Whats good for the Goose is good for the Gander

  1. Hi Everyone,
    I wanted to post an email I recieved today, that is a reprint of an article run by the Guardian newspaper in the UK... it just strikes me as a salient point just before the oil war starts.

    I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush

    I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!

    For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

    As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

    Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.

    They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

    And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

    That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

    Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

    Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror.
    What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

    Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

    It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

    My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

    Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

    It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

    Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited

    Obviously this is fiction.... however, America has long touted itself as the home of the brave, the land of the free.... however if Bush starts a war based on suposition.... how could he complain if other countries did the same thing....... North Korea invades South because they're hoarding all the money in the peninsula and causing starvation of our people..... don't need to prove it 'cos Bush did'nt.... no security council resolution required.

    I noticed rncounty drawing parallel's with Bush and the Nazi regime.... and as was replied I don't agree that the sins of the fathers, are the sins of the sons...... However, what Bush is proposing in Iraq is straight out of Nazi propaganda, almost holocaust like, there is no evidence... yet he persists, he has little support outside his country, yet he persists......

    But the most worrying thing is reading my American colleagues reponses to criticism of President Bush's position..... it is almost blind in its devotion... as if a president were incapable of deception and lies for a personal agenda.... Nixon, Clinton anyone.... it is as if it is unamerican to question the president.... I believe it is EVERY citizen's responsibility to question EVERYTHING..... that is the only thing that makes a democracy work....... if you choose to accept everthing your told then you are little more than sheep... if you question, research, analyse decisions and still accept them then you show responsibility and have confidence in your leaders.... merely accepting what they say is just blind ignorance.... and thats how Hitler got us into a mess 64 yrs ago.
    Right now, there is NO diference between what Bush is planning and the Nazi invasion of Poland.
    The agruement that Bush does'nt have to share intel about his proof of weapons-of-mass-destruction is complete hogwash... i'm sorry but can you really belive that any of the 7 permanent members of the UN security council will run and blabb to SH of the sites... I don't think so..... also the leaks regarding Colin Powell's speach to the UN indicate they have tapped phone calls and have sufficient satellite resources to correlate troops movements to phone calls..... if thats so HOW COME NO SMOKING GUN!!!!!!!!! with that level of input and feedback to the UN teams where is the bloody evidence........ errr..... maybe it isn't there.

    Lastly I have to add I think Saddam Hussein is a complete dickhead and I wish he would fall down a cess-pit somewhere and break his neck. However this could never be seen as justification for attacking the whole country..... if so there should be US troops lining up on the borders of North Korea, Zimbabwee, China, Indonesia, Sierra Leon, Nigeria, Albania..... or they should have troops disposed around the world to intercept terrorist groups like Al'Quieda (Osama Bin Laden... remember him??????) .... no what spearates all these countries and organisations from Iraq is... 10% of the worlds oil supply... and don't you forget it.
    As an ex-military man I respect anyone who serves in their countries armed forces, but I will never respect politicians who put soldiers in the line of fire for the oil buck!
    regards StuPer
    •  
  2. 45 Comments

  3. by   kmchugh
    One thing to say:

    To date, the weapons inspectors have found how many chemical weapons capable warheads the Iraqi's denied having?

    "We don't have any!"

    "Oh, those, we forgot about those."

    "We don't have any!"

    "Oh, that! That doesn't really count."

    "We destroyed them all. Its not up to us to prove we have (even though that's what we agreed to at the end of the Gulf War), its up to you to prove we are lying!"

    "Oh, those warheads. They don't prove anything!"

    "We have forever forsaken pursuit of nuclear weapons. All the defectors from our weapons programs, including the chief of our nuclear weapons program are lying!"

    Kevin McHugh
  4. by   canoehead
    There are lots of countries with warheads, and cranky dictators, but Bush seems to be taking out all his wrath on Iraq. Why them and why now?

    Oil.
  5. by   StuPer
    Hi Kevin,
    And much as I agree that it is likely Hussein is hding ****..... why isn't Bush willing to wait till its found... furthermore.... if and when it is found what likelyhood do you think of SH getting stroppy knowing there are 180,000 US and UK forces on his border... don't you think he'll grit his teeth and let them be destroyed????? 'cos he can't afford the consequences.... so why not let the UN inspectors roam Iraq and do their job????
    regards StuPer
  6. by   fergus51
    Isn't Colin Powell going to be presenting their case at the UN today? I am eagerly awaiting something that will push me to one side of the fence or the other. My butt hurts sitting there.
  7. by   kavi
    StuPer, I really liked your 'neighborhood" analogy.

    The problem is that Bush and his people still ascribe to that old west mentality. "Me and my friends reckon you're bad, so we're gonna lynch you just to make sure". To me, that's about what he's trying to do with Iraq.

    I agree, that there is no reason he can't wait. I also believe there are many many countries who could cause us a great deal of harm, and who have leaders and people who don't like us.
    And we all have seen and experienced from 9/11 what a few guys with 'different' beliefs and flight training can do 'destruction' wise.

    So to act is if the big solution is that we must send all of these troops half way around the world to 'protect' us from possible potential harm that may or may not happen at all is nonsense. I don't want American troops, or troops from any country dying over something that 'might maybe someday' be a problem.

    I want the billions of dollars being spent on this 'war mongering' to go to more worthy causes.

    And I want us to remember that we colonized this continent with the 'attitude' of 'let's get rid of them before they get us--because our ways our right'. Now we are ashamed of the way we treated our Native Americans. Haven't we learned from that?

    We spent about thirty plus years in a Cold War with the Soviet Union because of all that 'potential' threat. It sounds like we're trying to bring back the same mindset.

    We all know that we are in much more danger from terrorists, or even homegrown nutcases like the unabomber or the Oklahoma City bombers.

    North Korea has had a lot more potential to hurt us. We didn't dare mention putting a coalition to go after them. Because they REALLY could have seriously damaged us.

    I don't like Saddam Hussein. I think he's a terrible horrible man who doesn't deserve to live. Just like Idi Amin. And Omar Quaddaffi. And Ayatolla Komeini. And all those Soviet leaders. And so on and so on. MAYBE the world WOULD have been a better place if we had wiped out Hitler on our own in 1939. Or this terrible leader or that. But I thought we were not that kind of country. Not that kind of people. I THOUGHT we were the ones who promoted peace on earth.

    So what does Saddam really have that threatens us? He might make us lose our 'soul'. Become aggressive attackers instead of protectors.

    And who are we? Have we always been honest and kept our word? What happened to all those promises we made to the Kurds the last time we were there? And to the people of Afghanistan---who are now being ignored so we can pursue this llatest of W's interests.

    Do I want Saddam to send a nuclear device to this country? Of course not. But even if he doesn't there are plenty of others out there who might. They are threats too.
    Do I think attacking Iraq and knocking Saddam out of power will deter those others? Come on---does anyone believe that?

    And what does Bush really want???? Come on folks, what's the family business??????

    I'm sure Hussein is a sneaky SOB who is doing all kinds of nasty things. In fact, I've heard that his specialty is picking out people who he is sure will betray him before they even realizing it. And destroying them first. So I guess we are trying to make that our specialty now too.

    Is that the kind of people we want to be? They say that 'murder' is always easier the second time around. I think that would be true for this kind of behavior. So if we start playing his game--destroying anyone we think might harm us before they actually do anything--how do we stop from eventually becoming the exact kind of people ourselves?

    We do not have the inalienable right impose our beliefs on the world. We cannot decide which 'leader' lives and which dies. That isn't our place. That shouldn't be our destiny, or our legacy. We belong to a United Nations, and the purpose is to obtain consensus about what is fair. We are not always right. No one is. That's when the contributions and insights of others become valuable. That's WHY we're supposed to have this United Nations. To avoid horrible wars promoting the interest of just one nation and causing harm to the rest of the world.

    I still believe so much of what I was taught. The U. S. A. is a great and wonderful country. Filled with hardworking, dynamic, creative, caring people who want the world to be a wonderful place today, tommorrow and always. I hope such fearmongers as there are among us right now don't ultimately destroy our national soul.

    Kavi
    Last edit by kavi on Feb 6, '03
  8. by   Q.
    Originally posted by canoehead
    There are lots of countries with warheads, and cranky dictators, but Bush seems to be taking out all his wrath on Iraq. Why them and why now?

    Oil.
    Because under UN Resolutions, Iraq was to disarm. He has violated the UN Resolutions over and over and over again.

    I hate to steal Kevin's point, but he commented how everyone seems to be upset that the United States would proceed in war without the UN's "blessing." Yet, no one seems to be upset that Iraq, on top of committing numerous humanitarian crimes, some evidence that he has supported Al Queda, and threats against the United States, he has violated UN Resolutions.
  9. by   Q.
    Originally posted by StuPer
    Hi Kevin,
    And much as I agree that it is likely Hussein is hiding ****..... why isn't Bush willing to wait till its found...
    Um, according to AP newswire, on Tuesday of this week, another war head was found.

    Taken from another thread:
    UN Inspectors Find Empty Warhead

    Associated Press
    Tuesday, February 4, 2003; 2:37 PM


    BAGHDAD, Iraq-U.N. arms investigators found another empty chemical warhead on Tuesday as they pressed ahead with a dozen surprise inspections.

    The chemical warhead found at the al-Taji ammunition depot, north of Baghdad, apparently was the 17th turned up since Jan. 16, when inspectors found 12 of the 122mm rocket warheads at a storage area south of the capital in their search for banned arms.

    The Iraqis said those empty munitions were overlooked leftovers from the 1980s. Three days later, they said their own search uncovered four more, at al-Taji.

    It wasn't immediately clear whether the single one found Tuesday, which a U.N. statement said was tagged and secured, was connected with those four.
    Last edit by Susy K on Feb 6, '03
  10. by   StuPer
    Hi Suzy,
    Your dead right about Hussein... I'm sure... I never thought otherwise. However that still does'nt give the US the right to start a unilateral conflict.... can anyone tell me why the US failed to share the intelligence revealed through Powell??? the first of the phone calls were recorded before the inspectors even got too Iraq... think how much time could have been saved if the inspectors could chase (using US intel) the Iraq'is around as they tried to move ****.
    As I said in a previous post.... if the inspectors DO find the 'smoking gun' I believe SH will let them be destroyed.... 'cos he know's the US AND a coalition will be in like a shot to stop him. The French and Chinese have suggested tripling the size of the inspection teams.... if that was coupled with another UN resolution forcing the Iraq'is to accept U2 flights over their airspace, then I reckon the game would be up.... if he refused the resolution he'd be in imediate breech and could be forceably disarmed, if the fights were allowed the UN inspectors could be on top of the Iraq'is before they got too hide stuff.
    I suppose the main point I'm getting at is that there was'nt and still is'nt a need for the US to act IMMEDIATELY. There seems to be this undue haste that no-one has adequately explained. Even if it took 3-4 more months, the fact that the weather would have changed is not a reason to invade a soverign state.... thats just an inconvenience, not a reason for war.
  11. by   Q.
    Let's not forget that during the Gulf War, we basically said to Hussein:
    "we'll stop bombing you if you do these things (UN Resolutions) because we don't feel you can have these (WMD)."

    It's been 12 years and Hussein hasn't complied with these things. This is about finishing the Gulf War, in my opinion.

    I don't believe tripling inspection teams will solve anything. Heck, even Diane Feinstein doesn't think that will do it either.
  12. by   donmurray
    #7
    Which is it? Is the UN the final arbiter of justice for the whole world, or can it be ignored when it may not agree with your particular worldview, in exactly the same way that Saddam does?
    Israel is in breach of many UN resolutions, when will the owner muzzle the vicious dog?
    #8
    We now have evidence that Iraqi's are not very tidy, leaving 17 empty shell cases lying around 12 years after a major war! Shock, Horror! Let's kill several hundred thousand of them to teach them a lesson!
    #10
    We didn't stop bombing either! just a few a day, in the no-fly zones, which were not a UN imposition.
  13. by   Mimi Wheeze
    I'm not trying to be a smart-azz here.

    Saddam hates the United States of America. The people of his country hate Americans too, because if they don't, they'll be dragged off and never seen again.

    I never see Iraqi citizens on T.V. burning Australian or UK flags, or yelling, "kill the Aussies or Brits!"
    It has been proven he has both the means and the capabilities to do alot of damage. He tested this out on his own citizens. Under UN resolutions, he was to disarm. He has not. As an American citizen, I want Saddam stopped.
  14. by   kmchugh
    Just want to point this out to those who say we must have UN approval before attacking Iraq.

    It wasn't that long ago that most of Europe became particularly worried about a tyrant named Milosevic. Cried out to the US to come help put a stop to the death and destruction in the former Yugoslavia. We did. I don't remember any of our detractors, Germany, France, or even Don Murray, telling us at that time we needed UN approval before attacking someone THEY perceived as a threat. Why is it so different when we feel a need to eliminate a threat to us?

    Kevin McHugh

close