[LINK] {OT} Walk against War - sunday in sydney

Frank O'Connor foconno1@bigpond.net.au
Mon, 17 Feb 2003 01:04:57 +1100


Woah There, Grantley

I'm against any war against Iraq .... but not for any 'lovey dovey' reasons.

As far as I'm concerned Saddam Hussein and his ilk richly deserve 
whatever comes their way and I'll shed no tears for them. He's killed 
more than 2 million of his own people over the last 20 years, he's 
gassed Kurds, he's massacred Shiite Muslims in the South, he's 
committed crimes against humanity I would not care to contemplate, 
and during the Iraq-Iran War - which he started if I remember rightly 
(back when he was 'our bastard' and armed and supported by Reagan, 
... and Rumsfeld and a number of the lads still in the Bush cabinet) 
more than 3 million died.

But I don't buy the 'Chamberlain' argument, and I don't buy the fact 
that he's suddenly out of control and amassing weapons of mass 
destruction and needs to be nailed now (hell if there's any 
real-estate on the planet that has been more closely watched than 
Iraq over the last 12 years I'd love to know about it) I don't buy 
the flimsy evidential BS that has been adduced about Saddam's 
connections with terrorism, and I have big problems with prosecuting 
a war against Iraq on a number of other grounds.

To me the problem is that Bush and his crew have taken their eyes off the ball.

They should be prosecuting the abortive 'War against Terrorism'. 
Remember that? The little puppy they said was gonna happen after the 
Twin Towers went down? It was mentioned again (in passing) after Bali.

Instead we're going after an avowed enemy of Osama Bin Laden and his 
boys ... someone he and his fanatical religious bigots regard as a 
Godless apostate. A heretic. A socialist unbeliever who oppresses 
their kind.  Hell, Osama and the terrorists lads are probably killing 
themselves laughing at the prospect of Saddam getting creamed. 
They'll be there cheering on the sidelines when the War gets going, 
licking their chops at the prospect of a hundred thousand new 
recruits, and watching the possibilities of widening their little 
avenues of attack. The instability this 'War' is gonna cause for so 
little gain is a concern for me.

But Bush's much vaunted 'War on Terrorism' ... what happened to that? 
Why did is come to an almost complete halt after the Afghanistan 
invasion? (Which I did see as necessary.) Why didn't they follow the 
money like they said they would? Why didn't they do the hard yards 
with regimes that have been in the pockets of the fundamentalist 
bigots for years now. Why didn't they play the dice 'fall where they 
may' - in friendly or unfriendly regimes. What happened to all the 
grand statements? The 'no matter what it takes, no matter where it 
leads' resolutions?

"Hell, Man ... that would've been bad for business."

We're going after a side-show. A bit of 'unfinished Bush 1991' 
business. Same US cast of characters - except Bush Jnr ain't half the 
Pres his father was.

And I love the plan ... it shows so much forethought.

Conversation at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington:
"Hey, lets invade a country and kick the ass of someone nobody likes 
... that'll take their mind off the failure of this War on Terrorism 
thingie. How about that bozo Dad nailed in 1991?"
"Ummmm ... could have problems with that Pres."
"Problems? This is an electoral winner Son."
"Well, yeah ... I mean we can take this clown in three days ... three 
weeks at the outside ... but ..."
"Always with the 'buts' Big Col ... where's the downside?"
"Well we have to replace him with somebody."
"We install those London jerk-offs."
"Ummm ... three of them have records as massive embezzlers, two 
others are heavily involved in the drug trade, and the rest are shady 
creeps hated by one major faction or another in Iraq."
"Picky-picky! OK ... we find someone who represents all Iraqi's."
"Ain't no such person, Boss. I mean you're looking at a 'country' 
that to all intents and purposes doesn't exist. I mean there's the 
Kurds in the North, The Shiites in the South, the Sunni crowd in East 
and Central Iraq, and the secular lot in Baghdad ... and they all 
want their piece of the action. Strike that ... each of them wants 
all of the action."
"So ... we give the Kurds what they want in the North, and we ..."
"That'll severely piss off the Turks, Pres."
"... give the Shiites what they want, and ..."
"That's gonna really upset the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's Boss ... but on 
the up-side it will make the Iranians very happy."
"... we give the Sunni's what they want and ..."
"Gotta admit, that'll balance out the Iranian joy and good will."
" ... and we let the secular lot have Baghdad."
"That's gonna really miff pretty well everyone else, Boss."
"Damn! Why can't they all just get along?"
"I'll make a note to bring that question up in the apres-ass-kicking 
negotiations, Sir."
"Nuts! ... Errr, errr ..."
.........
........
......
....
..
.
"OK ... We go to Plan B. We invade, we kick the ass of that Bozo ... 
and we occupy the country indefinitely until they work their 
differences out!"

(Deep gloom pervades the Oval office)

"Ahhh .. Sir. We have some proposals for the War on Terrorism."
"The what?"
(Whispered comment): "Damn! He has the attention span of a budgie on Speed."

						Regards,

At 10:06 PM +1100 16/2/2003, Grant Bayley wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Linda Rouse wrote:
>
>>  Numbers rumoured at 250,000+ - certainly the biggest rally I've seen
>>  in sydney since ant-vietnam marches some 30 years ago. Filled Hyde
>>  Park and all surrounding streets.
>>  Exciting to be there - all races, all ages ... but will it make a 
>>difference?.
>
>If only so it can't be said that "everyone is behind it" and that we're
>all lovey dovey in here, I hope such protests will make no difference at
>all.  I have my reasons for supporting action against countries such as
>Iraq and North Korea, not the least of which is a good knowledge of the
>history of the 20th century, which includes an understanding that
>appeasing, containing or being diplomatically circle-jerked by dictators
>such as Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il only tends to embolden them in the
>future.  Amidst the lack of international agreement on Iraq, and even
>before an outcome has been decided at the UN or unilaterally achieved by
>the US and allies, North Korea is beginning to threaten neighbour states
>such as Japan, and Japan is getting quite justifiably concerned.
>
>Or to put all this rather more bluntly, I pity you all for thinking that
>by taking a back seat in these world matters, you'll secure some sort of
>"peace" by avoiding the use of the one language that dictators like Saddam
>Hussein and Kim Jong Il understand - force.  You might, but it won't last
>long.  History assures us of that.
>
>Grant
>_______________________________________________
>Link mailing list
>Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link