What if George Bush were to use the most powerful weapon?

Aussiescribbler

Experienced
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Posts
69
Disarming the Enemy

Perhaps at this time of global crisis we can learn something from the words of two men.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:1-5) (New International Version, 1979)

"We are all murderers and prostitutes— no matter to what culture, society, class, nation one belongs, no matter how normal, moral, or mature, one takes oneself to be. "

Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing ("The Politics of Experience" (1967)

When will we learn that a world leader who refers to three countries as an "axis of evil", for wanting to develop weapons of mass destruction, while his own country is the number one owner, manufacturer and developer of all forms of such weapons, does nothing to make the world a more secure place.

Those who are willing to admit their own short-comings publicly, bring to their quest for peace, justice, democracy or freedom a moral authority which far exceeds that which can rest in a single individual. They align themselves with the spirit of a truth in which we all reside, like it or not.

I'm not recommending unilateral disarmament on the part of the United States. What I am suggesting as a different approach to pursuing the goal of a world in which nobody feels the need for weapons of mass destruction to protect themselves. Self-righteousness on the part of any nation only fuels conflict and clouds rational debate.

I have no doubt that it requires tremendous courage for George W. Bush (together with Tony Blair and John Howard) to stand in such heroic defiance of both world opinion and the words of the prophet whose religion they profess. Admiration for such courage is right and proper, but we shouldn't allow it to blind us to their inability to lead us to a safer world. (It should go without saying that Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il are even less effective leaders.)

This is a time for neither condemnation, nor capitulation. Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi never appeased their enemies, nor did they resort to violence, and yet each, in the long run, triumphed over the greatest empire of his time.

Imagine for a moment what might happen if President Bush stood up in front of the United Nations and said, "The United States is the world's major producer of weapons of mass destruction. We have armed brutal tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. And I personally have grown rich from my nation's addiction to fossil fuels at a time when reducing this addiction, due to it's environment impact and the likely economic impact of an approaching world oil shortage, should have been a priority. I have no right to preach to others. And yet I ask humbly, and in the name of humanity, that all nations join with me in the quest for a safer and fairer world. I will not abandon the ability to protect the citizens of my country from aggression. But I will no longer pretend to have a right to tell others what to do. Instead, in this time of trouble, I ask you to seek guidance from anyone who can give you greater understanding of yourselves and thus compassion for others, and I will do likewise."

Far from losing authority by such a pronouncement, I believe that he would go down in history as the greatest political leader who had ever lived.

This is a time for coming clean about ourselves, as individuals and as nations, on the grounds that our enemies can already see through our hypocrisy and it is only by admitting to it ourselves that we can disarm them in the deeper sense of the word.
 
Thanks, Lioness.

I'm a guy. :D David's the name. At your service. * He bows. *

I've got loads of erotic stories to post. I promise you'll see the less serious side of me soon.

:p

Aussie
 
Notable quotes, cheap attack........

With all your phoney good intentions, you attack the American President, instead of the Iraqi Dictator.
Don't take this too personal, but you are either naive, or intentionally deceiving.
 
Lost cause : It was not my intention to attack either George Bush or Saddam Hussein. And I don't accept the idea that, if one were to chose to attack either of them, one could not attack both at the same time.

I praised George Bush for his bravery, whereas I said nothing positive about Saddam Hussein. I only said that he is a less effective leader than George Bush. I don't feel it is necessary to detail all of the terrible things he has done, as there are plenty of other people doing that.

Can you deny that :

1. The United States has more weapons of mass destruction than any other country?

2. The United States sold weapons to Saddam Hussein?

3. George Bush became wealthy by dealing in oil?

4. World oil production is currently peaking while demand continues to increase?

5. This is liable to have dire economic consequences for the United States and the rest of the world?

I could have written a post in which I envisioned Saddam Hussein appearing before the United Nations and admitting to committing terrible attrocities against his own people, but somehow I think that that is even less likely to happen than the scenario I used.

Also, Saddam Hussein is not the leader of my country. While George Bush is not either, the fact that John Howard supports his current policy on Iraq means that he is, in effect, providing the political leadership, on that issue, for those of us living in Australia. This makes it more imperative for me to explain the differences between my views and his, lest those in other countries feel that he does indeed speak and act for me.

Of course this doesn't in anyway mean I don't have a right, maybe a responsibility, to express disapproval of : Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship; General Musharraf in Pakistan for overthrowing a democratically elected government and threatening to use nuclear weapons against India ; General Than Shwe of Myanmar (Burma) for the extensive use of torture and other forms of political oppression ; Kim Jong Il of North Korea for starving his own people in order to pay for a massive military and threatening nuclear war ; Ariel Sharon of Israel for aiding and abetting the massacre of refugees at the Sabra and Shattila refugee camps ; various assorted Palestinians for blowing up innocent Israeli civilians (along with themselves) ; those prominent individuals in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates who are reportedly the major funders of Al-Queda... The list could no doubt go on and on.

By the way, here is another quote you might wish to add to your signature. :p

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
 
Try a link or two...

Hanns_Schmidt said:
Another spastic who thinks he has a clue about politics.

http://www.crisispapers.org/Topics/homeland_security.htm... or even the one.
 
Hanns_Schmidt said:
Another spastic who thinks he has a clue about politics.

Are you, Hanns? That's a good attempt at the kind of honesty I am suggesting, but you really shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
 
Somme : Thanks for the link. It looks very useful. I hope Hanns checks it out too. The link he posted is worth visiting as well to remind us of what war (and terrorism) can entail. Children die. Israeli or Iraqi, they do not chose their country's leaders.

Here are a couple of my favourites :

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

The guy who runs the latter has his own particular biases and wild theories, but you can't complain too much about a site that gets updated twice or three times a day with links to some of the most interesting stories in the world media. Just a case of using the old bullshit detector on anything that sounds suspect.
 
Last edited:
TheDR4KE : Being new to this site I had to do a bit of searching to find out about the (obviously) legendary glamorilla.

Now that I know who you are referring to I have to admit that a bit of glamorilla warfare could be fun. :devil:

As long as we innocent civilians were able to watch from a safe distance. :eek:
 
Welcome Scribbler

Hey Scribbler mate, welcome to Lit. Drop over to the "aussies" thread on the other Board and say G'day to most of the other aussies . . . or drop in to the Literotica Bar, where all the yanks lurk to find out how aussies enjoy the world . . . good to see another local face . . . gotta fly . . . :D :devil: :D
 
Aussiescribbler said:
But I will no longer pretend to have a right to tell others what to do.

That's fine.

I, however, retain the right to tell anyone to stop slaughtering and torturing people by the thousands, and to use force to stop them if they do not.

Oh, and the line about Jesus not resorting to violence was commendable, but wrong. A few moneychangers in a Jerusalem temple would back me up on it.
 
Re: Re: What if George Bush were to use the most powerful weapon?

JazzManJim said:
That's fine.

I, however, retain the right to tell anyone to stop slaughtering and torturing people by the thousands, and to use force to stop them if they do not.

Oh, and the line about Jesus not resorting to violence was commendable, but wrong. A few moneychangers in a Jerusalem temple would back me up on it.

You are free to tell Saddam Hussein to stop slaughtering and torturing people. Will he listen to you? I don't think so. In fact he would probably go out and torture a few more just to piss you off even more.

I'd be quite happy for you to stop him by force as well, as long as you could do it without harming anyone else. Remember that the Iraqi people did not vote for him. And if you were an Iraqi and Saddam wanted you in his army you would not have the option of saying "No." (Well, you could. You could even try shooting a few of the officers when they handed you your gun, but you'd be dead or worse in short order.)

If you could prove to me that less people would suffer from an American invasion of Iraq than from leaving Saddam Hussein in power, I would stop arguing against war. But no-one can prove something like that, and the reverse is likely to be the case. No matter how dire a situation is, it is better to do nothing than to do something which will definitely make the situation worse.

As for Jesus and the money changers, I agree one could claim he used violence in that situation. It is a matter of interpretation. If you are drunk and disorderly in a bar, the bouncer may "throw you out". In the broadest definition of the term you could call that violence, but it is not the same as killing someone or seriously injuring them. The effect that Jesus had on the world came from his uncompromising truthfulness not from physical force. (Though it is true that many acts of attrocious violence were later carried out in his name.)
 
Re: Re: What if George Bush were to use the most powerful weapon?

JazzManJim said:
That's fine.

I, however, retain the right to tell anyone to stop slaughtering and torturing people by the thousands, and to use force to stop them if they do not.

Oh, and the line about Jesus not resorting to violence was commendable, but wrong. A few moneychangers in a Jerusalem temple would back me up on it.

Hmmm . . . so the Easter rebellion against the Romans has more credibility than is given in the edited version of what we call the Bible . . . makes more sense that way I s'pose . . . crucifixion for an inter-class fight between Jews was never that high on the Roman scale of punishments . . .

Hey JMJ . . . are you available as security for the next sale season at Maceys and Harrods?? Could use that sort of muscle idea when fighting for the specials . . . :)
 
Cool post.

I will be a bit more harsh in judging GW Bush. Christ would be against this war. As he would be against any war. Killing innocents, whether intended or not, to protect your life just relegates you to the same status as those you condemn.

Bush claims to be a Christian as do many of those supporting him, yet they know nothing of his teachings. Or what being a "Christian" means. The pharisee's made the same mistake as many Christians are making today. They expected their messiah to weild a sword against the tyranny of Rome. When he did not they refused to believe.

Vengeance is God's domain.
Love thine enemy.
Turn the other cheek.
 
Thanks IronPhantom.

While I don't really think of myself as a Christian specifically (due to a rationalist's inability to take concepts like Heaven and Hell, the resurrection, miracles, etc., literally). I do, however, take great inspiration from Christ's words, especially in times like this.

"You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth-pains." Matthew 24:6-8.

It's important to try to keep an eye on the big picture. Driving the greed and aggression in the world is a desire to escape the truth about ourselves, but the truth always catches up in the long run. And I do believe that when it does, frightened by it as we may be, it will set us free.
 
Good post scribbler. Dont worry about the personal attacks. You used reason which always sends this crew into a shrill akin to trying to drive by a McDonalds with a car full of kids and not stopping.

Welcome to Lit...
 
brokenbrainwave said:
drive by a McDonalds with a car full of kids and not stopping.

Welcome to Lit...

Which would be sin for sure at my house!!!!
 
Thanks brokenbrainwave and huskie : I feel very welcome. Personal attacks don't bother me. Just shows that something has struck home.

As I always say, "Truth is like dog shit. Once someone steps in it, no matter how much distaste they may have for it, some of it is bound to stick." :D
 
brokenbrainwave said:
Good post scribbler. Dont worry about the personal attacks. You used reason which always sends this crew into a shrill akin to trying to drive by a McDonalds with a car full of kids and not stopping.

Welcome to Lit...
godddddddddd.......<trots off laughing>..........very funny and so true!
 
good day, aussie... thanx for the very true post.

hope you enjoy yourself here at lit. :)
 
Welcome to the board AussieScribbler.

Thank you for the thread. Like the others have said, don't mind those that spout ignorance when they can't clearly make a point using facts.

Those without knowledge use snide comments and poor attitude to mask the fact they have little concept of what is really going on.

My favorite quote by the outspoken Michael Moore is as follows :

"Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either! "

i support the men and women in the armed forces across the world. They believe in what they do and do what they believe in.

Have a good day
 
Thanks Somme, Adreinna and His_sugar! :)

His_sugar : After seeing "Bowling for Columbine" I can't praise Michael Moore too highly. (I was also a big fan of his first movie "Roger and Me" but the new one is even better.)

I haven't posted any more on the war since it started because I think that the day to day realities (or at least as much as filters through the mainstream media) make the point more strongly than I ever could that this war was a mistake.

I have to say though that it seems strange to me that Al Jazeera is getting such heated criticism for showing images of those killed in the war. It seems it is O.K. to kill people, but in very poor taste to show it on television. Oh, well.
 
Back
Top