Home, Archive, Stuff, Random thoughts, London, My Rigs, Pictures, Dreams, Links, About, Contact, Search

spikegifted - Random thoughts


Bush Lies about Iraq Nukes

April 30, 2003

So are you suggesting that the countries that have signed the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons but have procession of nuclear weapons are not part of the big picture? So I guess all those resolutions passed almost 30 years to ask Israel to disclose its nuclear capability means nothing! And I guess N. Korea having nuclear weapons doesn't really post a threat to its neighbors! And trust you really don't mind India and Pakistan exchanging a few nukes between themselves also.

The point is, as far as the majority of the world is concern, the UN Weapons Inspectors were doing their jobs. 'Yes', Saddam is an evil person and 'Yes', a world without him is likely to be a better place. But the US's administration is simply saying, they HAVE WMD and even if they don't have them we INSIST on a 'regime change'. Well, what kind of f*cking attitude is that?

With all the sites there're in Iraq, it would have taken a long time to search through each and every one of them and verify that all known WMD have either been destroyed or accounted for (ie, not destroyed). Guess what, the US military is now doing the job that the WIs were doing? As far as I can tell, there are even less WI personnel in the US military than the number available through the UN. Does the US not trust UN's WIs? If the US and the UK have so much of the 'intelligence' suggesting Iraq has sites and facilities producing and storing WMD, why wasn't more of this intelligence passed on to the UN WI? Is there a hidden agenda here as Messer Bush, Blair, Chaney and Rumsfeld (and the rest of the crews) have been less than willing to tell the rest of the world. Now that the fighting is over and the Allied troops are occupying the country and running around the place to find those weapons - SHOW ME THOSE F*CKING WEAPONS!!

I've said this before - I'm not anti-American, as a matter of fact, I have a lot of American friends. But I'm disturbed by the events that leads up to the INVASION of Iraq and the way American put pressure on countries to bend to its will. I'm so glad that there are leaders of countries around the world who have more backbone than Mr. Blair and are willing to stand up to what they think is the right thing to do - Just say NO!

You folks in the US think that it is 'unpatriotic' to display attitudes that are less than supportive of the administration. Well, let me tell you one very obvious thing - the world is not made up of just black and white; it is not what your president tells you: ˇ§you're either with us or against usˇ¨. You live in a society where you've a right to exercise your opinion, you should engage your intelligence and value and you should express your opinions. Tolling the line in a democratic society is worst than not having the right to express your true thoughts.

The war with Iraq has brought more ill-will against the US and the UK than any other event in recent memory. All those talks of 'Old Europe' is just plain BULLSH!T. This war has been very unpopular in Europe because it lacks any credibility - the majority of Europeans are against the war, even those countries where their leaders lent support to the US and the UK. I can't understand why the American administration and media are so keen to knock the French either and some brainless individuals are quick to jump on the bandwagon (for God's sake, WTF is 'Freedom Fries'?!?!!!) Why don't you knock the Germans or Russians or Chinese? The views expressed against France as a nation is insulting, abusive and ill-informed. The comments about the French being 'chicken' during WWII were made without the understanding of historical context. If this kind of criticism is level against the French for not wanting to go war against Germany in the 1930s, then it is the same bashing the US for not sending troops over to Afghanistan when the USSR invaded that country - it makes no sense!

The French and other Europeans' standpoint was to prevent an armed conflict while using the UN as diplomatic channel to force the Iraqi regime to comply with UN resolutions, but the US administration's endgame was to CREATE one via unfulfilled UN resolutions. See the difference? And don't even dare to give me that BS about Iraqis have been ignoring UN demands for the past 12 years - the Israelis have been ignoring the UN for the past 30 years!! I don't see the US sending 250,000 men, armed to their teeth, over to the land former known as Palestine to force a 'regime change'! You want to talk about double standards?

You want to talk about 'the big picture'? I'll give you a BIG PICTURE: By acting with its current allies for this war, the US and the UK have managed to create a critical split of opinion between Europe and the US; by acting without consensus of NATO, they have caused a deep divide in opinion within the Alliance; by circumventing the UN, the US has crippled the only credible international body; by acting without thorough preparation, the Iraqis are left with a dysfunctional country (not much food, no water, no electricity, little law and order and generally feeling rather p!ssed); by acting without a clear understanding of the post-conflict Iraq, Americans soldiers are making themselves very unpopular with Iraqis (since when has English been part of the Iraqi education curriculum?); by invading Iraq, I strongly believe it will be causing the US more problems down the line than the 'problem' that this conflict and occupation appears to solve.


May 1, 2003

So suppose there's a guy in your neighborhood who's rather unpopular, has a bunch of guns in his home and he beats his wife. You report him to the social services and the police and they tell you to mind your own business. Are you then going to get your own gun, go round to his house, kick the door down and gun him down? After that, are you going to then take the wife into your custody to demonstrate to her how a good husband should act like?

Link to 2CPU.com Forum