Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
Who's up for declaring war on the USA? Only, I have a dossier here of various transgressions against humanity, and I think we have a good case to put to the UN Security Council. Included in the proposal are the following facts:
The USA continues to flaunt its hostility toward Iraq and Palestine, while enabling oppression by funding Israel.

The Bush regime (and its precursors) have developed anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over half a century.

This is a regime that willingly electrocutes its citizens, and has laws which make it easy to murder Americans with easily obtained firearms which its constitution guarantees the right to own.

This is a regime that agreed to international laws, then did what they pleased anyway. This is a regime without respect for the rest of the world.
Don't think my reasons are valid enough? Then nor are the USA's reasons for attacking Iraq. The entire list above is just a matter of replacing a couple of words in a list of Iraq's transgressions.

Speaking of replacing words, after reading this article, I felt the need to write something taking the piss - the article has about three lines of content, and the rest is just a massive advert. So I came up with this, which is scarily similar. It took about 5 word changes, and a single insertion of a sentence to clarify a point, and suddenly the article is totally different. Lazy Satire is good, because I don't have to think, and nor does whoever is reading it... ;o)

  • 1
no war on america.

no war at all.

don't you get it? it doesn't solve anything. we could wipe out the whole of america, and yes, the world might be less feverish and maybe a bit more stable. but america isn't george bush, despite his blanket hold. it's really just americans. war seems to group people together in the most inexact way and make mulsh out of what is truly individual. and it is the individual that can stand to say no.

you might argue that the only way to stop america would be to declare war, but is it honestly worth stooping to their level? you could also say that perhaps that would be the only way they would understand. i disagree. americans have been swayed by peaceful protest in the past, to, although not ideal, but fairly satisfactory conclusions.

if the international community simply said 'no. you will not bomb iraq. as you will not have any support of ours.' and held firm, bush would, at the very least, be forced to rethink much of his strategy not only towards the war-to-be specifically, but also towards his perception and approach of the international stage.

through this, he should also be forced (again, with international pressure) to rethink his foreign policies (something which should have been considered after sept 11th, and is long overdue anyway) and hopefully his constitution.

this is what we should do. i think.

and blah. sorry. i've wanted to say that to someone for ages. and now i have. gad, i'm boring.
rach xxx

You kinda said it to the wrong person - I'm a pacifist, and what I said was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to make a valid point (i.e., that those reasons are not justification for war). But nice try...... :oP

no your not! you got lotsa testosterone and stuff and you wanna go kick some AMERICAN BUTT! don't you? yes you do. mmhmm. :P

Not really, war kinda makes me sad. And I like America anyway - I still wanna live there. I just wouldn't do it under Bush...

Well it was kinda obvious that you meant your first comment, which in turn means you've totally missed everything I believe in. Which isn't fun for me.

i don't know anything you believe in, we've never talked properly about it. and my comment was just taking what you said at face value and organising my thoughts about it because i've wanted to for aaaages. it wasn't a personal comment on your belief...

The Bush regime (and its precursors) have developed anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over half a century.

What they'd say about that is that the US and NATO would use the weapons 'responsibly' and that if they didn't produce them, then someone else would. Personally, I think that Bush is itching for a war, especially since the last major conflict was the Gulf war, and he has a lot of new toys such as the F-22 aircraft among others to test out. The UK also has the Eurofighter Typhoon to 'test' so I think that war is inevitable.

I have to say though, that as much as I think that Bush has an 'itchy trigger finger' I'd prefer it if Iraq didn't have nuclear/biological/chemical weaponery. Especially with all of the Russian 'expertise' floating around on the cheap right now.

Oh, I'd rather he was harmless too... But I don't think war is the way to go about achieving that....

How would you achieve it? Making sure he was harmles I mean.

Well weapons inspections would be a good start... I don't think he's especially dangerous right now anyway, so...

They tried that and he refused to co-operate with the UN weapons inspectors. I'm not sure if he refused them entry to the country, or just refused to show them the requested sites, but either way he was uncooperative. So, other than 'kick his ass' so to speak, how would you enforce a weapons of mass destruction embargo on him?

Like I said, I don't think he's dangerous. He's a smart man, and he knows what the world is like right now. If he does have any weapons of mass destruction (which I strongly doubt), then he won't use them because he knows exactly what will happen if he does. Right now, he has a vested interest in playing along, because the alternative is annihilation.

Also, Iraq currently seems to be seeking cooperation. Even if it's not full cooperation, it's still a step in the right direction, and should always be considered before violence....

I have to say I disagree with you entirely about whether or not he is dangerous. I think that he is quite possibly the most dangerous man on the planet given the right circumstances (or rather munitions). But, that's just my opinion.

Also, Iraq currently seems to be seeking cooperation. Even if it's not full cooperation, it's still a step in the right direction, and should always be considered before violence....

With something like this, there can't be 'seeking cooperation' or 'partial cooperation' it has to be full cooperation. Otherwise it's like having a madman with a loaded gun go unchecked. But, you didn't answer my question, how would you enforce an embargo with him (and by him I obviously refer to his affilates etc) without resorting to the threat of / actual violence?

(Deleted comment)
iraq did co-operate with un weapons inspectors until a large number of them were actually revealed to be spies reporting to the usa or britain, iirc. at that point he refused to co-operate. i think two of the men in charge of the weapons inspection teams (at the top, i mean, i don't remember what the post is called) have actually resigned in disgust at the way their leaders handled the 'weapons inspections' of the past.

very fuzzy, i'm afraid. i'm working from memory and for me that's not a very good thing.

incidentally, a few months ago, us state pressure forced out of his un office a man who might've been in a position to actually initiate reasonable weapons inspections in iraq. again, iirc.

essentially, it's all just another big example of how all 'leaders' are hypocritical, backstabbing bastards who piss on all constitutions and concepts of democracy and justice, all in the name of those they lead. ::waves a very small flag::

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account