|
3/7/2003 – Robert Last night, George W. Bush addressed the nation again. He took up the block of my time, during dinner, that I usually leave for watching reruns of the Simpson and Seinfeld. If it were not for this, I may have never watched this spectacle… So, the president began talking, and I sat in front of the television, stupefied and getting dumber by the minute because of this crazy effect known as osmosis. To anybody who doesn’t know what this means, or anybody too lazy to look it up, this article isn’t for you and Bush is probably right up your alley. So… back to the speech. From what I can gather, this wasn’t a war speech or really an ultimatum to Iraq. I think Iraq’s government is at least intelligent enough to know that no matter what they do, the great US of A will once-again swoop in and kick over the anthill again. The speech wasn’t to say that we’re going to war yet. It didn’t say we wouldn’t be attacking either. So, if it wasn’t really for the American people or Iraq, what was it really about? Bush was telling the UN security council that they had better vote the way the US wanted them to vote, or else… Don’t go against the will of the US, because we’re bigger and meaner than you are. If you don’t vote with us, we won’t play with you anymore because we rule the playground. Yes, you, France, Germany, and Russia are permitted to disagree with us, but we don’t give a shit about what you think unless you happen to be in agreement with us. What will happen from here? We will continue to make demands of Iraq, but since we’ll never be satisfied and we went through all the trouble of building up our forces in the Gulf again, we will attack. Rest assured that we’ll blow the bad guys to pieces. Why are we really going after Iraq? Bush made it perfectly clear that Iraq has had twelve long years in which they could have complied with the rules the UN set down for them after Operation Desert Storm (we call it that because ‘war’ sounds icky). Why did we wait so long to make this an issue? 9/11 was a terrible moment in history. It reminded us just how horrible humanity can be. It reminded us how truly vulnerable we are to attack. It really hurt this country, it terrified most of us. We were angered that someone would dare attack us on our own soil. We responded by attacking the attackers. The only way we would feel better about ourselves is by kicking some ass and making Al Queda suffer. So, we gathered what was left of our composure and we headed to Afghanistan. We beat the living shit out of those terrorists. We bombed what little was left of Afghanistan back into the stone age. Some were suggesting that we nuke the country off the face of the planet… yup, there were some of us that wanted to strike out and kill many innocents to get at the bad guys… despite the fact that these people have suffered with fighting for freedom from Russia for most of their lives. Well, we gave a royal donkey punch to Al Queda, but we didn’t kill the bad guy. The movie isn’t supposed to end until good vanquishes evil, right? Despite all we accomplished in Afghanistan, were we satisfied? Once you go down the path of revenge, is anything you do ever enough to quell the bloodlust? Now, we’re going after the next best thing, the crippled, retarded face of evil, Iraq. I do not believe that Saddam is a good guy at all. He is a dictator, but do we have the moral ground to demand that we remove him? We all know that he wants to obtain nuclear weaponry… but the US has it, and we have used it against civilians. We know he has chemical weapons and he has used them against his own people. Look at us; we have used them as well (agent orange, Vietnam), and we have used chemical agents against our own innocent citizens. The government tested LSD on people without their knowledge. What else have we done? Iraq has biological weapons, so do we. The US alone probably has enough to kill the world’s population at least twenty-times over. Back to the chemical weapons issue, we gave weaponry to Iraq. The US government has even admitted to knowing that Iraq was gassing its own people before we allied with them. Doesn’t this legally make us an accomplice? When Bush talks about other countries having these ‘evil’ weapons of mass destruction, we should look at ourselves. We do lead by example… which is working against us right now. If the only way to win is by having the biggest, meanest guns, then people are going to strive for this. Just look at the respect and fear that India and Pakistan have gathered since they developed nuclear weapons. Is it really so unfathomable that some of these small countries want this terrible weaponry? By attacking these countries, we’re going to make these people angrier and more desperate. Will we really be more secure when we attack Iraq? After Iraq, will we ever stop? Do we attack North Korea, then Iran? Will we really accomplish anything by attacking people without attacking the roots of terrorism? What is going to happen with all of this? I just don’t know…
|