The War

[The Truth]

 

Letter to the Observer

 

Sunday January 26, 2003

The Observer

 

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.

 

Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both

give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

 

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.

 

Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of

automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult! . Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

 

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards

Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson.

 

Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction -! even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states'

and 'terrorism'.

 

It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?

 

How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When

every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

 

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a

future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his

objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

 

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the

tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

 

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

 

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in

contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one

street

 

[CANV EFM]

i was walking down my street the other day and i got this text message from someone saying he hated me, my country, my religion,my children and everything i had ever worked for or belived in... naturally i invited him round for a coffee, put him up in my spare bedroom and lent him 2 grand... i mean i wouldnt want to infringe on his human rights would I?

[pabird]

Also remember that he will be treated for any sickness in the NHS that Blair rescued and his children can assist in swelling the numbers per classroom in the education system that Blair rescued just so long as they can do the journey on or in the integrated transport system designed and dumped by the idiot Prescott

Please advise him never to get involved as a tax payer as a selected few of us have accepted responsibility for that area of activity

But most of all he must carry the phone numbers for a good civil (normally outrageous) liberties lawyer at all times

[The Invisible Man]

Errr... hasn't this wandered a tad away from The War? I presumne this is a rant against asylum seekers and the like?

[CANV EFM]

i can wander and rant where ever i like.. its my human right..

[pabird]

If you consider the idiot sisters Blair and Prescott as asylum seekers

[Mr Happy]

I'm no fan of Blair or Bush. However, we must remember that Iraq previously invaded two neighbours and it's leaders are guilty of war crimes against inhabitant of those countires (not their own citizens but foreign citizens although they have done the same to their own). They are guilty of crimes against humanity (just like Milosevic and Karadic in former Yugoslavia and Hitler etc). north Korea has not invaded any neighbour in modern times although I accept it is a bad dictatorship. The situation is Africa is a big problem and some of these states need much more pressure put on them. However, they have not invaded a neighbour. We cannot turn this planet into a perfect world but when we do have the opportunity to make a difference we should do even if the motives behind the power brokers are different from ours. Maybe we should use these bastards and then vote them out!

[pabird]

And exactly how many countries did the former USSR invade and I do not remember invading them

Neither do I remember invading Idi Amin in his killing days

 

Like you I do not have a problem in putting down a mad dog but lets be consistent

Finnally the most abundant evidence is that Blair simply has not told us the truth, Surely after off loading onto us (his employers) the paper of a student which had been written some 12 years ago why when found out has he not resigned, he lies then lies then lies Still why break the habits of a lifetime

He treats all of us with total contempt but considers we should sanction allowing the deaths of our service people as o!k on his say so

Do you consider he is fit to make the decision?

[Badger]

So you're saying that because those in power in the past didn't take action, those in power today shouldn't take action either?

[Ofiicial]

any chance of a couple of grand over here Canv if I text you a message...wage bills due next week.!!

[pabird]

No Badger I am saying can you go to war and can you trust the war in the hands of a man who is unable to tell the truth

This man lied about intelligence reports (12 yrs old and written by a student) and has never even apologised this a man who told the world his wife spent £500,000 on two flats for his sons and he did not know

 

All friends and family place me just right of Gengis Khan but to commit the lives of our troops on the word of an habitual liar I find a struggle

[Mr Happy]

Quote:

And exactly how many countries did the former USSR invade and I do not remember invading them
Neither do I remember invading Idi Amin in his killing days

Like you I do not have a problem in putting down a mad dog but lets be consistent
Finnally the most abundant evidence is that Blair simply has not told us the truth, Surely after off loading onto us (his employers) the paper of a student which had been written some 12 years ago why when found out has he not resigned, he lies then lies then lies Still why break the habits of a lifetime
He treats all of us with total contempt but considers we should sanction allowing the deaths of our service people as o!k on his say so
Do you consider he is fit to make the decision?

There are many other examples of [****!!****] states invading their neighbours and the former USSR is one of them. as is China (ie Tibet), Turkey (Cyprus), Israel (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine etc). however, in many cases the end result of UN intervention in some of these cases may have led to nuclear war so the end would not have justified then means. By sorting out Saddam, it will not end in nuclear war so by removing this killer, the end does justify the means. As I have previously stated, we do not live in a perfect world where everyone is treated the same. However, when a bit of good can be done for a repressed people we should do it.

[CANV EFM]

official... get yourself some legal aid and ill 'have' to give you 3 grand anyway...;-)

[Badger]

Valid point pabird.

 

However, would you say that the UK has ever had a leader who is completely trustworthy? I can think of several that I would trust, but I can't think of any that haven't lied or reneged on promises or something similar at some point in their leadership. Not that that in itself gives Blair permission to commit our military, obviously.

[pabird]

O"K Mr H but perhaps there are Africans in non oil rich African states where despotic leaders could do with being gone but in between times thousands of their people die day in day out in a most horrible fashion

Fancy holding your breath whilst our Mr Blair decides to attack them

No of course not we will not put our brave boys (and girls) at risk Where there is no oil field in sight

Blairs moral outrage with Saddam is just one more cynical lie

 

If you are correct draw up your list for who is next and where this all ends

 

 

[Badger]

pabird, can you provide with a list of African states that have had programmes for the development of weapons of mass destruction (wmd), where the UN has passed a resolution banning the development of the wmd under threat of sanctions, and the nation has then gone on to ignore those sanctions?

 

I'm asking an honest question. I believe Iraq to be the only nation where this is the case. They may be others, and if there are, then my view of the situation may change.

[pabird]

Badger you are correct but has there ever been a leader of whom you could ask the question "when did he ever tell the truth"

No grown up voter objects to the lier who winks and nods when telling the lie, We understand He understands

 

When have so many been owed so much by so few

 

PS when at war Prescott is a heart beat away from the red telephone so be afraid very afraid

 

[AFF]

Badger.

 

I think you will find that Israel is in breach of 7 U.N. Resolutions.

 

As far as Iraq is concerned, it is the AlSamoud 2 missile that the lunatics are banging on about. Forget this 'weapons of mass destruction' cr@p. Just to remind you. Iraq IS permitted to have miisiles with a maximum range of 150 kms. The Weapons Inspectors have discovered that these missiles have a range of 183 kms. As someone on our site said, South Baghdad is in serious danger from North Baghdad.

 

A clear and flagrant breach of the United Nations Resolution.

 

If you consider that the discovery of missiles with a range 33 kms beyond that 'permitted' by the U.N. is sufficient reason for the U.S./U.K. to go in and bomb the b@stards, without the need for a 2nd U.N. Resolution, take a long hard look at yourself.

[Badger]

I would like to know at what point a breach of a UN resolution actually count as a breach? If the resolution states that you can have missiles with a maximum range of 150kms, it means you can have missiles with a maximum range of 150kms, not 183kms. Therefore, it is a clear and flagrant breach of the resolution. If you are driving at 61mph on a road where the limit is 50mph, it is a clear and fragrant breach of the law. You would expect the Police to take action.

 

At no point have I said that US/UK should take action. I originally stated that 'The UN originally passed a resolution 12 years ago that is still valid today and allows a UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq today' so I believe the UN should be taking action.

 

I went on to say 'The UN was set up after WWII when the nations of the world realised that the League of Nations, although a good idea, was flawed, because it had no military power. The UN has military power, it has stated 12 years ago the exact situation in which this power will be brought against Iraq, the situation is upon us and some within the UN have forgotten one of the reasons it was made' so I believe the UN should be taking action.

 

You can't pretend that a breach hasn't taken place. You must take action in response to the breach.

 

There has to be a point beyond which the UN takes military action. Otherwise, it is no more than an expensive version of the League of Nations.

 

With regard to Israel, I agree that the UN should take action.

[AFF]

Aaaaah.

 

A thousand apologies, O Striped One.

 

I wrongly assumed that you were promoting joint US/UK/Italian/Portugese [if it wasn't such a nightmare, there would be a joke in there somewhere] military action against Iraq in the light of Saddams outrageous breach of the U.N Resolution.

 

In reality, you are pressing for U.N. military action.

 

I'm pleased that, in common with many others, you are at odds with the Two Lunatics. It's a strange alliance.