|
ACK!
by Richie Chevat
Saddam Hussein is really whack,
The guy is nuts, must be on crack,
An evil egomaniac-
But why must we attack Iraq?
The evidence we clearly lack
To track him to Bin Laden's pack,
I'd like to oust him and his claque,
But why must we attack Iraq?
Osama is the quarterback
Of world wide terror, he's the quack,
Who's planning now his big comeback,
So why do we attack Iraq?
Let's go INSPECT each desert shack,
And find each hidden weapons stack,
It's difficult and takes a knack,
But better than attack Iraq.
The economy right now is slack,
A war will only set it back,
Won't help Dow Jones or raise NASDAQ
So why should we attack Iraq?
Oh, if we do attack Iraq,
Won't be like eating Crackerjack
I wish that Bush were more laid back
He's giving me a cardiac!
Saddam escaped Bush Pere's attack,
Dad failed, now Dubya takes a whack,
Is family pride what makes him yack,
"It's time once more -- attack Iraq!"
If evil axes we must tackle,
Then North Korea we should shackle,
But lots of oil they seem to lack
And so we must attack Iraq?
It seems Iraq we must attack,
To put gas in your Pontiac,
Or your SUV, which drives off-track
(Though it only goes to work and back.)
The Stars and Stripes and Union Jack,
Are headed for a cul-de-sac
Is there now no turning back?
Why can't we take another tack?
The troops are in their bivouac
Soon Baghdad's skies will fill with flak
And so I ask each Jill and Jack,
From Frisco Bay to Hackensack,
From New Orleans to Fond du Lac,
OH, WHY MUST WE ATTACK IRAQ?
© 2003
To the tune of "If you're happy and you know it"
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it'all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.
If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
by: Audrey Bryant, Cornwall, UK
|
Terry Jones on Iraq
Mr. Bush is right, Saddam Hussein is a nasty man and nobody I know has the least objection to Mr. Bush killing him. It's just the way he proposes doing it that worries me. Dropping 3000 bombs in 48 hours on Baghdad is going to kill a lot of other people who, as far as I am aware, are not nasty at all.
That's the bit of the 'moral' argument I don't follow. It's a bit like the police saying they know a murderer comes from the south of England so they are going to execute everybody in Epsom.
Then again why does Mr. Bush need to drop 3000 bombs on Saddam Hussein? I would have thought one would have been enough to take him out, if he knows where Saddam is. And if he doesn't know where he is, what on earth is the moral justification for dropping any bombs at all? Doesn't Mr. Bush realise they are dangerous things and tend to kill people when they land?
Or does Mr Bush simply enjoy the idea of taking out a lot of Iraqis? I appreciate Mr. Bush's argument that because Saddam Hussein has refused to take any notice of the UN, Mr. Bush should teach him a lesson by dropping a lot of bombs on him. But now he's telling us that if the UN won't give him permission to do it, he's jolly well going to drop a lot of bombs on Saddam anyway. In which case won't Mr. Bush be guilty of the same thing he's accusing Saddam Hussein of? Apparently not because, according to the President's advisers, if the United Nations won't give him permission to drop a lot of bombs on Saddam Hussein, it will have ceased to be a Responsible World Organization and therefore he doesn't need to take any notice of it.
But doesn't the same thing go for Saddam Hussein? If the United Nations ceases to be a Responsible World Organization how can the fact that Saddam Hussein has refused to take any notice of it be something so evil that it justifies dropping bombs on the poor people living under his heel?
And that's another thing - everyone seems to be very certain that dropping a lot of bombs on Baghdad will get rid of Saddam Hussein. But will it? - any more than devastating Afghanistan (and killing maybe 20,000 people) got rid of Al-Qaeda? A recent UN report reckons that if and when the US starts bombing as many as 100,000 Iraqis will die.
I can't really believe that the President of the United States gets his rocks off by having people killed. That's more like Saddam Hussein.
And yet it worries me that Mr. Bush says that one of the reasons he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis is because Saddam Hussein has also been killing them. Is there some sort of rivalry here?
Back in 1988 Saddam killed several thousand at once, in the town of Halabjah. Since then he's been carrying on the good work, but on a piecemeal basis. In fact, for all I know, since his 1988 spree, he may not have killed any more of his own citizens than George W. Bush did as Governor of Texas. When Mr. Bush became Governor in 1995, the average number of executions per year was 7.6. Mr. Bush succeeded in quadrupling this to a magnificent 31.6 per year. He must have had the terrible chore of personally signing over 150 death warrants while he was Governor. I suppose the advantage of killing Iraqis is that you don't have to sign a piece of paper for every one of them. Just one quick scribble and - bingo! You can kill a hundred thousand and no questions asked! What's more, nobody is going to quibble about some of them being mentally retarded or juveniles, which is what happened to George W. Bush when he was Governor of Texas.
I'm not saying that George W. Bush shouldn't be allowed to kill as many people as he wants. After all he is the unelected leader of the most powerful country on earth, so if he can't do anything he likes, who can?
And, in the years to come, we can confidently look forward to a lot more killing all over the world - certainly a lot more than ever Saddam Hussein managed in his own country.
Terry Jones
|
