Amock Comedy Magazine 3 HTML version

The question of whether George W. Bush’s America
should have invaded Iraq to carry out a policy of
regime-change rests on the contention that Saddam
Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMDs). This has been disproved and Bush’s
decision seems flawed but I believe that a closer look
at what a WMD actually is will justify the invasion.
means ‘great in magnitude’ and though this definition
is weak, it would imply a number which is greater than
one. The point I’m trying to make is that if I kill one
person (which I have done, I am a member of the
military, after all) I am a murderer, but how many do I
have to kill to be regarded as a ‘mass murderer’?
Two or three would only qualify me as a serial killer
and I would propose that a figure of at least six should
be established to qualify for this unique epithet.
Let us look first at the word ‘weapon’. By strict
dictionary definition this means ‘any instrument or
instrumentality used in fighting or hunting’ and so we
can see that even a small stone or a stick can be
regarded as a ‘weapon’. To take this to extremes,
even a rolled up
newspaper or an
apple pie could
be regarded as
such, if it was
used as ‘an
instrument or
used in fighting or
hunting’. This
validates Bush as
Iraq contained
many such items.
Weapons inspectors found many newspapers, stones
and sticks in Iraq, but not a lot of apple pies. This can
be explained by the fact that apple pies are not a
normal part of the Iraqi diet, but many other foodstuffs
are and these could have been used as weapons. It
is this potential to be used as weapons which was
being assessed, not their actual use. So the first of
the three elements has been fulfilled. Hussein had
Pic by Chris Field
We now come to ‘destruction’. This word too is
subject to interpretation. Resorting again to the
dictionary we discover that it means ‘the termination
of something by
causing so much
damage to it that it
cannot be repaired or
no longer exists’ but
as we are dealing with
people and not things
we can assume that
their destruction
means death for the
victim. Killing
someone where they
can be repaired is
shoddy work in my book. The question then lies in
whether Hussein ‘destroyed’ others either within Iraq
or without and again the answer is an unequivocal
yes. He waged war on Iran, invaded Kuwait and
persecuted the Kurds. He may not have achieved
‘destruction’ but there is no doubt that was his aim.
It seems from this analysis that Saddam Hussein did
indeed possess Weapons of Mass Destruction. He is
on record as having struck eight Kurds with a rolled
up newspaper till they died of information overload
and I think this justifies our great and wise President
George W. Bush’s actions. Is that okay, Dubya?
Now we come to the word ‘mass’ and for this I will
refer to the term ‘mass murder’. At what point does
murder become mass murder. The word itself only