I know what you guys are probably thinking right now. A plea? To Bush? Is
that redeye guy crazy? Well, as far as having a grasp on reality goes, I'm
completely sane. I have decided to be nice and write a short plea to Michael
Myers, Jason Vorhees, and Freddy Kruger... uh, I meant George Bush, Tony Blair,
and John Howard. Sorry for that little confusion.
A Plea to Bush, Blair, and Howard
You are constantly trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. Why? Because Iraq
had WMD? We all know it didn't. Because you liberated it? It doesn't look
liberated at all, unless you belong to the same group of people who think that
Japan liberated Southeast Asia (note to Bush: Japan is a country on the west rim
of the Pacific Ocean—you know, the ocean you're trying to sink California
in—and Southeast Asia is a bit to the west and a lot to the south of Japan).
Because you deposed a dictator? Iraq doesn't look like a democracy to me.
Howard, you're saying that the invasion was justified because you thought
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When asked to show proof, all you guys
could show was forged documents that you were so desperately looking for that
you didn't notice they were forged, and also aerial photos that didn't show any
WMD and suspect phone recordings. Everything but the suspect phone recordings
has been refuted*, and so far no weapons of mass destruction have been found.
When the UN inspectors requested more time, they were brushed off by the USA
(I'm not yet saying "you" because you need to formally apply to join the Union
to become states 51-56). Post-war the inspectors have had more time than they did
before the war, and nothing has been found. Am I supposed to believe that those
invisible weapons of mass destruction are there but the inspectors who have
unlimited access to everything in Iraq can't find them?
Blair, you talk of liberation. I really don't know how you define
"liberation," but I usually define it as a process by which the people pass from
a state of oppression to a state of liberty, or a conquest of a territory by its
legitimate government (e.g. France in WW2). Iraq has no legitimate government,
and the Iraqis are in anything but a state of liberty. Unless, of course, being
herded into concentration camps, shot because they can't read English Stop signs,
or killed just because your soldiers desire to kill them, is your definition of
free. If it is, I suggest that you hospitalize yourself in a mental institution
now. If you can call an invasion that killed 37,000 civilians
in less than 6 months "liberation," then you need to get professional help.
Bush, I'll talk to you in the language you understand: one, two, three,
draw, bang! You're evil, evil, evil! Killing people, even if they are Iraqis, is
bad. If you were a Hispanic in Texas, you'd execute yourself for that. The only
problem is, you aren't Hispanic, but a rich sadistic halfwit. Shit, I'm talking
to you in something like 6th-grade level, and that's too high. Sorry.
Everyone, you say that removing Saddam was a good thing. I beg to differ.
Removing Saddam can be considered a good thing only if the alternative is better.
And while you'd all agree that it's a good thing that dissidents don't have their
ears cut anymore, would you please enlighten a misguided soul why is the current
situation, when those dissidents are herded into concentration camps and left
to rot at 50°C, considered any better? The answer is, it's not. The only difference
is that the oppressor is not your enemies (in which case every good thing that
oppressor did is brushed off), but you, which means every bad thing that you do
is thrown down the memory hole.
~2003-10-17
* If you happen to have a refutation of the phone recordings, please send it to
me.
