- The US President claims that Iraq is a threat, and a
threat requiring immediate and decisive action. An action requiring regime
change,. He says that the United States has a right to pre-emptively strike
a perceived enemy it deems a serious security risk to the United States.
-
- Soif the US has this right, doesn't any other country?
Doesn't Israel, which has nuclear capability, have the right to crush
the Palestinians, who don't? Or the other way around? Doesn't India,
which has nuclear weapons, have the right to demolish its arch-enemy Pakistan,
which also has nuclear weapons? Or vice-versa? Doesn't North Korea, which
recently admitted to having a nuclear program, have the right to take out
South Korea? Or the other way around? How about Russia? Isn't Chechnya
a threat? Or the other way around? Doesn't China, another nuclear power,
have the right to remove any perceived threat from Taiwan? What about
Nepal? Surely these countries are no threat to China at the momentbut
someday, they could be. Right? Isn't that the logic? Someday, a certain
country may conceivably pose a threat to another country. These days, all
it takes is money. It's best to take out that country now"according
to George Bush.
-
- In fact, just to be sure, why not take out any country
which has demonstrated animosity towards your own country? After all,
someday, they just may develop the capability to destroy you, especially
in this Nuclear Age. Don't you think other countries, especially those
in the Axis-of-Evil Club, are thinking that very thing"right this
moment? If Saddam Hussein had known years ago that the United States would
one day pre-emptively take him out, don't you think he would have made
arrangements to give the United States a going-away present? [By the way,
it's still possible that nuclear-capable countries sympathetic to his plight
may have already made arrangements with him for just such an event. Isn't
it?]
-
- So, using this logic, any country should have the right
to take out any other country it deems is simply a threat to their own
security.
-
- Using this logic, Iraq should have the right to take
out the United States, if it can. Right? So should any other country.
This is not mere rhetoric. It represents a complete and abrupt about-face
in world affairs. Previous to the Bush Doctrine,, countries could feel
relatively safe in this spy-satellite age in that if they did not attack
anyone, they would not be attacked themselves.
-
- Not anymore. The world changed while we were sleeping,
and we have awakened to a nightmare.
-
- No longer can countries live and let live,. No longer
can countries relax if they are not bothering anybody. No longer can countries
feel secure- because now, there is the Doctrine of Pre-emptive [Nuclear]
Attack. This is not a simple blip on the radar screen. It is not a comment
to be thrown off and disregarded. It is not something that, if ignored,
will go away. George W. Bush, the current occupant of the Oval Office,
has single-handedly and irrevocably, changed the world. Overnight.
-
- And not for the better.
-
- Consider the implications of this simple philosophy.
The United States, possibly sincerely, believes it is at risk from Iraq,
and even though Iraq has not attacked, or even threatened to attack the
United States (claims of Al-Qaeda connections are spurious at best), George
Bush claims the right of self-defense,. Self-defense from what? A possible,
many-years-in-the-future scenario which may or may not happen? Think about
this for just a moment. Really think about it. What is this, a pre-crime,?
And are the citizens next?
-
- What this means, in simple terms, is that as of this
moment, any country in the world has the right to attack any other country.
Right now. Not years from now, when they see a military build-up and tanks
driving to their borders. Not months from now, when they see plants turning
out those tanks. Not weeks from now, when they see government representatives
select defense contractors. Not days from now, when a government submits
a defense budget which appears to be targeting your country. Right now,
right this minute, as you are reading this, another country is probably
already planning, or even executing, a pre-emptive, attack simply because
they believe a particular country may threaten them in the future. Do
you get it? The world is now a different place. We cannot go back. The
world is far more dangerous today than it was before the doctrine of pre-emption
became legitimized by a country which should have known better.
-
- If it stopped there, it would be bad enough. But it
doesn't stop there. This doctrine can lead only to one conclusion. With
the knowledge and availability of nuclear-weapons ingredients relatively
easy to obtain (not very easy, but with enough money it should not be an
insurmountable obstacle), you can see where this will lead. Someday- and
it seems this will be sooner rather than later- someone will decide that
enough is enough and it is time to pull the nuclear dead-man's switch.
This is not idle conjecture. As of this writing, North Korea has stated
it intends to become a Nuclear Power, and if the United States tries to
take out the reactor [the way the Israelis took out the Iraqi reactor in
1981], it will respond with a nuclear strike. That sounds like a believable
statement. After all, how comfortable can you be knowing that you may suffer
an invasion any moment? The fact that the US is conducting war games,
in South Korea does nothing to reduce the possibility of either an intentional
or accidental launch. Would you be more likely or less likely to press
the nuclear button if you were going to be attacked anyway? North Korea
may decide that the US cannot be trusted, for some unfathomable reason,
and strike first. And while we wait for the inevitable, and inevitable
means just that, this philosophy will trickle down, to individual people.
Soon, people will pre-emptively, attack others, and use the Bush Doctrine
as their defense. Just watch. They may even win.
-
- It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. So what can
the decision makers in the United States be thinking? Don't they have
geniuses in the Cabinet? On second thought, maybe that's the problem.
Maybe these people have out-thought themselves.
-
- Consider:
-
- George Bush identified three countries as the Axis of
Evil. By all appearances, one of those countries, Iraq, will soon be put
on the ash-heap of history (pardon the expression). And apparently the
second of the three, Iran, is much further ahead, in nuclear arms development
than the United States had figured, but is not nuclear-weapons-capable
at the moment. So take a guess"who will be next on this "Hit
Parade"? If you said Iran " bingo.
-
- It's curious, isn't it, that the one country- North Korea-
which is actively provoking the United States with threats of nuclear attack
can apparently be dealt with diplomatically,. What lesson do you think
that teaches the world? If you say "unless you have nuclear weapons
we will obliterate your country" you apparently have more common sense
than all the brainiacs in the White House put together. So now guess what?
More and more countries will get on the nuclear merry-go-bomb. And they
won't be slow about it either.
-
- On the other hand, if you think Kim Jong-il is simply
traipsing thru daisy fields and practicing tai-chi, while being completely
oblivious and unconcerned with these developments, you just may qualify
for a position with the White House Genius Brigade.
-
- These are not idle thoughts, or just good for coffee
break banter.
-
- This new doctrine has opened the gates of hell, and we
are not long for the entrance. Abandon Hope, because once the first nuke
clears the Wild Blue, it's open season for nuclear hunting. Do you really
think that other countries won't want to launch what they have while they
still can? Perhaps you think back to the old days, of the Soviet Union
vs. the United States, while the doctrine of balance of power, and Mutually
Assured Destruction was in effect. This doctrine would preclude any attack
because it meant your own imminent demise. But this new doctrine completely
throws that out. For one thing, there are no longer only two countries
with nuclear weapons capability, keeping each other in check. There are
at least 33 countries with nuclear capability now. Not that they necessarily
all have nuclear weapons"but it is proven that at least some of them
are using their nuclear reactors for more than just electricity (and the
Bush Doctrine may push other countries to develop them secretly). For
another, it's not just countries that have access to these Insane Earthicide
Machines. "NGOs""Non-governmental
-
- Organizations"also have access to "IEMs".
After all, money talks, especially in these days of formerly employed
Soviet nuclear scientists. Also, NGOs don't need missiles to deliver these
weapons, thanks to convenient cash-and-carry suitcase, bombs. Nor are they
lacking for ready, willing, and able messengers to deliver the bad news.
Now, if you don't know who delivered
-
- the bomb, you can't strike back. So then what? Just
make a case against any convenient terrorist-harboring, country and attack
that one?
-
- Either that, or simply wait for the next messenger-martyr
of doom while grinding the jackboot deeper into your citizens.
-
- Do you see?
-
- We have passed the Point of No Return. It's seriously
time to get your affairs in order. You may not believe this, or you may
not wish to believe it. But the logic cannot be avoided. If you are going
to be attacked anyway, by a country with insurmountable military might,
and you have nuclear weapons, you are going to let them fly. If you truly
believe you will suffer a pre-emptive strike which will destroy your nuclear
stockpile, as well as your ability to defend yourself, you are going to
launch. Why would you not?
-
- Let's put it another way: If Iraq has even one nuclear
bomb, and the United States goes in, do you think the bomb will be used?
Of course it will. And that incident will possibly trigger a chain of
events previously unknown to us"complete, total, back-to-stone-knives-and-bearskins
nuclear annihilation. It is not impossible. It is not even improbable.
Right now, according to CNN.com, there are at least 35,000 nuclear warheads
in existence. Thirty-five thousand. Right now. With more on the way. There
are approximately 200 countries in the world, so that's about 175 nukes
for every country. That's a lot of boo-boos. And these boo-boos can't
easily be kissed away, sorry to say.
-
- The lucky ones may be those close enough to see the light
and feel the burn. Because unless your idea of fun comes straight out
of Mad Max, you're gonna be in for a whole heap of very bad days strung
together.
-
- This is the legacy of George Bush, and the United States.
The defender of liberty, protector of the oppressed, the haven of opportunity.
A country which should have known better.
-
- Now, there is a chance-slight for sure- that we can still
dodge the nuclear bullet. But denying the possibility of nuclear war makes
it more likely, not less. First, we need to accept the very real possibility
that we can and will blow ourselves up. After that, we really need to
give up judgment, and start minding our own business. Like now, right
this moment. Resolve to live and let live, to stay out of other people's
business, and to insist that your government does the same. I assure you,
this is the only chance we have. Otherwise, the dominoes have already
started falling, and there is some horrible, unimaginably grisly news waiting
at the other end.
|
