Mr. Eliot, the poet, predicted the world ends not with a bang, but a whimper. Or perhaps he was referring to the Iraq war. First the president said Saddam was no longer in control, then Don Rumsfeld said the major engagements were over, then George popped in again to say “mission accomplished,” this time wearing a sailor suit and playing with an aircraft carrier as his personal toy. The nominal end of the war has not yet been declared; if it were, the Iraqi prisoners of war would have to be released and the military would have to relinquish some of the sweeping “wartime” authority with which it is vested. It’s a signature Bush administration move – they control the whole country, they’re picking out the puppet government, but they can still behave as if they’re in a free-fire zone because they haven’t sent in the paperwork yet. Ha, ha, ha.
It’s been 50 days since the beginning of the war and about 25 since organized Iraqi military resistance collapsed. None of this is surprising, given that America spends more money on its military than the combination of all other nations and Iraq was subjected to 12 years of military and economic sanctions, not to mention regular bombings, before the onset of hostilities.
It is also generally agreed that it is a good thing to see the end of Saddam Hussein and his government, although it may be a long while before the Iraqi people are on Easy Street. It may be another long while before the Army finds any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And what if we don’t find any weapons of mass destruction? What does that mean?
For one thing it means we have to take yet another long, hard look at our intelligence-gathering operations. In the run-up to the war, it was shown that the British brief on Iraqi weapons was cribbed from a 12-year-old college term paper. America’s “proof” of Iraq’s nuclear arsenal were clumsy forgeries. What ever happened to Colin Powell’s tour de force presentation before the Security Council in February? He had document after document, maps, aerial photos with circles and arrows. Where did it all go? Security Council Resolution 1441 was based on the premise that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed a clear threat to U.S. interests and the stability of the Middle East.
So, either our intelligence community is composed of a bunch of boobs who can be tricked by sideshow sleight of hand, or we knew there were no weapons of mass destruction all along, but we wanted a pretext to take over Iraq. Does it matter? Doesn’t the end justify the means? Didn’t I just say Iraq is better off without Saddam?
Yes, I did, but the U.S.A. – or any other country – should not start roaming the globe, taking over sovereign nations because our president doesn’t like their president, although that seems to be what we’re doing. We didn’t like the Taliban, so we took over Afghanistan and put our guy in charge, same with Iraq. Maybe those countries are better off, but what I want to know is – where’s the line?
George Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea an “Axis of Evil,” so should we take over Iran and North Korea, too? Since the shooting stopped in Iraq, the Pentagon has been growling at Syria, may as well put them on the list.
Why stop there? We should depose Libya’s Mommar Khaddafi, it wouldn’t seem right to leave him in peace if we take out the others. Sudan, too – they had something to do with the embassy attacks in 1998, the ones most of us only vaguely remember.
Once the principle of “the American way – or the highway” is established, we’ll have no choice but to go after Cuba, Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China. I mean, we can’t leave the president open to the charge of “being soft on Communism.”
No one likes Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and there are serious questions about the recent re-election of Nigeria’s Olesegun Obasanjo. Besides, Nigeria has oil. We like oil. Venezuela has oil, too. Hugo Chavez must go.
All this conquering will not be easy, especially with France, Germany and Russia nipping at our heels in the Security Council. Maybe we should take over those three countries first and disband the UN while we’re at it.
Where’s the Line?
Mr. Eliot, the poet, predicted the world ends not with a bang, but a whimper. Or perhaps he was referring to the Iraq war. First the president said Saddam was no longer in control, then Don Rumsfeld said the major engagements were over, then George popped in again to say “mission accomplished,” this time wearing a sailor suit and playing with an aircraft carrier as his personal toy. The nominal end of the war has not yet been declared; if it were, the Iraqi prisoners of war would have to be released and the military would have to relinquish some of the sweeping “wartime” authority with which it is vested. It’s a signature Bush administration move – they control the whole country, they’re picking out the puppet government, but they can still behave as if they’re in a free-fire zone because they haven’t sent in the paperwork yet. Ha, ha, ha.
It’s been 50 days since the beginning of the war and about 25 since organized Iraqi military resistance collapsed. None of this is surprising, given that America spends more money on its military than the combination of all other nations and Iraq was subjected to 12 years of military and economic sanctions, not to mention regular bombings, before the onset of hostilities.
It is also generally agreed that it is a good thing to see the end of Saddam Hussein and his government, although it may be a long while before the Iraqi people are on Easy Street. It may be another long while before the Army finds any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And what if we don’t find any weapons of mass destruction? What does that mean?
For one thing it means we have to take yet another long, hard look at our intelligence-gathering operations. In the run-up to the war, it was shown that the British brief on Iraqi weapons was cribbed from a 12-year-old college term paper. America’s “proof” of Iraq’s nuclear arsenal were clumsy forgeries. What ever happened to Colin Powell’s tour de force presentation before the Security Council in February? He had document after document, maps, aerial photos with circles and arrows. Where did it all go? Security Council Resolution 1441 was based on the premise that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed a clear threat to U.S. interests and the stability of the Middle East.
So, either our intelligence community is composed of a bunch of boobs who can be tricked by sideshow sleight of hand, or we knew there were no weapons of mass destruction all along, but we wanted a pretext to take over Iraq. Does it matter? Doesn’t the end justify the means? Didn’t I just say Iraq is better off without Saddam?
Yes, I did, but the U.S.A. – or any other country – should not start roaming the globe, taking over sovereign nations because our president doesn’t like their president, although that seems to be what we’re doing. We didn’t like the Taliban, so we took over Afghanistan and put our guy in charge, same with Iraq. Maybe those countries are better off, but what I want to know is – where’s the line?
George Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea an “Axis of Evil,” so should we take over Iran and North Korea, too? Since the shooting stopped in Iraq, the Pentagon has been growling at Syria, may as well put them on the list.
Why stop there? We should depose Libya’s Mommar Khaddafi, it wouldn’t seem right to leave him in peace if we take out the others. Sudan, too – they had something to do with the embassy attacks in 1998, the ones most of us only vaguely remember.
Once the principle of “the American way – or the highway” is established, we’ll have no choice but to go after Cuba, Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China. I mean, we can’t leave the president open to the charge of “being soft on Communism.”
No one likes Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and there are serious questions about the recent re-election of Nigeria’s Olesegun Obasanjo. Besides, Nigeria has oil. We like oil. Venezuela has oil, too. Hugo Chavez must go.
All this conquering will not be easy, especially with France, Germany and Russia nipping at our heels in the Security Council. Maybe we should take over those three countries first and disband the UN while we’re at it.
After all, might makes right.