Snafu Main

“With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.”
-George W. Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address

With those words, Bush rang the bell for Saddam Hussein. A man and a nation who have done no wrong to warrant it are about to be assaulted by the full military might of the American, British, and any other nation Bush can coerce, cajole, or otherwise force to join. In his reasoning, Bush states that Iraq is a danger to the Middle East and the United States; he claims that Iraq will do something terrible again. This logic is absurd, think of it as a metaphor for a pet dog.

Now, this pet, has had a tendency in the past to chew shoes. The owner has of course punished the dog, spanking, and shouting, even possibly made the shoes less accessible. Now, many weeks and months go by, and the dog has yet to chew another shoe. What does the owner do? Does the owner assume that the dog will not chew another shoe, but be ready to punish the dog if it should occur again? No, the owner walks up to the dog, puts him before the shoes, and spanks him. Effectively, the owner has just punished the dog for something he has yet to do, and may not even do. This is what Bush would advice one do. This is what Bush is doing in his dealings with Iraq, he is going up to Hussein, and saying, “I know you can do it, and I know you’ve done it before, so I’m going to hurt you now, before you can do anything wrong.” How can this logic make sense? In the end Bush is claiming that because Hussein is a threat the American interests, he should be eliminated. Where does this end? First Iraq is a threat, then North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, Canada?

Political matters aside, invading Iraq at this moment can be defined as nothing short of warmongering. The reasons as presented by President Bush: 1) Iraq presents a clear and present danger to the Middle East and the United States. The idea that Iraq could in some major way harm the United States is preposterous, yes, I’m sure they could do it, and yes, I’m sure that Hussein would do it in a heartbeat if he thought he could get away with it; but the fact of the matter is that he can’t. The second any evidence arises that Iraq was behind a terrorist act, the United States will be on it like a hawk to a mouse. As for the Middle East, I am sure that Hussein learned his lesson the last time he tried to attack another Middle East power. This harkens back to the dog chewing on the shoe idea, punishing somebody for what he may do in the future. 2) Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons and has shown no restraint in using them. Looking at that, one cannot help but think of the hypocrisy enmeshed in that statement. The first use of a nuclear weapon in war was used by the United States, not in a display or against a military target, but in the outright murder of a major metropolis, followed by another merely 3 days later. No real time was given after the first bomb for surrender, and no concrete warning of the bomb was given to Japan prior to the drop. Arguably in fact, the United States launched both bombs as a warning to the Soviets that the United States was more powerful. Then we look at Vietnam, where people today are dying from defoliant sprayed in the 70’s that has seeped into the groundwater. Even today, Depleted Uranium shells are used extensively by the United States, around a million were fired during the first Gulf War, and these rounds are highly radioactive and spread toxins over a large area.

What are the real reasons for an attack on Iraq? Some are the same as Afghanistan, some are brand new. The number one reason that Bush wants to take down Iraq is the oil. Currently, oil is controlled by the Arab nations of the Middle East; Iraq, living under embargo for so long has vast untapped oil reserves. Should the United States remove Saddam Hussein, they would gain a puppet state in Iraq, a grateful one that will sell oil to them at a premium. In the end, any conflict in the Middle East can be boiled down to either religion or oil, generally any international effort in the Middle East is driven by oil. What other reasons does Bush have for removing Hussein’s government? Internationally, Iraq will be a large scale weapons demonstration. Bush wants to show the world what American ingenuity has developed since The Gulf War. America’s military hasn’t had that opportunity in ten years, and of course they have all kinds of nifty new toys to display, and what better display than a live fire exercise? Domestically, Bush lost the war on Terror. Plain and simple, America still wants blood, and they cannot get blood from an organization not directly tied to a government? You simply cannot track down an organization determined not to be found. And so, when one needs an enemy to beat up, one turns to someone they know they can find. Of course, Hussein is a standard enemy; Clinton tried to use him to distract the American public from his affair with Lewinsky; now Bush has turned on Hussein to distract the American people from the mistakes of the war on Terror.

The Bush administration wants to find a classic enemy of America and defeat it. Terror is an enemy that has no head, no place to go knocking for a fight. Iraq, on the other hand is the perfect target. Iraq has oil, Iraq has Hussein, that is all Bush needs, oil for a nice economic kickback for him and his cronies and Hussein for a name to nail to the wall as a pariah. Should the cake walk theory hold in Iraq, Bush’s strategy is flawless. He doesn’t need to please all of the people, and the last election proved he didn’t even have to please most.


	© All pictures that do not belong to us hereby belong to the people that they belong to. All other pictures are ours.	Iraq, America’s Chew Toy (final draft on January 30, 2003, 1:48:40 AM) “With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.” -George W. Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address With those words, Bush rang the bell for Saddam Hussein. A man and a nation who have done no wrong to warrant it are about to be assaulted by the full military might of the American, British, and any other nation Bush can coerce, cajole, or otherwise force to join. In his reasoning, Bush states that Iraq is a danger to the Middle East and the United States; he claims that Iraq will do something terrible again. This logic is absurd, think of it as a metaphor for a pet dog. Now, this pet, has had a tendency in the past to chew shoes. The owner has of course punished the dog, spanking, and shouting, even possibly made the shoes less accessible. Now, many weeks and months go by, and the dog has yet to chew another shoe. What does the owner do? Does the owner assume that the dog will not chew another shoe, but be ready to punish the dog if it should occur again? No, the owner walks up to the dog, puts him before the shoes, and spanks him. Effectively, the owner has just punished the dog for something he has yet to do, and may not even do. This is what Bush would advice one do. This is what Bush is doing in his dealings with Iraq, he is going up to Hussein, and saying, “I know you can do it, and I know you’ve done it before, so I’m going to hurt you now, before you can do anything wrong.” How can this logic make sense? In the end Bush is claiming that because Hussein is a threat the American interests, he should be eliminated. Where does this end? First Iraq is a threat, then North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, Canada? Political matters aside, invading Iraq at this moment can be defined as nothing short of warmongering. The reasons as presented by President Bush: 1) Iraq presents a clear and present danger to the Middle East and the United States. The idea that Iraq could in some major way harm the United States is preposterous, yes, I’m sure they could do it, and yes, I’m sure that Hussein would do it in a heartbeat if he thought he could get away with it; but the fact of the matter is that he can’t. The second any evidence arises that Iraq was behind a terrorist act, the United States will be on it like a hawk to a mouse. As for the Middle East, I am sure that Hussein learned his lesson the last time he tried to attack another Middle East power. This harkens back to the dog chewing on the shoe idea, punishing somebody for what he may do in the future. 2) Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons and has shown no restraint in using them. Looking at that, one cannot help but think of the hypocrisy enmeshed in that statement. The first use of a nuclear weapon in war was used by the United States, not in a display or against a military target, but in the outright murder of a major metropolis, followed by another merely 3 days later. No real time was given after the first bomb for surrender, and no concrete warning of the bomb was given to Japan prior to the drop. Arguably in fact, the United States launched both bombs as a warning to the Soviets that the United States was more powerful. Then we look at Vietnam, where people today are dying from defoliant sprayed in the 70’s that has seeped into the groundwater. Even today, Depleted Uranium shells are used extensively by the United States, around a million were fired during the first Gulf War, and these rounds are highly radioactive and spread toxins over a large area. What are the real reasons for an attack on Iraq? Some are the same as Afghanistan, some are brand new. The number one reason that Bush wants to take down Iraq is the oil. Currently, oil is controlled by the Arab nations of the Middle East; Iraq, living under embargo for so long has vast untapped oil reserves. Should the United States remove Saddam Hussein, they would gain a puppet state in Iraq, a grateful one that will sell oil to them at a premium. In the end, any conflict in the Middle East can be boiled down to either religion or oil, generally any international effort in the Middle East is driven by oil. What other reasons does Bush have for removing Hussein’s government? Internationally, Iraq will be a large scale weapons demonstration. Bush wants to show the world what American ingenuity has developed since The Gulf War. America’s military hasn’t had that opportunity in ten years, and of course they have all kinds of nifty new toys to display, and what better display than a live fire exercise? Domestically, Bush lost the war on Terror. Plain and simple, America still wants blood, and they cannot get blood from an organization not directly tied to a government? You simply cannot track down an organization determined not to be found. And so, when one needs an enemy to beat up, one turns to someone they know they can find. Of course, Hussein is a standard enemy; Clinton tried to use him to distract the American public from his affair with Lewinsky; now Bush has turned on Hussein to distract the American people from the mistakes of the war on Terror. The Bush administration wants to find a classic enemy of America and defeat it. Terror is an enemy that has no head, no place to go knocking for a fight. Iraq, on the other hand is the perfect target. Iraq has oil, Iraq has Hussein, that is all Bush needs, oil for a nice economic kickback for him and his cronies and Hussein for a name to nail to the wall as a pariah. Should the cake walk theory hold in Iraq, Bush’s strategy is flawless. He doesn’t need to please all of the people, and the last election proved he didn’t even have to please most.

Iraq, America’s Chew Toy