The Ultimate Idiotarian?From a Reuter's article:
A New Zealand woman said on Wednesday she was willing to be crucified by President Bush if he pledges not to attack Iraq.Is she a psychopathic dictator who has violated 18 U.N. resolutions? No? Then what would change for the better after she is crucified?
"Send your troops home and take me instead, on behalf of everyone in the world who does not want war and oppression," she wrote.Does that include Saddam's oppression of Iraqi citizens, the Kurds, and the Marsh Arabs? Why doesn't Ms. Martyr Complex offer herself to be crucified if Saddam pledges to step down or if Islamic terrorists pledge to stop blowing stuff up? Oh, right, I forgot: the U.S. is the only menace to world peace.
But the deal has a catch--Bush would have to personally hammer in the nails.The "courage" to crucify someone is the measure of a man? By that logic, Saddam, who is far more likely to enjoy crucifying someone, is a fine, upstanding, courageous fellow.
"I don't think he would have the courage to do it quite frankly, but that is the measure of a man," she told Radio New Zealand.
"Can he follow through with this aim of creating more chaos in the world if he had to do it just to one person himself?"So it's not about oil; it's about chaos--the Bush administration wants to create more chaos in the world. Frankly, I think this is an admirable goal, and just this morning I was thinking to my self:
"Self, there's just not enough chaos in the world."
Self replied: "You mean people flying planes into buildings, people blowing themselves up in marketplaces, crazed dictators destroying ancient ecosystems, and old-school communists threatening nuclear war isn't enough chaos for you? And then there's France, Kim Il Jong's hair, and Michael Jackson."
"Well, I admit that Michael Jackson almost tips the scale towards too much chaos, but, still, I need more chaos. So cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war!"
"OK, but how do you figure that a war against Iraq is going to bring on more chaos?"
"Look, self, isn't it obvious? War is chaos. The war in Iraq will be a humanitarian disaster involving the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens, followed by mass starvation and rampant disease--bring it on, baby!"
"But that's what was going to happen in Afghanistan, remember? It was going to be a q-u-a-g-m-i-r-e, and according to Chomsky, the U.S. was going to kill millions of Afghanis. Instead, men are going to movies, women are going to school, and children are playing baseball. Not to mention that parakeets are able to sing again--and I kid you not--something they weren't allowed to do under Taliban rule."
"What! Chomsky promised us millions of dead Afghanis, and by gum, I want 'em. Or I want my money back. Well, self, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that we created a lot more Bin Ladens who will one day wreak chaos upon the world!"
"I can't deny that there won't be new Bin Ladens, but isn't the opposite also possible? Isn't it possible that a lot of would-be Bin Ladens were defused when the U.S. destroyed the Taliban government? Isn't the same possible if we go to war with Iraq? Yes, some people will always hate us; but some people will change their mind. Look at what happened to Germany and Japan: they were militant imperialists bent on world domination and now they're militant pacifists, even though we nuked one of them and carpet bombed the other. The point is that the 'war leads to chaos and Armageddon' argument doesn't always hold water."
"Darn you, self! You're trampling on my dreams of bloodthirsty conquest and world chaos."
"That's it. I'm switching you to decaf."