Anorak News | Casualties Of War

Casualties Of War

by | 13th, November 2006

MONDAY and there was talk of war.

“What did you do in the war?” asks the young lad.

“Well, son,” says the grandfather as he dandles the nipper on his aged knee. “I tuned into Channel 4 news and Sky news. I saw action on both sides, son.”

“I also tuned into the Fantasy Channel and gave and gave again to the cause.”

As the Star reported “brave” British soldiers are being recruited to alleviate a national sperm crisis.

But the second headline “Troops get call for sperm war” was not exactly as it appeared. There will be no battle in the Petri dish between Private Smyth’s little swimmers and those belonging to al-Qaeda’s champion onanist.

The sperm is being frozen in case the would-be daddy does not make it home from the battlefield or is left infertile.

But the war is being won. On Tuesday, came news that Saddam Hussein had been found guilty of murder and sentenced to hang.

It’s was a time of rare celebration in the Sun. “YOUR/ SADDAM/ HANGMAN/ KIT,” said the paper above a cut out and play “fun noose game”.

All you needed to do was fill in the blanks in the Sun’s handy wallet-sized chart and either let the tyrant “swing” or “save him from the noose”.

Helpfully, Saddam came in eight pieces. He’d already been drawn (quite well) and quartered, and sliced in half one more time just in case Sun readers set him free.

Anyone keen to play a more colourful game may care to emasculate Saddam, eviscerate him and stick his head on the sharp point of an HB pencil.

Who knew killing a human being could be so much fun? Well, terrorists, al-Qaeda and Saddam himself, obviously. But this was surely a new development for Sun readers.

And there is more than one way to finish off a wartime leader. On Wednesday thoughts turned to the results of the US midterm elections.

It was bad news for President George Bush. His Republican party had been trounced by the Democrats.

The Times looked on as President Bush voted at sunrise in Texas. Whether or not the sun rose with Bush or Bush rose with the sun was not investigated. But such is the pull of the most powerful man on Earth that his waking moments are of international concern.

Personalities have a big part to play in an election. And while the various Johns, Hillarys and Nancys vied for political power, the Guardian focused on Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been reelected as governor of California.

“I love doing sequels,” Schwarzenegger told his supporters in Beverly Hills. “This without any doubt is my favourite sequel.”

But while Arnie celebrated and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat’s age-defying 66-year-old leader, met with Bush, Bush met with Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld was out. The career politician whose job it was as US Defence Secretary to champion the fight against Saddam Hussein and sell the Iraq war to the greater American public had been downed by friendly fire.

On Thursday, the Times heard the man give his resignation speech. And this is the man who once said: “And of course, the advantage of not acting – against the moon – would be that no-one could say that you acted. They would say, ‘Isn’t that good – you didn’t do anything against the moon.’ The other side of the coin of not acting against the moon, in the event that the moon posed a serious threat, would be that you then suffered a serious loss, and you’re sorry after that’s over.”

Great stuff. Here’s Donald: “I call to mind the words of Winston Churchill, who said, ‘I have benefited greatly from criticism and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof’.”

Ta-ra Donald. As another wartime leader of old might have put it, he came, he saw, he almost conquered but lacked a viable and speedy exit strategy.

Bush is on his way. Rumsfeld has gone. So what happens next?

On Friday we got to find out. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller has seen the future. On the Sun’s front page (“200 TERROR CELLS IN UK”), the “boss” of MI5 said terrorists were out to get each and every one of us.

“It [terrorism] aims to wear down our will to resist. All of us, whatever your ethnicity and faith are the targets of terrorists,” said she.

She went on: “Today we see the use of homemade improvised explosive devices. Tomorrow’s threat may – and I suggest WILL – include the use of chemicals, biological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology.”

It sounded grim, dangerous even. Might it be an idea to unleash our radioactive materials and even nuclear technology on them before they do so on us?

That question to you, George Bush…

Posted: 13th, November 2006 | In: Uncategorized Comments (6) | TrackBack | Permalink