The WorldPeace Peace Page
Home About John WorldPeace Contact Us Site Map
Blog Email
WorldPeace Web Design Peaceunite Us (Peace org Index) John WorldPeace Galleries

[little George takes a walk]



Little George takes a walk as he considers murdering Saddam and all his family in order to root out evil in Iraq.










World Citizens reject little George Bush-wacking Saddam

The following is an email that I sent to the author of the following article.

Mr. Younge, thank you. 

You have written one of the best antiwar, common sense, metaphysical, philosophical articles to date on little George's arrogance. If you look at the pre-election campaign and what was really going on in Texas when little George was governor, you will find that he really isn't that bright. 

But in America, everything is the media. So you teach someone how to talk and dress and behave in public and then you carefully edit the media. The result is that a Neanderthal stuck in the on going wars of the 19th and 20th centuries continues that business as usual in the 21st century.

Little George has avoided every real opportunity to integrate America into the world community and to place America in a position to lead the world in a sustainable peace. He refused to attend the world conferences on global warming, human rights and the Earth Summit. And a few days ago he called all the nations who belong to U N indecisive and spineless. He is too stupid to understand that he was talking to China and Russia. Instead, his limited intellect and arrogant elitism has put him on this kill Saddam rampage.

The effects of murdering Saddam without the world's approval are going to be devastating and will rock a significant part of the world as well as set precedents for Russia and China that will allow them to potentially return to the days of communism and world domination.

Even with the U N supporting little George's war, which I do not believe is going to happen, targeting Saddam sets a dangerous precedent for the U N and puts all countries on alert that they are subject to having their political systems manipulated by the U N.

Destabilizing Iraq will mean destabilizing the entire Middle East. It will leave a power vacuum that Iran may not be able to resist. And by the way, how much of Saddam's family will little George have to kill or deport before he can really take over Iraq?

And what happens to America's credibility when the President has to back down from his kill Saddam tirade. If the U N can throttle back little George, then the whole world will come to know that America can be challenged. 

All in all this would go a long way toward peace and WorldPeace but it will be a significant and permanent demotion for American influence in the world. So in reality, if little George tries to invade Iraq on his own (and I do not think that even he is that stupid) the whole world loses and if he backs down at this point he will have significantly reduced America's influence in the world.

And then there is the possibility that in one way or another little George goes into Iraq and does not kill Saddam. What then? Then he will have Saddam and bin-Laden both laughing at him and America.

As horrible as the consequences may be of letting Saddam actually use his alleged weapons of mass destruction before he is bombed back into the Stone Age, that is the preferred course as opposed to copying the actions of Hitler and Japan in starting World War II and communism in the pre and post war environment. 

Striking Saddam without any overt aggression on his part will create a very negative precedent in world. But the real problem will come if something goes wrong and Saddam wins either by actually stopping little George or by surviving. If Saddam successfully stops little George, then he will become King of the Middle East and maybe all of Islam; maybe even the champion of all the Third World countries.

The polls in America are already being manipulated to show more support for little George than actually exists. I haven't found anyone who actually fears Saddam and few that support a war.

But the power of the media is great in America and it is controlled by those who support little George. In the insurance business as well as in the law business as well as in politics in America, you understand that you have to talk to an eighth grade mentality. Whether you are talking to a potential insurance client or speaking to a jury or campaigning for office, you cannot forget that you must communicate on an eighth grade level. In other words, thirteen years olds.

The media knows this. Little George knows this. And because of it, little George my just grab enough support to start his little war against Saddam but once he begins the fight, he had better win in a way that no one can question it. Otherwise little George will become a pariah, the United States even more contemptible in the world than it already is, and the Middle East will be in chaos for another century and Islam will spread like wildfire among the poor and ignorant of the world.

Thank you for your article.

I have posted your article and this email to my WorldPeace Peace Page at




John WorldPeace
September 16, 2002

Action can stop the war

First believe that you can prevent hostilities, and then do something about it. It may just work


Gary Younge
Monday September 16, 2002

The Guardian

Progressive politics demands a mixture of optimism and realism. Without the optimism you would never believe a better world could ever be built. Without the realism you would never be able to engage with the world as it actually is, in order to build it. Allow too much imbalance between the two and you either undervalue your potential to imagine what might be or undermine your ability to improve what already exists.

Keeping the two in equilibrium over the past 20 years - my entire politically conscious lifetime - has meant lowering standards to maintain a sense of perspective. Unsustained by the prospect of victory, optimism becomes little more than wishful thinking and realism curdles into defeatism. "The greatest tool in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed," argued the late South African black consciousness activist, Steve Biko.

In the 1980s, Mrs Thatcher told us there was "no alternative", and though we fought anyway, deep down some of us actually believed it. A culture of protest emerged that has been informed more by duty in the face of the inevitable - "We should oppose this even though we know it is going to happen" - than determination in the pursuit of the possible - "We must stop this before it happens". Losing has become a habit, being in a minority has become a mindset.

As the military matériel stacks up in the Gulf, poised to bomb Iraqis into shreds, we need a rapid and radical change in thinking. Unlike the last Gulf war, the Kosovo war or the ongoing war in Afghanistan - in fact unlike any war in recent times - those who oppose Britain's participation in the western bombing of a poor country are part of a large majority. Between 52% and 72% of the public in Britain oppose Britain's involvement in the bombing of Iraq. This is a war that we can stop before it starts. Opposition to it is popular. We must work out how to make sure it both persists and prevails.

The case against the bombing has been made by others on these pages, including Roy Hattersley today. Given the volatile situation in the Middle East and the certain power vacuum left by Saddam's ousting, even the ramifications of a succesful mission could be catastrophic. Answers to the key questions - why him? why now? and what next? - are either unavailable or unconvincing.

You do not have to be particularly progressive to agree with or understand this. Far from it. Both the pacifist and the military strategist can see the barbarous folly of going to war. The array of people who are against action without the backing of the United Nations - from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Bill Morris and from Storming Norman Schwarzkopf to Nelson Mandela - itself tells a story. On just about every front - moral, legal, military, economic, human, strategic - bombing Baghdad would be an utter disaster.

To sense the breadth of opposition we need look no further than Germany where, according to pollsters, Gerhard Schröder's anti-war stance has done more than anything else to reverse the flagging fortunes of his campaign to remain chancellor. His rightwing challenger, Edmund Stoiber, has resorted to what has been one of Europe's most popular policies of late - bashing foreigners. "Four hundred million people are threatening to come our way," he told crowds in Wiesbaden on Thursday. "We must prepare ourselves."

However, with as many as 80% of Germans against the war, according to the head of one polling institute, Schröder has decided there are more votes to be gained to his left than to his right. "Germany has no reason to allow itself to be lectured by others," he told cheering crowds at a rally in the University of Munster last week. "On the existential questions that decide general politics the decisions are made in Berlin - in Berlin and nowhere else."

Having trailed for most of the campaign, Schröder is now in front. The forward march of the right in Europe, it seems, will be obstructed not by pandering to popular prejudice over immigration - à la David Blunkett - but by confronting American military hegemony. Germany's particular history gives it a deeper pacifist current than the rest of Europe. None the less, the strength of public opinion in Britain and America has made a difference. US president George Bush may have strode to the podium of the UN with the arrogance of an emperor and the ignorance of a knave last week, but he would not even have bothered if he didn't think he had to. Similarly, Blair would not have recalled parliament for next week or brought forward the publication of his dossier if he did not feel pressured.

None of these steps, however, suggests that either of these leaders is seriously considering peace. The extent of their concession to electorates who feel no threat from Iraq and have no desire to see innocent Iraqis killed, is that they are moving towards war more gingerly. They do so in the hope that the closer we come to the edge of conflict the more likely we will be to buckle under the weight of the inevitable.

So the fact that the polls are with us at present is heartening, but little more than that. Now we must make them count - transforming passive discontent into active opposition. We could begin by widening the debate to encompass the domestic agenda. During last year's election campaign we were told the government's priority would be the delivery of improved public services and we were lectured on the importance of prudence in the management of public finances. What is prudent about spending up to £4bn on a war few people want? Why should we have to wait for teachers, trains, hip replacements and heart valves because Bush won't wait for a diplomatic solution and Blair won't stand up to him?

There will, of course, be meetings, petitions and marches - like the one in London on September 28. But this week, ahead of the recall of parliament, there must also be letters, phone calls, emails and text messages to MPs, local newspapers and radio stations. Wars do not stop themselves. They are prevented by the mobilisation of large numbers of people, each of whom does what they can. If the bombs drop then, yet again, they will be in our name and paid for by our taxes.

In recent times "Stop the War" has been a useful and commendable slogan - three words that fitted on a placard and rallied the faithful. This time it is a distinct possibility. The difference between wanting it to happen and making it happen may well be believing that it can happen. And then doing something about it.

How can we manifest peace on earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both sexes) in our vision of Peace?

The WorldPeace Banner

The WorldPeace Sign

To the John WorldPeace Galleries Page

To the WorldPeace Peace Page