- Name: northlondonhippy
- Visit the hippy's brand new site!
Contact the hippy
VISIT THE HIPPY'S NEW SITE: www.northlondonhippy.com Spend some time chilling out with the hippy...He used to be "the most shroomtastic stoner on the internet!" until the UK banned fresh magic mushrooms. He's still "the biggest internet celebrity you've never heard of!" He'll make you laugh, he'll make you think...he'll make you wish you were a hippy too!
Saturday, March 20, 2004
When did years stop feeling like years to me? I wish I could pinpoint the exact moment that I started perceiving time differently, faster. I can remember when a year seemed like an eternity, and when summers could seem to last forever.
Not anymore. Now, time flies faster than I ever thought possible. The last year, for example, seems to have been and gone in the blink of an eye. Not working should have had the opposite effect, the year should have dragged, but it didn't.
And how about that war in Iraq? The hippy is gonna get political!
I don't claim to know exactly why they attacked Iraq, but I can certainly eliminate a few reasons. They said that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the western world with their vast stores of unconventional weapons (hippy style point, I won't refer to them as WMD, because to my knowledge, the closest Iraq came to possessing any was when they were building the supergun. Yes, Saddam did gas Kurds in the 80s, and it was horrible, but that is not a classic WMD. If you are going to split hairs, and why not, WMD should only mean one thing: a nuke. Saddam didn't have one, did he?).
To date, they have not discovered any unconventional weapons in Iraq. The head of the Iraqi Survey Group, David Kay (who was appointed by Bush Jr) threw his hands up in disgust and resigned, saying there were no weapons to be found and probably none from the start.
Even the president of Poland, a member of the "coalition" has said that the case for war put forth in the intelligence used to get his country on board was exaggerated. Following the terrorist bombs in Madrid, the Spanish electorate sent a strong message that all the governments belonging to the "coalition" should heed. They said: "we don't feel safer now, we don't trust you!" Beware Bush and Blair.
Now, they claim they invaded Iraq to get rid of the evil dictator, Saddam Hussein. I won't deny he was evil, but so what? Plenty of countries have and have had evil leaders, why aren't they leading military crusades against all of them, any of them? Oil really don't know, do you?
Take Zimbabwe and evil and allegedly syphillitc President Robert (Hitler's 'tache) Mugabe. He's not just evil, he's craaaazy, man. Is anyone trying to oust him? Well, maybe if you think about who might have hired those mercenaries they arrested recently, but I digress. There is no concerted effort to do anything to stop him. His regime and its policies are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people and a virtual reverse apartheid against the white population. But don't worry, the debate about the future of the England cricket team's upcoming Zimbabwe tour continues. Thank god for that!
How about Kim Jong Il, another craaazy, evil dictator. He's like a real life version of a Bond-baddie. He wears funny jumpsuits, kidnaps, probably has an A-Bomb or 2 lying around just in case and I would bet money he has an evil lair built into the side of a mountain. The Red Cross, frequent visitors to famine-stricken North Korea report regularly on the mass starvation killing off legions of people there. Why haven't we invaded the northern part of the Korean pennisula? Technically the north and south Korea are still at war, same for NK and the good ol' USA, so they could probably re-started the fighting on a phone call if they wanted. Why don't they?
Simple, north Korea could fight back, unconventionally. If they really have nukes and put them on the missiles that could hit Japan, things could get really messy, that's why. Iraq, as we saw a year ago, wasn't in a position to put up much of a fight. The west likes wars it can win and they knew going in that they could. If they didn't, why did they launch hostilities before all the troops could be properly kitted out with NBC suits, boots, and all the other useful toys. Simple, they knew it would be a cake-walk.
The same way they knew there would be no unconventional weapons, they just didn't expect everyone to make such a big deal about their non-discovery. We're suppose to be grateful that they used whatever means necessary to remove Saddam, regardless of the loss of life. They can tell you exactly how many soldiers have died in Iraq, even how many journalists, all accurately. How many Iraqis have died? All you'll get are estimates, no one knows for sure.
I heard a bit of a Bush the lesser speech on Friday, he was prattling on about the war on terror and Iraq, because he loves to link these two practically unrelated issues. Well, they used to be unrelated, until all the real terrorists took advantage of the chaos that was and is post-war Iraq and moved in. Bush was going on about how much stability he's brought to the region. Huh?
I don't recall quite so many terrorist style attacks in Iraq, prior to the war a year ago, do you? Actually, I'd say there were precious few before the war. Yes, yes, yes, Saddam was a bad guy, but how they eliminated him and what's replaced him doesn't seem any better. Dare I say it, for the average Iraqi, its actually much, much worse. From security to social services, Iraqis don't seem to be benefitting from the occupation of their country.
And what about the Israelis and Palestinians? If you want to see instability, you only have to look at the West Bank and Gaza. How stable are the lives of the people living there, and those living near-by? Sharon thinks a wall is going to solve it all, just like they do everywhere. If you want to make the mid-east a more stable area, Georgie, you best start paying a bit more attention over here.
And who's going to believe Georgie-Porgie the next time he says the world has to go to war? I didn't believe him in the first place, but I am sure there are people who supported Bush and the war a year ago, who don't now. How about Mel Gibson? When a right-wing president like Bush starts to lose the support of a serious hardline conservative like Mel, how much longer can they expect to stay in office?
My guess, he'll be out next January 20th. People have had enough. His daddy was a one-termer, he's going to be a one-termer. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic, especially after the 2000 election, I just hope the voting masses in the US can see this adminstration for the joke that it is.
I'm no great fan of John Kerry, to be honest I don't really know that much about him. He's rich, so's Bush. He speaks French-fluently, and a bit of German, which would make a nice change. Bush speaks just enough Spanish to stumble through a few phrases when on the stump, but I don't believe he is that good. They both get their support from the same big businesses, so neither is terribly clean in my book. Kerry gets the edge for not being a Bush, plain and simple. Anyone would be better than Bush and I think Kerry would at least try to reverse the damage done by Bush Jr in the last 3 and 1/2 years. If the election were held today, Kerry would get my vote.
I actually had other stuff I wanted to write about today, but the anniversary of the start of the war got me going a bit. I'll try for something a bit more personal tomorrow.
It's Saturday night, are you going to be getting your freak-on?