Governments are finding themselves in a pickle with this
war in Iraq, aren't they. Increasingly people don't believe their
political leaders any more for the very good reason that we know they're
And haven't they been caught out in some porkies! Did Tony Blair
really expect to pass off a ten year old plagiarised paper as a damning dossier
of "the latest British intelligence"? Even US government officials and
analysts are very unhappy about the president and his cabinet using "cooked
Only simpletons believe the war against Iraq is because
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. This war has been planned for a
long time. Lusted after, in fact, in the same way as the American generals
lusted after a war with Cuba. That it has been planned is the subject of this
In October last year a successful American businessman chided me
for having the audacity to criticize the most moral nation on earth, the United
States for its belligerence towards Iraq. His deeply held convictions can
give us an insight into the mind of a patriotic American. He said:
is the moral cesspool of the world and since God blessed America with super
powers like Superman, America is obliged to protect the world from evil. With
the blessings of such strength come obligations. So Americans will protect the
world from al Qaida whether the rest of us like it or not. America is stationed
throughout the world to be partners with God in making the world a better place
by rooting out evil.
He thinks Rumsfeld is a beautiful, decent,
bible-believing Christian and says it's understandable that non-Americans are
just jealous of America. The rest of the world doesn't accept America's hegemony
because children always resent their parents. Americans don't dominate because
they're too moral to do so. They just lead.
Now that's the sincere
viewpoint of an American businessman. OK, so he's just one man.
well known American historian, Robert Kagan, "as good children of the
Enlightenment, [Americans] still believe in the perfectablity of man, and they
retain hope for the perfectability of the world.... Americans ... will
defend the townspeople, whether the townspeople want them to or not."
Here's another academic, Donald Kagan, "You saw the movie, High Noon?
... We're Gary Cooper".
And recall President Bush's words after
September 11, "How do I respond when I see that in some Islamic countries there
is vitriolic hatred for America? I'll tell you how I respond: I'm amazed. I just
can't believe it because I know how good we are."
"How good we are".
This conviction of their righteousness is why the Bush administration believes
that they are not only morally entitled, but duty bound to run the
Back in 1992 Paul Wolfowitz wrote a blueprint for a new world
order under American authority backed by military force.
outlined how the US should deter potential competitors, including 'allies' such
as Germany and Japan, from even aspiring to a regional let alone a global role.
He called for deterrence and containment to be replaced by domination. He
supported pre-emptive attacks and didn't rule out using nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons against potential rivals. He saw ad hoc coalitions replacing
Fast forward to today's 'coalition of the willing'
- or COW seeing as the Americans love acronyms. Is John Howard aware that that
the US policy justifying this war was written over ten years ago? Is he aware
that the policy caused a scandal when it was released? That the Europeans were
shocked? And that Bush Snr rejected it because it was so radical?
After Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 Wolfowitz went back to
academia until the second Bush was elected in 2000. He's now deputy Secretary of
Evidence of America's plan to oust Saddam Hussein first appeared
in a report for the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu written by three
Americans - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. They recommended
"removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq" to foil Syria's regional
ambitions." That was in 1996.
They weren't just any Americans.
Until yesterday Perle chaired Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Feith is an
undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is an assistant to the undersecretary of
State for Arms Control. Did anybody mention a conflict of interests
here? Pat Buchanan isn't the only person who's noted that the Likudniks are
running Bush's foreign policy.
Another 1996 article revealed the
mindset of the neoconservatives who currently lead the United States.
William Kristol and Robert Kagan deplored that the American public "was more
intent on cashing in the peace dividend, than on spending to deter and fight
future wars." For the neocons, peace is for wussbags.
they even deplored the lack of a visible threat to US interests, and to world
peace. They fretted that defense spending was less that 20 percent of the
federal budget when back in 1962 it ran at almost 50 percent!
America's international role be, they asked? "Benevolent global hegemony". They
said any criticism of that hegemony should be regarded as a compliment - and a
guide to further action. They reasoned the more Washington spends taxpayers'
money on showing foreigners that it's futile to compete with American power, the
cheaper the defense budget is in the long run!
They were afraid that if
the United States stopped throwing its weight around, the American people would
want cuts in the defense and foreign affairs budgets.
As for John Quincy
Adams' warning to America not to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy,
they said, "But why not?" Why not when "America has the capacity to contain or
destroy many of the world's monsters." In their warped minds the American
republican virtue of leading by example is a policy of cowardice and
What if America alienates the whole world with its wars?
Bush Jnr has already considered it. "At some point we may be the only ones
left," he told his closest advisers, "that's OK with me. We are America."
(I don't know about you but that reminds me of the old joke about Johnny's
passing out parade: "Look", says his mum proudly, "our Johnny's the only one in
But the most notorious of these documents calling for Saddam
Hussein's removal is one published in September 2000 - one year before
those horrific attacks. It's by an organization called 'The Project for the New
The Project was established in 1997 as "a non-profit
educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions". One of
those fundamental propositions was that American leadership is good for America
and good for the world .
You won't be surprised to know that two of the
directors are Kristol and Kagan. Nor that it's funded by three foundations
closely tied to Gulf oil and the weapons and defense industries.
According to the Project, the United States should seize the opportunity
of its military supremacy to shape a new century favorable to American
principles and interests. They go on, "Of course, the United States must be
prudent in how it exercises its power" but America must accept the
responsibility of global leadership and bear the costs.
The scary bit is
that the Project's 1997 Statement of Principles was signed by people many of
whom now hold high office in Bush Jnr's administration: Dick Cheney
is vice president; Cohen and Libby are on Defense
Advisory Board ; Donald Rumsfeld is Defense secretary; and Paul Wolfowitz is
Deputy Defense Secretary. They all signed it.
As did Zalmay Khalilzad.
He's Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan, and soon to 'free Iraq'. He
hosted meetings with the Taliban and Unocol in Texas in December 1997 about the
$2 billion pipeline but the deal fell through. Apparently the Taliban wanted too
much money. And we all know what happened to the Taliban.
But these wars
have nothing to do with oil. As one American commented during the war against
Afghanistan, "If the chief export of this area were broccoli do you think
this stuff would be going on?"
In 1998 these same people - Rumsfeld,
Perle, Wolfowitz, etc - wrote to President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq.
They said given the magnitude of the threat posed by Hussein military action was
needed in the near term because "diplomacy is clearly failing." They said
"removing Saddam Hussein ... now needs to become the aim of American foreign
policy [emphasis added]." That was said in 1998.
They didn't win
Clinton over but they got a consolation prize. Congress passed the Iraq
Liberation Act which made trying to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power in
Iraq US policy. That Act provided a cool $97 million dollars for groups
trying to overthrow the Iraqi government - a clear violation of Iraq's
sovereignty and a clear violation of international law.
But hey! who
cares about international law when you're the boss cocky of the
The Project's principal author, Thomas Donnelly, acknowledged his
debt to Wolfowitz's notorious 1992 paper saying its basic tenets remained sound:
America should preserve and extend its global leadership by maintaining US
He listed the US military's four core
1. Defend the homeland
2. Fight and decisively win multiple
3. Perform constabulary duties to shape the security
environment in critical areas - and that's what they're trying to get away with
right now in Iraq
4. Transform the US forces for their role as enforcers of
the American peace.
Here's a quick overview of the thinking of the
neoconservatives according to this Report: As the bipolar world is dead it's in
America's interest to deter the rise of any competitor. It's time to end
the Clinton fiction that US operations in the Gulf are temporary, because the US
is there to stay. Arms control measures are for wusses.
America should remain the world's pre-eminent nuclear power to deter other
countries from acquiring WMDs. Interestingly Donnelly acknowledged that
such weapons were the so-called rogue states' only hope of resisting American
domination, - or what he called "the American peace". American
political leadership should take precedence over the UN's.
As for Iraq,
they couldn't have been clearer: " the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam
In other words, Saddam Hussein has to go so the United
States can establish a friendly regime that will host US bases in Iraq. A US Air
Force presence in the Gulf is "vital" for US military strategy and it's time to
stop pussyfooting around Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The scope of America's
'interests' is breathtaking. The United States doesn't want Europe to develop an
independent defence policy ; and they want to increase their forces in
Southeast Asia to cope with China. South America's airfields will be at
their disposal .
Australia gets a mention. Because the United States
wants a stronger naval presence in Southeast Asia they'll need a semi-permanent
home port, "perhaps in Australia, the Philippines or both. It would be
good if Australia could also host an Air Force base because sending long-range
bomber operations out of Australia would greatly enhance American operations in
East Asia. An Australian base could even include the special maintenance
facilities needed to operate the B-2 and other stealth aircraft.
that's not all! They want to base a second Marine Expeditionary Force with
the proposed naval carrier battle group that will be stationed in Australia, the
Philippines, or both.
The United States wants to control space and have
the abilty to deny others the use of space. It also thinks the
development of a bioweapon that can target specific genotypes would be a useful
development. Yes you heard right. Here's the quote: such weapons "may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
("We're so good!")
In short America's new security perimeter encompasses
the world. But they faced a big problem: how to get Congress to
approve the huge increases needed to realize America's new role? Donnelly
lamented that, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Harbor" it's going to take a long time.
When pressed to elaborate on
what "a new Pearl Harbor" meant the Project's assistant director replied, "They
needed more money to up the defense budget ... Without some disaster or
catastrophic event neither the politicians nor the military would have approved.
Fast forward to 911 - and let's remember we still don't know who did it
because there was never a proper investigation. Whatever the truth it's pretty
obvious that 911 provided the excuse for these neo-conservatives to seize
the moment. They got their catastrophe; they got more money; and now, after the
Afghanistan sideshow in which more people died than in the 911 attacks - they've
got their war against Iraq.
On September 12th 2001, the day after the
attacks, one of the 1997 signers called William J. Bennett told CNN that
America was in "a struggle between good and evil". He said the United States
should declare war on militant Islam and use overwhelming force against Lebanon,
Lybia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and for some reason - China. That none of those
countries had anything to do with the attacks didn't seem to worry Mr
In fact the neoconservatives' responses to 911 were so absurd
and over-the-top that they've generated widespread scepticism about the official
story all over the world.
Within hours of the attacks American
authorities had blamed one man: Osama bin Ladin. But a lot of people have noted
how Osama seems to just fade in and out of the story as needed. Producing a new
video of the very photogenic Osama is guaranteed to distract Americans
from their dead duck economy and threatened dollar.
A few days after the
attacks Wolfowitz made a case for war against Iraq instead of Afghanistan
because Iraq was "doable". But they attacked Afghanistan anyway.
Jonah Goldman, another neocon stupidly said, "The United States needs to go to
war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq
makes the most sense. It does? This unsavoury character is also on record
as saying, "Every ten years or so the United States needs to pick up some crappy
little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean
business." ("I just can't believe it because we're so
Remember, dear people, these American neoconservatives claim to
be engaged in a battle with evil. They think they're the good guys. The ones
wearing the white hats.
Just nine days after the attacks the same old
gang wrote to President Bush singing the same old song. They admitted there was
no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to the attacks, but said any
response to terrorism must include removing Saddam Hussein from power in
A year later Norman Podhoretz, who's one of the leaders of
the pro-Israel neoconservatives, called for "richly deserved" regime changes not
only in the 'axis of evil' but also in Syria, Lebanon and Libya. For good
measure he tossed in the US "friendly" countries of Saudi Arabia and Egypt as
well as the Palestinian Authority.
Were the neoconservatives embarrassed
by talk about regime changes in US-friendly governments? No. Referring to the
President of Egypt, Richard Perle insultingly said, "Mubarak is no great shakes.
Surely we can do better than Mubarak."
These are the champions of
democracy? It's not that they don't know that their arrogance infuriates their
allies and enemies alike. They don't care.
And for all the charges of
anti-Semitism hurled at their critics it was Podhoretz who made the Israel
link. He approvingly described the four pillars of the Bush doctrine as:
the rejection of moral relativism
2. the necessity for a military response to
3. the right to pre-emptive strikes
4. the assimilation of
Israel's war against terror into the United States' war against terrorism.
He said there's not a smidgin of difference between what the United
States was doing in Afghanistan and Sharon sending forces into the West Bank.
Podhoretz also said America must impose a new political culture on the
defeated parties. Note the plural, Mr Howard.
Podhoretz scorned anybody
who wanted evidence of Iraq's complicity with 911 before America could "attack
Saddam Hussein and do unto his regime what we had just done to the Taliban in
He's not the only one using such cadences in his speech.
Richard Perle's language is equally bizarre. Listen to this: "All this talk
about how first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is
entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go
forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever
diplomacy but just wage total war ... our children will sing great songs about
us years from now."
Incredibly, the Project people have vehemently
denied any influence on Bush's foreign policy. Kagan said the group had wanted
to change US foreign policy but had failed.
Security Strategy document (NSS) , released on September 20 2002 makes the
neoconservatives' denials farcical. All the phrases we heard in the
documents I've covered are in this one: deterrence isn't appropriate any more;
pre-emptive attacks are legitimate; US military forces must be
Without any irony this document lists the characteristics of
rogue states as ones which:
* brutalize their own people and squander their
national resources for the personal gain of the rulers. (So why did the United
States support Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, the Shah in
Iran, Somoza in Nicaragua, Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, and Mobutu
in Congo/Zaire.... Currently they're supporting Uzbekistan, a country with
an appalling human rights record, because it's convenient for US bases. )
display no regard for international law; threaten their neighbours; and
callously violate international treaties.
* are determined to acquire
weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology.
sponsor terrorism around the globe.
* reject basic human values and hate the
United States and everything for which it stands.
What about the human
rights of all those men languishing at Guantanamo Bay? Literally locked up in
cages with the keys thrown away.
For all the fine rhetoric about democracy, freedom, respect
for human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state (!), free
speech, and peaceful relations with other states - the bottom line of this
document is all about ...... opening up markets.
This document arrogantly
proclaims that in the 21st century there is one "single sustainable model for
national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise." It says the United
States will use this moment of opportunity ... to bring the hope of democracy,
development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the
It praises Indonesia for opening up its markets. It promises
Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Chile and Colombia that economic integration will
advance security and prosperity, though it doesn't say whose. It promises
to help Latin American countries adjust their economies. Like Argentina's
perhaps? Exports are up, and so are children's deaths from malnutrition.
The United States will encourage foreign countries to adopt:
pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment
* tax policies - particularly lower marginal tax rates - that improve
incentives for work and investment;
* strong financial systems;
fiscal policies to support business activity;
* investments in health and
education (note how the key word is investment)
How does all this
American interference and unasked for 'help' square with genuine democracy? It
looks like the world's people will be denied any freedom in how they order their
societies because this bullying document says, "Policies that further
strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all
economies - industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing
The King of Bhutan would beg to differ: he ranks his country's
Gross National Happiness higher than its Gross National Product. Since
when did one size fit all?
Many Australians would also beg to differ.
People aren't all the same. The default setting for a human being isn't an
American capitalist. Americans revere wealth to a degree that many Australians
Australians have traditionally achieved more through
co-operation than competition. Contrary to Christian teaching, Americans really
do admire 'winners' and really do despise 'losers'. An American friend of mine
was mystified when our small town celebrated the retirement of a local man who'd
spent his life working for one employer.. Why? Because he was "just a grocery
clerk." That he was a good man didn't mean anything to the
Remember the name of this document is the National Security
Strategy of the United States. It's about their welfare, not the rest of the
Robert Kagan admitted that "America did not change on September
11. It only became more itself. ... America's 'isolationist' tradition is ... a
myth. Expansion of American territory and influence has been the inescapable
reality of American history."
The war against Iraq marks the next phase
of American expansionism. If the bottom line of this document is opening up
markets then that's what this war against Iraq is about: America's global
economic and political domination backed by force. As the Report boasted , "On
short notice, Air Force aircraft can attack virtually any target on earth with
great accuracy and virtual impunity."
Does it matter, particularly as
Australia is the US's most obsequious ally? Well if you believe in national
sovereignty it does.
If Australia runs foul of the US we'll be in
trouble, traditional ally or not. Far fetched? Not according to one top analyst.
Referring specifically to Australia he said, "You are not currently incurring
the wrath of the United States but if in a week or a month or a year on some
major issue, such as the post-war withdrawal of your forces from Iraq, you were
to disagree with the Americans, believe me you would feel the heat."
That's why John Howard's behaviour has been not only shameful but
dangerous to Australia's long term national interests. The powerful always treat
lapdogs with contempt.
Bar this NSS document which actually mentions
trade, all the other neoconservative documents I've referred to have stressed
principle and proclaimed America's fight is against evil. So let's look at a few
of the key players. Are they truly good people, as Mr Bush
Dick Cheney has made an art
form of working the revolving door between big business and high public office.
And a fortune.
When Cheney was Secretary for Defense in 1992 the Pentagon
paid Halliburton - the world's largest oil services company - almost $4
million dollars to produce a classified report on how private companies (like
itself) could provide logistics for American troops in potential wars around the
world. The Pentagon generously paid
Halliburton another $5 million to
upgrade the report.
When he left the Pentagon in 1995 Cheney became the
CEO of Halliburton. He took his former Chief of Staff, David Gribbin with
him to become chief lobbyist for the company.
Between 1998 and 2000,
Cheney made almost $30 million in salary and share options, not bad "for a man
with no previous experience in running a company, let alone an oil
If you're impressed with what Cheney did for Cheney,
just look at what Cheney did for Halliburton. In the five years before Cheney's
arrival the company received $100 million in federal loans and insurance
subsidies. Taxpayers' money. In the last two years under Cheney
Halliburton received $1.5 billion dollars in federal loans and insurance
subsidies. Halliburton also doubled its government contracts (from $1.2 billion
to $2.3 billion) over the same period.
Cheney was one of the architects
of economic sanctions against Iraq. It didn't stop Halliburton doing deals worth
$23 million with Iraq through its foreign subsidiaries.
When George W.
Bush became president Cheney went back to the White House as Vice President and
the ever faithful Gribbin was given a governnment job too until he left to head
the Prosperity Project - which has nothing to do with the American people's
prosperity; its a big business lobby group.
As one critic fumed, "The
Bush-Cheney team have turned the United States into a family business.... Have
they no grace, no shame, no common sense? Why don't they just have Enron run
What about the beautiful, decent, bible-believing Christian,
Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld?
When asked how much money would
be needed in the war against Iraq Rumsfeld answered, "What's evolving now was
not known. The build-up on Iraq could not have been predicted."
signed that 1998 letter to President Clinton that said "removing Saddam
Hussein ... needs to become the aim of American foreign
Rumsfeld's the man who sneered at "old Europe". His political
judgement is so bad that as late as February this year he claimed "most nations
were falling in line with the United States except for a few, Lybia, Cuba and
Rumsfeld is one of the hardliners against North Korea. Yet he
spent over ten years on the board of a Swiss-based company which signed a $200
million contract to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power
stations in - North Korea! A company spokesman said Rumsfeld attended nearly all
the board meetings, but wouldn't say whether Rumsfeld was aware of the nuclear
contract. A Pentagon spokeswoman said that Rumsfeld
doesn't recall the matter being brought to the board. Shades of Carmen
He's a warmonger. On the morning of September 12 2001 Rumsfeld
insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Iraq should be a principal target in the war
against terrorism. Who needs proof of guilt?
According to a
respected American military analyst Rumsfeld has established an Operation
Northwoods-style secret group called the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group
(P2OG). It provokes terrorist attacks which then require "counter-attack" by the
US on countries that harbour terrorists". If you're immoral it
makes perfect sense.
Remember Operation Northwoods? It was a
plan presented to President Kennedy by the top military brass to stage
atrocities - bombings, sinkings of ships, highjacks, attacks on US warships -
and blame Cuba. The American generals were itching to fight Cuba and needed a
pretext. They even considered sabotaging John Glenn's space launch and
manufacturing evidence to 'prove' electronic interference by Cuba. These
monstrous plans had the written approval of the then chairman and every member
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Kennedy rejected it and was assassinated a
few months later. But what if that fanatical mindset still exists among the top
brass of the US military? What if 'terrorists' have replaced 'reds'? After all,
Bush has presumably allowed Rumsfeld to establish his
When he was an aide to one of
the Senate's most anti-Communist and pro-Israeli members in the 1970s Richard
Perle was investigated by the FBI for passing classified defense intelligence to
the Israeli embassy. He was never prosecuted.
He's a personal friend of
Ariel Sharon, a board member of the Jerusalem Post, and an ex-employee of the
Israeli weapon manufacturer Soltam. Until yesterday he was chairman of Bush's
Defense Policy Board. He resigned because he has recently been accused of
abusing his position for financial gain.
Given his history how can this
man even pretend to give independent policy advice to the United States
government? Ditto for all of them - Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser and Co. They all
are openly pro-Israel.
The business of America is business and war always
provides business opportunities. During the Vietnam War a company called Kellogg
Brown & Root built roads, landing strips, harbors and military bases. Guess
who the parent company is? Halliburton.
And guess who got the $16 million
contract to set up the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba? Kellogg
Brown & Root.
With the prospect of endless wars on the horizon
reconstruction is becoming the lucrative name of the game for big business.
Kellogg, Brown & Root earned over $2 billion dollars during the Balkans War
building sewerage systems, kitchens and showers and even washing underwear for
the 20,000 U.S. soldiers stationed there."
Think of the money to be made
supporting the more than 200,000 U.S. troops currently in the Gulf! Private
companies now deliver base camp maintenance, laundry and food services, airfield
services and supply operations to the US military.
The US government has
already invited selected engineering companies to tender for $900 million
dollars worth of work in postwar Iraq. One of the lucky companies is Kellogg
Brown & Root who've already won the contact to oversee firefighting
operations at Iraq's oilfields after the war.
It's open slather with US
taxpayers' money: the companies weren't asked to tender for defined services.
They were just asked to say what they could do for $900 million. Now
that's a business opportunity.
Back in 1991 Kellogg Brown & Root won
a 10 year contract with the Pentagon whereby the US government can send them
anywhere in the world to supply humanitarian and/or military operations -
for profit. Hence the looming bunfight with the UN and the NGOs over who will
provide humanitarian aid for Iraq post Saddam
Money, money, money.
In thinking that
the default setting for a human being is an American capitalist Americans
repeatedly fail to understand other people. US officials were stunned when the
Turkish parliament refused to allow the deployment of 62,000 US troops. "They
did what?" blurted one State Department official.
The Americans were
incredulous. They thought the deal was all stiched up. It probably was with the
government. But the parliament - representing the Turkish people - rebelled,
magnificently. Though Americans find it difficult to understand, some things
just aren't for sale.
These neoconservatives are not good people. Good
people don't bully their neighbours. An American policy analyst for the US
Senate wrote that an American hegemony would be "one of the biggest and cruelest
jokes ever played on mankind".
He disputes that the West is
characterized by such 'values' as democracy and free markets. He says those
characteristics only describe the West's decrepitude. For most of its existence
Western civilization was characterized by Christianity and an ethno-religious
culture occupying a defined homeland in the northern part of the planet.
The neo-conservatives' vision is repulsive: they want to replace the
wonderful variety of human cultures with a market. A market where economic
efficiency is the supreme virtue and every facet of life has to make a
I have no doubt that good will triumph in the end. Italians and
Mexicans won't give up their siestas. The French will always eat real bread, not
mass-produced frothed cardboard. Australia once set a wonderful example of what
a really good society is. With the support of good representatives we can do it
For the sake of true peace in the world somebody's got to do
I'll leave you with two quotes. Here's the first from George W. Bush:
"We will export death and violence to the four corners of the world in defense
of our great nation."
The other is from His Holiness Pope John
Paul II: "War ... is always a defeat for humanity ... as if military victories
could be the solution..."
Who sounds right to
References are available on