free shipping <<<<<<<<<>
<<<<<<<<<><<<<<<<> competitive price <<<<<<<><<<<<<<> any size available <<<<<<<<>
<<<<<<<<<> accept the paypal <<<<<<<<<>
cheap nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet
<<<<<<<<<> short time <<<<<<<<<><<<<<<<<<> free shipping <<<<<<<<<>
<<<<<<<<<><<<<<<<> competitive price <<<<<<<><<<<<<<> any size available <<<<<<<<>
<<<<<<<<<> accept the paypal <<<<<<<<<>
cheap nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet
User Name: unlost
Nov 10, 2009
+1
i like the joke better than the commentary. when's the non-beta dilbert.com due?
User Name: god save England
Nov 10, 2009
0
I think we have been doing this the wrong way. We should leave afgamistan, invite them to join Europe then like all the other countrys in europe almost its entire population will attempt to live and work in the UK. this process will leave about 10 people in Afganistan. The former terrorists now working in the UK will be too busy running afgan takeaways, and corner shops that they will be all too busy to plot any "terror" save for the occasional poisoning of a student from a 24hour takeaway. The remaining 10 people will in fact be the countrys leader and his 9 buddies, wondering what the hell just happened as the dust settles on their now enpty country...
User Name: hatchm
Nov 9, 2009
+3
Did you really have to kill a cat in ths blog to get your point across? It just seems cruel.
User Name: Leora
Nov 9, 2009
0
Surely that's proof that Afghanistan is well on its way to Western-style democracy. They've already figured out how to rig the vote and get rich doing it.
Hurray, capitalism and democracy!
Hurray, capitalism and democracy!
User Name: tool462
Nov 9, 2009
0
Of course, they have to send in 30,000 more firefighters first to attempt to rescue the cat. Then whether or not that goes well, they can leave and say they did everything they could. Oh, and hey, here's a coupon for a new cat. I hear this one wants to make nuclear weapons!
User Name: goosemonster
Nov 9, 2009
+2
No matter what goverment is put in power in Afganistan and Iraq, it will make very little difference to western security.
We've had Gordon Brown telling us that our troops need to be there to prevent terror attacks back home. Just how he works this out escapes me.
The attacks on London were commited by British Muslims trained in Pakistan, nothing to do with Afganistan.
The attacks on the US were commited by Saudis, nothing to do with Iraq.
So lets just draw a line in the sand, proclaim that the aims of the wars have been met (punishing Muslims for 911) and all f.u.c.k off back home.
We can keep the RAF on station in Cyprus to drop the occasional bomb on them, just to keep their heads down and prevent obvious training camps.
We've had Gordon Brown telling us that our troops need to be there to prevent terror attacks back home. Just how he works this out escapes me.
The attacks on London were commited by British Muslims trained in Pakistan, nothing to do with Afganistan.
The attacks on the US were commited by Saudis, nothing to do with Iraq.
So lets just draw a line in the sand, proclaim that the aims of the wars have been met (punishing Muslims for 911) and all f.u.c.k off back home.
We can keep the RAF on station in Cyprus to drop the occasional bomb on them, just to keep their heads down and prevent obvious training camps.
User Name: Brant
Nov 8, 2009
-1
I'm not sure how old "Tout va bien' Mme la Marquise" is, but there's a 1936 movie with that title. Here's a YouTube clip of the song performed in 1967: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA9mPeu4mFw
User Name: Brant
Nov 8, 2009
0
There's an old French song that I really loved when I was learning French: "Tout va bien, Madame la Marquise!" in which the cat's on the roof principle is used: http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk/misc/marquise.htm English translation included.
User Name: TheNeverMind
Nov 7, 2009
+3
As much as we like to give credit to the CIA for arming, training and funding Bin Ladden in his effort to kick the Russians out of Afghanistan, they would have been just as successful without our help. The notion that we (the US) could walk in there and be more effective (without being more ruthless?) was simply silly.
User Name: blackbeltfairy
Nov 7, 2009
+6
The US has spent so much on this war because of ignoring the primary objective and dicking around in Iraq (where the Taliban decidedly WASN'T) for so long. Now they're finally helping out where it's needed, and you all want to withdraw? This is a big case of "you made your bed, now sleep in it." Your elected leader chose to waste everyone's time. Now deal with it.
How about the French, British and Canadian troops who have been holding down the fort until you guys decided to join the party? The ones who have been fighting the real fight? It's all for nothing? I don't think my veteran friends would really like to hear that they risked themselves for diddly-squat.
To think that there was a big stink when Canada decided to take a one year hiatus to make much-needed equipment repairs.
How about the French, British and Canadian troops who have been holding down the fort until you guys decided to join the party? The ones who have been fighting the real fight? It's all for nothing? I don't think my veteran friends would really like to hear that they risked themselves for diddly-squat.
To think that there was a big stink when Canada decided to take a one year hiatus to make much-needed equipment repairs.
User Name: itegem
Nov 7, 2009
0
If Bin Laden croaks because of bad health can we claim a victory? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Mind you I am aware that we "will" claim victory: "... we caused his death by denying him the medical attention he needed ... bla, bla, bla, etc. ....", but my question is: would it be truthfull to do so or just opportunistic propaganda?
Mind you I am aware that we "will" claim victory: "... we caused his death by denying him the medical attention he needed ... bla, bla, bla, etc. ....", but my question is: would it be truthfull to do so or just opportunistic propaganda?
User Name: itegem
Nov 7, 2009
0
If Bin Laden croaks because of bad health can we claim a victory? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Mind you I am aware that we "will" claim victory: "... we caused his death by denying him the medical attention he needed ... bla, bla, bla, etc. ....", but my question is: would it be truthfull to do so or just opportunistic propaganda?
Mind you I am aware that we "will" claim victory: "... we caused his death by denying him the medical attention he needed ... bla, bla, bla, etc. ....", but my question is: would it be truthfull to do so or just opportunistic propaganda?
User Name: Jumper23
Nov 6, 2009
0
Here's my wish list. Some wishes are more likely to occur than others:
Catch Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Catch any financiers of terrorism. Define terrorism reasonably not in Orwellian Newspeak.
Stop the horrible mistreatment of women. Allow educating women.
Stop the people who want to continue bombing remaining Buddhist historical sites and stuff.
When wars become occupations start calling them occupations not wars.
Build some humanitarian stuff to make up for smashing stuff.
Leave.
Many of these wishes won't be granted.
Catch Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Catch any financiers of terrorism. Define terrorism reasonably not in Orwellian Newspeak.
Stop the horrible mistreatment of women. Allow educating women.
Stop the people who want to continue bombing remaining Buddhist historical sites and stuff.
When wars become occupations start calling them occupations not wars.
Build some humanitarian stuff to make up for smashing stuff.
Leave.
Many of these wishes won't be granted.
User Name: dr_ric
Nov 6, 2009
+1
Actually the British Government announced a few weeks ago it was sending *more* troops to Afghanistan (subject to certain conditions).
Now, Gordon Brown is doing rather dreadfully as a Prime Minister (at home anyway), but it really would be shooting himself in the foot to announce more troops, and then immediately start putting plans in place to actually pull them all out.
Its a good joke though.
Now, Gordon Brown is doing rather dreadfully as a Prime Minister (at home anyway), but it really would be shooting himself in the foot to announce more troops, and then immediately start putting plans in place to actually pull them all out.
Its a good joke though.
User Name: webgrunt
Nov 6, 2009
+6
I believe at one point, bin Laden admitted that the 9/11 attacks were supposed to draw the US into an unwinnable war in the Mideast, in order to bankrupt the US economy. If we withdraw while we still have some money left, we will have caused bin Laden to fail at his objective.
Whoops, too late.
Whoops, too late.
User Name: soulcatcher
Nov 6, 2009
-3
I prefer being more blunt than the term the bird is in the air. We have released the cat. The cat has left a turd in the litter box. And by the way he missed a few places and left a few hairballs to the east.
Have a nice sunshiny day, Afghanistan. Please put on your SPF 2000 you are going to need it. By the way want to by some glass?
;-)>
Have a nice sunshiny day, Afghanistan. Please put on your SPF 2000 you are going to need it. By the way want to by some glass?
;-)>
User Name: briangrattan
Nov 6, 2009
0
I certainly hope you are right Scott--no need for another headstone in the graveyard of empires.
Unfortunately, when this is all over, I doubt the right people will ask "How could anyone seriously expect the Karzai government to *not* be corrupt?"
Unfortunately, when this is all over, I doubt the right people will ask "How could anyone seriously expect the Karzai government to *not* be corrupt?"
User Name: Dwigt
Nov 6, 2009
+1
If we withdraw from Afghanistan, will it technically be considered losing a war? It will save America billions of dollars ($250 billion and counting) and the lives of its soldiers. We haven't completed any of our objectives there, in part because they keep changing. The country would likely fall into Taliban rule, which, for the residents, means the same conditions as now, with less roadside bombs and gunfire.
The one big negative to withdrawing is that the terrorists that have long since left the country may come back. But, since we only kill something like 2 big named terrorists a year in Afghanistan with this all-out war, I think we would have more luck once they stop hiding (after we withdraw), then sending in assassins to kill them more precisely than we have been able to with our current strategy. That way, you don't get the bad PR of killing 50 civilians and 5 low-level Taliban, it's cheaper, and I think would be more effective anyway.
The one big negative to withdrawing is that the terrorists that have long since left the country may come back. But, since we only kill something like 2 big named terrorists a year in Afghanistan with this all-out war, I think we would have more luck once they stop hiding (after we withdraw), then sending in assassins to kill them more precisely than we have been able to with our current strategy. That way, you don't get the bad PR of killing 50 civilians and 5 low-level Taliban, it's cheaper, and I think would be more effective anyway.
User Name: davidfa71
Nov 6, 2009
+1
We have the exact same joke in Spain, it is probably universal. We only change the roof for a tree. It's one of my favorites.
