image 1
Politics.... talk back and PMD!

After getting through to talkbalk on 774 3LO this morning, only to have my mobile start playing up, I'll rant my stuff here...

They were discussing whether there should be an inquiry to the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) intelligence information leading up to the war/conflict/shit-fight in Iraq.

All but one of the talk back people were for the inquiry, following along the lines of the USA and UK having their own. Most people were rather cynical of the process at the same time. The need of intelligence sources to be protected, combined with the fact the government doesn't actually want to be shown to have gone against all advice that there were no WMDs etc.

The point, however, that I wanted to make....

How can the USA and UK use the excuse of WMDs in Iraq hands as a reason to invade and overthrow a government (sure... it isn't a nice government, but there a lot of not nice governments in the world.... hello Zimbabwe!) when they themselves have WMDs. There was a UN requirement that Iraq not have WMDs, sure... thats good, although the UN didn't really back the "coalition of the willing" (CotW) did they.

I know I'm rambling.... but ... you get used to it.... ok.. the point.

It appears you are not allowed to have WMDs if you intend to use them or you have used them in the past (exemption for the USA... because..... um...¿). Therefore you are allowed to have WMDs if you do not intend to actually use them. Which means they can't even be a deterrent really, because if you use them, you're naughty and a "coalition of the willing" will come and tell you so.

To the original question, yes there should be an inquiry... it can't hurt really and it could give some light to a decision that confused and annoyed many Australians. To my point, out of the three main parties to the CotW, only Australia has the moral right to go in and slap the faces of a country for having WMDs (and wanting to use them) because the UK and USA have enough WMDs that they could be said to have EWMDtBtLSOotE (Enough Weapons of Mass Destruction to Blow the Living Shit Out of the Earth), whereas Australia has no WMDs... except for "Words of Minor Disturbance" which I think we can say is not threatening anyone.

In closing.... purple monkey dishwasher....


Let's have an inquiry that shows some people made a mistake. Now let's congratulate ourselves on overthrowing an evil man and making the world free for Coca-Cola and Mc Donald’s.

John Howard was elected (to a large extent) on the throwing of babies into the drink by refugees. It turns out this was a total fabrication and that the Muppet knew it was doubtful from the start. We know this, and he's still in there pulling the strings. Bush wanted to oust Saddahm. He did it. Next time he'll find another excuse (terrorism is still high on the list).
In the end does it matter why we did what we did? We did it, and we still support those who made it happen.
It's okay to kill and maim, as long as we are attacking evil people.... who kill and maim.... or might, one day........

Posted by: Sparker on February 3, 2004 05:06 PM

that's a good point Decay, that in Australia we don't have any WMDs, I'd never thought of it like that

(hence the reason we don't stand up to the dudes with lots of them...)

Posted by: Em on February 3, 2004 10:42 PM

Sparker - I must take exception to your statement about the PM. Being a life long fan of the Muppets I can say without hesitation that John Howard is neither a frog, a bear, a chicken or a whatever! (Well, he could be a whatever but not the same species as Gonzo the Great)!

Decay - I heartily concur with your closing statement.

Posted by: M34tb4ll on February 4, 2004 05:31 PM

Killing 1000 people is worse than killing one... unless you are the one. Oh well...

Posted by: Sparker on February 5, 2004 09:28 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?


Log In...
Install sidebar
Also Here...
Geek and news...