Here is Noam Chomsky’s solution to the Iraq thing. (it’s a bit too late now that it’s pretty much over, but still worth reading to see how silly Bush & his crew is) In case you don’t know who Chomsky is (or think he’s just another stupid highschool-dropout celeb), look at his condensed CV here
“If we want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, there are easier ways to do it. In fact, there are easier ways by war, much easier ways. A perfectly obvious one-let me point out before I even mention it that this suggestion is totally insane; its only merit is it’s a lot more reasonable than what’s being discussed. So, one possibility is to unleash Iran; we can offer them logistic support, missile & bombing, all from a safe distance-let them do the fighting. That has lots of advantages over what’s being proposed. For one thing, just think about them for a minute, they’ll not only get rid of Saddam, they’ll tear him to shreds & anybody who’s anywhere near him, they’ll eliminate every trace of weapons of mass destruction which really threaten them [some sarcasm here] & furthermore they’ll do it for any successive regime-which the US won’t do. So they’ll make a real contribution to disarmament in the region and in fact they’ll even live up to a paragraph of the famous resolution 687-which is always omitted when it’s reported-namely the article 14 which says that Iraq should be part of general disarmament in the region. That makes sense. And by disarming successive regimes to Saddam, they’ll be a big help there. Another advantage is there’ll be no American casualties, there won’t be any Israeli casualties, there’s no point in shooting off SCUDs @ Israel when its prime enemy is invading, that would be ridiculous. So no casualties, that’s fine… plenty of Iraqi & Iranian casualties, but that can’t possibly be a concern. I mean, the US was, these guys in Washington were supporting massive Iranian & Iraqi casualties in the 80s, they continued through the 90s, probably Saddam would use chemical weapons, but again, that can’t possible be a concern, we not only supported him when he did in the past but continued to aid him in developing more. In fact, help him to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction well after, so that can’t be it. No problems with the UN, we wouldn’t have to go through that nonsense. If anybody bothered to stop the liberation of Iraq, the US could just veto it as usual [the crowd laughs], but it wouldn’t come up anyway. There’s no question that Iranian troops would probably be welcomed in a large part of the country, remember 60-65% of the country is Shiite, not pro-Iranian, but they’re much more likely to be welcoming to Iranian troops than American troops, In fact, in Basra & Karbolla [sp?] they’ll be shouting from the rooftops thanking the liberators & we can all join the Iranian journalists who are writing about the liberation & the noble effort in opening a new era of humanitarian intervention & we can all join in on that. We’re spared the embarassment of pretending our leaders have suddenly gone through a miraculous conversion for which there isn’t a particle of evidence. They’ll be able, much better than we, in introducing democracy in Iraq. The US is going to have a big problem with making sure that the large majority of the population has essentially no voice. If we want to talk about the Kurds, they’ll be in trouble. The US has a horrendous record with regard to Kurds. Most recently in Turkey, where the US was, right through the Clinton administration, some of the owrst atrocities of the 1990s were being carried out in southeastern Turkey where millions of people were driven from their homes, tens of thousands were killed, every barbaric form of torture you can imagine. In the single year 1997 alone, the Clinton administration sent more arms to Turkey than in the entire Cold-War period combined, up until the onset of what is called, for example in the Boston Globe, the counter-terror campaign. Counter terror is what we call “our terrorism.” If you read the Globe this morning, yeah it was this. Save the Kurds? That’s not very substantial… & so on, what’s that matter with that? & why isn’t it being discussed? Notice it isn’t being discussed & there’s a very good reason for it, it’s crazy. It’s totally crazy, but it’s just a lot more reasonable than what is being proposed. Think it through in your spare time, there’s only one flaw in this proposal. The flaw is: it’s not going to leave the US in control of Iraqi oil, and it’s not going to solve the domestic political problems of the reactionary right-wing oligarchy. Other than that, I don’t see any flaws in it.”
Now, I’ll tell you how you’ll respond because you?re so predictable:
BostonBarrister:“That oil stuff is just a conspiracy theory, right up there with ghosts & the world being run by shape-shifting lizards from the 12th Planet”
AvoidsRoids:“Go wait @ the bus stop for that girl you pathetic mouse”
Cupcake, CMG & others from Calgary: ?I?m embarrassed to be Canadian?
everyone else:“Michael Moore AND NOW Noam Chomsky (& Rick Mercer too if he was American) should be sent to jail because they’re just so unpatriotic”