|Press the button
One cannot have a dialogue with uncivilized nations
By Arya Abedin
December 27, 2002
Last year, my AP Composition teacher assigned an implied argument essay based on Jonathan Swift's "A
Modest Proposal", which exposed the English
stereotypical and oppressive relations relations with the Irish living
in the United Kingdom in the 19th Century. I wrote an essay similar to Swift's last
March regarding President Bush's reference to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as members
of an "axis of evil". As the United States prepares for war with Iraq,
I found it appopriate to submit this work. You may find it interesting.
Some people might not that understood the implied argument
so I will explain it. I do not believe that what is written in my piece is the
correct course of action to take. I am an Iranian myself. Even if I was not,
I would not write something like this about any country. I assume the voice of
an American extremist and write an extreme version of pro-war sentiments in the
United States. It is purposely meant to be extremist, and by reading it, the reader
would then be aware of the ignorance and outlandish nature of some of the views
of the current administration.
Throughout it I use language that has been used by President Bush and others in
the United States (e.g. Reverend Falwell and Pat Robertson) like "Crusade"
or "Axis of Evil". By reading this piece, the reader is supposed to realize
the error of the US's current course of action, which is politically motivated.
This, of course, is an extreme version of the current US policy.
A Righteous Crusade against an Evil Axis*
It has been over 2,000 years since the advent of the Christian Era. The world
has come a long way. After two of the bloodiest conflicts on the continent of Europe
during a century of almost uninterrupted global warfare, the world lies at a crossroads
in human history.
The past century has affirmed one truth that the nations of the world are reluctant
to accept: the United States of America, as the inheritor of the great civilizations
of the West, is solely responsible to bring justice and order to the uncivilized
governments of the world.
In the past, we have brought democracy and prosperity to the evil empires of Germany
and Japan. However, like Richard the Lionhearted, we must again journey East to beat
back the barbarian hordes and shine the light of American culture and democracy on
our enemies during this time of uncertainty and terrorism.
The countries of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have long been a thorn in the side of
progress and America's interests, refusing to submit to the will of this peace-loving
and civilized nation.
Some may argue that these regimes are in fact not an axis. These skeptics may use
evidence such as the fact that Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war, the bloodiest
in the modern history of the Middle East, with each other and that North Korea has
little to do with either of those countries.
I respond to those skeptics with the following question: Why, in such a time of national
unity and reliance on the current administration for guidance, would the President
of the United States lie to the public?
The Axis of Evil's foreign ways of evil-doing and treachery have blinded the world
to their obvious pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. America has revealed this
unholy alliance for the world to behold. It is now our duty to take action against
the enemy, regardless of what other nations including our allies believe.
What would be the best way to eliminate this threat to American sovereignty? The
most efficient way would be to wipe the existence of these countries off the face
of the earth.
However, some pacifists might label that course of action as too extreme. In the
interests of pursuing a greater peace, since this country and its citizens are
a peace-loving people, I suggest a different course of action.
In order to effectively ensure that the threat from the enemy is removed, I suggest
a three phase Crusade against evil.
The first phase of this war will be strategically attacking the capitals
and major cities of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea with nuclear weapons. This would
serve several purposes. It would severely weaken the enemy and save countless American
lives in the ensuing conflict. Much of the infrastructure of these corrupt governments
would be destroyed in this initial phase of attack, and the nations' governments
might even surrender as a result of this onslaught.
Some skeptics might argue that nuclear or thermonuclear weapons would be far too
destructive. However, the latest generation of "smart nukes" would be able
to attack precise targets and minimize the spread of fallout.
The second phase of this war is the most important. The resources and ancient lands
of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have been misused by their insidious leaders. Americans
would best cultivate and govern those countries.
That is why I suggest eight million Americans be relocated to Iraq, ten million to
Iran, and seven million to North Korea. Those Americans would not only guarantee
the flow of oil from Iran and Iraq to where it is needed in the United States and
ensure an influx of North Korean minerals to American manufacturers, but they would
bring democracy, capitalism, and Christianity -- the pillars of civilization -- to
these misused lands.
The final phase of this Holy War would be the relocation of the indigenous populations
to make room for more incoming Americans. I suggest the native people of Iraq, Iran,
and North Korean be placed in prisoner-of-war camps that would be located in the
vicinity of the cities that were destroyed during the initial nuclear attack outlined
in Phase One of this operation.
When I first suggested this part of my proposition
in public, many found Phase Three particularly senseless, arguing that these people,
if anything, were victims of their governments. I on the other hand believe that
they were not victims.
Nearly every citizen of the Axis of the Evil, by failing to revolt against their
dictatorial regimes long ago, is a potential threat to American interests. Those
who survive the effects of radioactive fallout in these camps will be incorporated
into their former countries as a labor class. This way, they can observe and possibly
learn from the success of Americans and our civilization.
Skeptics who question this three-phase plan exist, but there are also radicals that
vehemently oppose this resolution. They illogically suggest that the US should resort
to diplomacy, negotiations, or a policy of détente with these nations.
These radicals would like it if we let our militaristic guard down and initiate some
outlandish diplomatic overture like continuing former President Clinton's negotiations
with North Korea, implementing "smart sanctions" and weapons inspections
on Iraq, and embracing the Iranian President's call for a dialogue among civilizations**.
can we have dialogue or associate in any way with such a treacherous enemy? I respond
to the concerns of our reluctant "allies" in Europe and the Arab world
by declaring that one cannot have a dialogue among civilizations when the opposing
nations are uncivilized!
Some call my proposal a medieval suggestion that would place America in unilateralist
overdrive. This is a misconception. When dealing with an enemy that does not understand
diplomacy or reason, one must resort to seemingly unreasonable measures. This three-phase
plan will not only destroy the enemy but revitalize the American economy and generate
new jobs that were lost as a result of the September 11th attacks. I am confident
that my proposition will soon become a precedent in dealing with evildoers and making
the world safe for democracy.
* The phrase "Axis of Evil" was first used in President Bush's January
29th, 2002 State of the Union Address in reference to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
Soon after, the President received criticism regarding his remarks by much of the
international community, including the European Union and other US allies.
** The term "Dialogue Among Civilizations" was first used by Iranian President
Mohammed Khatami during a speech addressed to the General Assembly of the United
Nations in the year 1999. In response to Khatami's call for dialogue, the United
Nations declared 2001 the official Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations.
Does this article have spelling or other mistakes? Tell
me to fix it.