Who's living in fear you or the children of Iraq??? Saddam is a facist and he doesn't know what "Human Rights", but bombing doesn't make the difference between Saddam and chidren. Using a song written for peace to promote war is a shame.

I find it hard to credit anybody giving anything other that '1's for humour - not only is it not funny, it's profoundly depressing.

Denis, WE are living in fear, the children of Iraq are living in fear, and the citizens of every nation around Iraq is living in fear; fear of one man's regime (can you take a guess at who's it is, I'll give you a hint, his first name starts with a S and his last with a H). Now, I agree with one thing you said, bombing Iraq would not differentiate between the children of Iraq and its ruthless dictator. THat is why Im for war as a last step. I fully support all other efforts to try and prevent war first, but if it comes down to it, I will be fully for war. Now the other thing you said, about using a song for peace to promote war. I did that on purpose. I specificly used a Dylan song to get the reaction that you gave me. Otherwise, how else would this song get noticed? You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. Remember that

Phil, by all means give me a one for how funny. This isn't funny...unfortunatly it's the truth. Just dont give it a one for pacing out of spite...

It ain't funny, it also ain't the truth - the answer certainly is not in bombing Iraq. Incidentally, I gave it a 4 for pacing.

I frankly find it incredibly ironic that a song about peace should be manipulated into this pro-war garbage, and it saddens me to think that people can believe bombing a country can be a good thing.

tell me Kristian, would you rather they bomb us and think its good? If taking a few lives will prevent the loss of many more, its good! America has always been a country to support the less fortinate ones...A point brought up in an email I got from Jeff Baker...for countries to hate america, its like biting the hand that feeds you! If you wish for me to go more indept...email me at MFLORIO45@hotmail.com...

"America has always been a country to support the less fortinate ones." HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! All I can say. What about all our poverty, homelessness, etc. We're not doing anything near as bad as Saddam, that I can agree with, but I wouldn't say we're doing much good at the moment, either.

Mike, if you think america, in all it's wisdom was correct to napalm innocents in Vietnam, bomb a factory producing aspirin in Iraq, shoot down a plane full of american missionaries in Peru, and bomb a wedding in afghanistan, then may I suggest that you would be more suited to being one of Saddam's henchmen. As far as their ability to bomb us, though I doubt they have it, even if they do it's because of America, in it's infinite wisdom selling him biological weapons with impunity and giving him loans to do it. You seem to forget that the Taliban was the product of America's 'regime change' policy in Afghanistan, and look what the result of that was- September the 11th, so I think it would be wise to think about what the consequences could be, because as soon as the americans enter Iraq (after constantly bombing it and killing innocents for the last ten years), they are unlikely to receive a warm welcome from the civilians, who are still suffering from the radiation from the depleted uranium-237 shells used in the last gulf conflict (which has a half-life of 40 billion years). THough they may rid the world of saddam hussein, if they invade iraq, they will give the terrorists more impetus, and I needn't tell you what happened the last time that happened

Kristian, youre right about us doing some bad things over seas. (I dont remember the Peru thing though, when did that happen?)..Im not gunna get into Vietnam cause thats a whole 'nother load, and the bombing of an aspirin factory in AFGHANISTAN and a daycare center in SUDDAN were of course Slick Willies attempts to try and end terrorism (and you see how successful he was)..isnt it funny how he bombed those places right when he was being impeached? hmmm. Anyway, weve done some awful things in the past, but we have also been a nation that trys to help others...whether you agree with our foreign policy or not (frankly I dont agree with alot of it) youve got to realize that politicians in AMerica feel it is our duty to help underprivliged nations...now the next thing you said: The taliban was not a direct result of America intervention..I took Middle eastern history earlier this year so I know what Im talking about.....When Russia invaded Afghanistan they solidified the communist-like government that had been already set up there before....that posed a threat to us (as communism always does, since it restricts nations that we can freely trade with, and if one nations falls others will..you know the whole domino effect), anyway, American then gave money to the lesser of the two evils to try to overthrow the communists. The lesser of the two evils was I think called the "muggadeen "(if that is the right word, then it is completely spelt wrong) One of the leaders of that militant group was a Saudi named Osama Bin Ladin...finally the communists were overthrown, and the Muggadeen was in power (now DO NOT get the Muggadeen confused with the Taliban, they are completely different groups, and this is where people mess up)Many members of the muggadeen were upset with America after that for numorous reasons (and as always, its the politically correct way of thinking to be anti-America in the middle east)..Many members of the muggadeen formed the taliban, and took over the government years later....now heres something: if you look at the transcript of the Oliver North hearings in the late 80's, youll notice something...When North is testifying he makes mention of what he calls the "most dangerous man int he Middle east", he claims that this man threatened him, and said he was going to kill his family and many other horrible things...one Senator then responded to this, pronouncing this "terrorist's" name wrong and saying that he had never heard of him, and that if he had never heard of him, then he must not be very important or dangerous......the terrorists name was Osama Bin Ladin...the senator was AL GORE! America always supports the lesser of two evils in conflicts, OR the side that is not communist or totalitarian...in the early 80's we supposrted, and gave money and weapons to Iraq because they were fighting out new enemy Iran in a war.....Hussein then used those weapons against his own people..we then stopped giving him weapons......In 1990, Hussein thinking that since we didnt really scold him for invading Iran, and using the weapons we gave him on his own people, that he could get away with taking back Kuwait. Kuwait had at one time been part of Iraq, but when Britain and France split up the middle east in the early 20th century, they had made a deal with the al-Sabah ( I think thats the name) family to buy Kuwait from them, so it was split from Iraq. Hussein in his Hitler fashion, wanted appeasment, (jus tlike Hitler wanted Austria and Chechezslavacia because they were once part of Germany), and he wanted Kuwait because it was once part of Iraq.....he first went to American foreign ambassador April Glaspie, and asked her. She responded that America does not want to get involved in middle eastern boarder disputes..so Hussein invaded..and in 1991, we had a war..... anyway, i hope that clears up the middle east for you..if you have any questions feel free to ask...I got an A in the course

for most of your points...Billy handled well...but Ive got more to say... This has to do with what you said about after the bombing and after all the war, thered still be terrorists and thered still be Hussain...well I wish youd think of the consequences of this...Now obviously, our whole point in the bombing and the war is not to try to prove a cheep point saying we are superior, its to rid the world of these terrorists...obiviously, our main target here is Hussain...not innocent civialians...and all terrorists will be gone due to no master....plus the other purpose here: to rid the world of them. When will Liberals realize? It is not fine to live in a stand still! We're not letting them take the first move! America is a doing-nation...Bush is a doing-president! The first shot has to be from us...it doesnt matter how ready you are for their attack...Dragging it out will only make them have more time for a plan...WE NEED TO ACT! NOW! You cannot live on luck! Would you rather get rid of all problems now or be apoligising when youre town is getting bombed?

Billy, you seem to forget tthat while they were supplying arms to iraq (which you quaintly refer to as the lesser of two evils), they were also secretly supplying the iranians with weapons, and the money to buy them, so I hardly see how supplying two terrorist nations can be a good thing. FYI, its spelled mujaheddin, and I can hardly believe that it was, in fact, the lesser of two evils, because my mother is an IT teacher at a university, and she has met at least 10 foreign students from afghanistan, many of which have lived through Amin's, Mujaheddin and Taliban rule. Under Amin, they said the women had been relatively free, but under Mujaheddin, and the taliban, they were constricted to be ruled under the Koran's strict laws. Under the communist rule, they would have probably had much the same treatment as under Amin. Though this is unnacceptable, it does not compare to the militant religious-extremist rule that they suffered under the Mujaheddin and the Taliban. May I make two points about Osama Bin Laden.- 1.He was trained and financed by the CIA, and 2. He has no affiliation with Saddam Hussein (in response to who I presume is your brother), in fact he despises him, and when Iraq invaded Kuwait, he volunteered to drive him out of Kuwait and take over Iraq (which was approved of by the Americans), but this was stopped by other arab nations. No offence, but Mike, it was your sort of gung-ho attitude that made me fear America more than the USSR during the cold war, and that nearly began world war 3. When Britain divided the middle-east, they forced a cruel king upon them, who the citizens promptly beheaded, so the british proposed that they gas the citizens (and were only stopped by the fact that they couldn't find one they could drop out of an airplane), and bombed the villages. Thanks to this, they were eventually driven out, and hated by the middle-east. If you transpose this to the present situation, you can see how the present situation may end up, because anyone forced upon them by the Americans will be hated. A move to bomb Iraq will destabilise the middle east, and, judging by the result of smaller crimes against the muslim world, will bite the americans on the ass (contrary to Mikes beliefs)

Youre talking about Iran contra...yeah, we were doing that, in exchange for American hostiges...we were helping our own men so that they can go back to their families......now Mujaheddin...I thank you for correcting my spelling, I knew that I spelt it wrong (It sounded right though)..I couldnt find that name anywhere, but anyway, yeah the Mujaheddin were fundamentalists, and I dont like what they did at all, but it was either them or the communists, and in American history its a BIG BIG no no to support the communists....thats why they were the lesser of two evils...the word EVILS emphasized..if you realize that now, we are supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, but they are also the lesser of two evils....they are not good guys in most peoples eyes, but theyre the only other people we could support other than the taliban... Yeah Bin Ladin was trained by the CIA, as well as many other members of the Mujaheddin...they were trained to overthrow the communists...unfortunatly, that came and bite us int he ass many years later, but if ALGORE listened to Oliver North in 1986, maybe September 11th wouldnt have happened.....I never said Hussain and Bin Ladin were friends or anything...Hussain considers all Terrorists groups (ie Al-Quida) to be threats to his government, thats why I cringe when ever I hear someone put Hussain and Bin in the same catagory...they dont know they are wrong, and are just listening to what the media ignorantly tells them.....When Britian and France split up the middle east, they split it up into five zones in accordance to the Sykes-Picot agreement..there was the Direct British control, indirect British, Direct French, indirect French, and International zone (which was basicly Palestine)..THe British had Iraq, and put King Hussyan's (of Arabia's) son in power there as king, Faysall (Alec Guiness' character in Lawence of Arabia)..Faysall was a good leader to the Iraqis, I beleive it was his successsor that was not liked (and I forget his name)..anyway, it looks like youve done your homework, Kristian. Im glad to be arguing with soeone who actully knows what theyre talking about (unlike many of the baffoons I argued with in History or Political science classes......

Thank you for your compliment, it is refreshing to me also to argue with someone who is well informed, even if we do not share the same opinions. I am still in highschool, so my finding intelligent conversation is perhaps less easy, and it is difficult to find an adult who will speak without patronising me. When saying Al queda and Hussain were not related, I was actually referring to mike's arguaments. My point with referring to the Sykes-Picot agreement (thanks for pointing that out) was that any interference in the middle east is never appreciated, especially when by a western nation, which as you pointed out is the politically correct Anti-west ways of the middle east. Admittedly it was britain who interfered in the middle east by it's policy of colonizing countries, often by brutally slaughtering women and children, but even after this, the west has got it's reputation there by interfering. I am confused as to why the Americans supported the mujaheddin only after the invasion by the USSR, because Amin was also a communist, which brings me back to the point before, admittedly, spreading communism reduces the number of countries you can have trade routes with, but Amin refused to trade with America, so I can't see what effect it having a communist government and being a satellite to the USSR. It makes interesting reading to hear that America plans to put in a (most probably pro-US) government in for only 3 years once it has invaded Iraq. I am confused as to what government they could possibly put in there. If they put a pro-US government in, they will be hated by the people, and the only other major contender to the rule there is religious extremists, which would put the country in the same situation. I notice that it will actually set up a dictatorship, (for 3 years) which confuses me, becuase one of the arguaments was to give them a democracy. I notice you said the media were connecting al-queda and Hussain. This is interesting, because I live in England and they are actually quite sceptical to this link, which may show the difference in the media mentality and support. Admittedly Al Gore's (laziness?ineptitude?confusion?deafness?) was a contributary factors in september 11th, but even before september 11th, Osama was well up on the ten most wanted list already, and he would have disappeared into the woodwork if he had been hunted (like he is now). I am no supporter of Gore, I think the democrats are terrible, because at least you know that they are right-wing, but the democrats portray themselves as left-wing while passing right-wing laws, and ralph nader had no chance. I believe you are correct in saying Faysall was a good leader, but I believe that his successor was also appointed by the British, so my point still stands that any interference wont be appreciated

Youre from England? Thats funny, cause I just got into a debate in my political science class today about the European views of this war as reflected in the Newsday article "What Europe knows". THe European press has different bias's than the American press. Thats why you can get more true facts in England than you can here, or visa-versa for different issues. It seems that the majority of British are against the war, so the media is catering to their perspectives....here the media just doesnt care which side Americans are on, so they just report what ever they feel will get them more ratings..(I remember when that Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty was signed in 1995, it didnt ever get the top story on the news...it was bumped because the OJ Simpson trial was what was the ratings grabber)..anyway, youre very informed for a high school student, but something you said doesnt make sense...democrats are right wing? Yes, many southern democrats are very conservative, and are basicly republicans in all but their name, but the majority of democrats are no where near right wing.....They are very left wing, and pass many left wing laws, some even kind of socialist...(I believe in England the equivlant to democrats is the Labour party, but I might be wrong about that...that may be where you are making this assumption though ;Blairs policies of recent are more conservative than they have ever been). Democrats here still press for such liberal things as gun control, no capital punishment, environment stuff and garbage like that. You may be thinking that they are passing right wing things, because our congress is controled by the republicans, so they have the majority and vote accordingly. Shifting gears: We supported the mujaheddin because it was better than supporting the communists...its kind of hypocritical, but in the late 70's and the 80's, the middle east was a VERY important area to us stratigicly. It was the buffer between Communist Russia and India and Africa...the cold war was like a chess board, and Iran and Afghanistan was one HUGE square. After Iran had fallen in the late 70's and was taking over by a totalitarian government lead by Khomani, we were in fear for losing another trading parter.. Iran, in fact, was one of our biggest trading partners in the early 70s, I believe in 1975, Iran was called on the phone by the US the third most amount of time (only beaten by #2 Britian, and #1 Russia)...Carter not knowing what to do really, saw a communist faction brewing in Afghanistan. He was the first to send support to the mujaheddin there to squash that faction. At the time, the government was not yet run by the communists completly...Russia then invaded in the 80's and solidifyed the communists there...since America had already done bussiness with the mujaheddin, we figured that they would be friendlier to us (its not like we had anybody else to choose from) and so we trained their men (including Bin ladin) to overthrow the government....at the time, they were being called Freedom fighters...(I believe Reagan even dubed them that)..it wasnt until after they were in power that they finally showed their true colors......shifting gears once more: Western interfearence in the mid east hasnt always been unwelcome.....both Kemar's Turkey, and Nasser al-din Shah's Iran (I think that was his name) embraced the west and its cultures, and tryed to change their government to that..in Turkey it worked beautifully..Kemals 7 reforms (known as Kemalism) helped turn the government into a pro-west democracy that was open to modernazation. In Iran it was working until a University professor of Philosophy named Ruddamah Khomani started talking about returning to old Islamic values from the time of the Prophet..he was exciled to South Iraq where he kept on talking...there a young recently made leader named Saddam Hussein felt threatened by him, and exciled him to France....after Khomanis veiws reacted Iran again via cassette tapes, he arose public support and caused the SHah to advocate and Khomani to return on a Boeing 747....so anyway, I guess I went on a tangent there

Change Liberals to Consevatives and make the song about Bush and it would still make perfect sense. It's ironic that almost all the lyrics apply to both men.

When saying the democrats were right wing, I was actually referring to the democrats that were in power. Clinton was very right wing because of HIS extreme religious views, he kicked 10 million people off welfare, refused to sign an international land mine ban, and expanded the number of crimes the death sentence can be given for to 60. This is what I was referring to, not the actual democrat supporters. He, in fact only put any 'good' laws in a few days before the republicans took power, so that he could be remembered as a good president.

Oh ok, now i know what you mean, but you are overlooking all the liberal things Clinton did do.....And the land mine ban was just common sense...no country in their right minds would ban landmines...other than that, CLinton was not at all a good president (well, at least thats my opinion, and the opinion of every other republican in the USA...and some democrats) Most democrats usually praise Clinton, but alot of people are very upset with his presidentcy and the scandels surrounding it (no president had more scandels than him) and the fact that he was impeached, and the fact that he didnt get much done...In England its probably unusal to get the details of his policies, but in AMerica, we see what he did everywhere....

. No president had more scoundrels than Clinton? The Reagan Presidency had more people indited than any before or since by a huge margin. The Clinton scoundrels gave us 8 years of prosperity and a balanced budget. The "gown-ups" have managed to destroy all of that in a matter of months.

You people all need to focus on the simple truths of how many people must saddam kill before he is considered worth taking out of the picture? Right now American soldiers are in Iraq fighting for their lives, and the Freedom of every single Iraqi citizen. Saddam has his people car bombing U.S. soldiers, and taking women and children as human shields. Sure the U.S. isn't perfect, actually far from it, but in Iraq they don't even have the simple freedom of talking in a public domain like this without fear of reprisals by saddam and his henchmen. I am as against all war as anyone could be, but some times in the real world we must fight for the lives, and rights of ourselves and others. Many of the same people who are protesting this war are more against the President than the actual war, and they are also the same people who are for, the rights of animals, but are for abortion. Which is clearly putting an animals life and rights above the rights of a child to grow up and live. So before you take to the streets or bad mouth the war, or the President, Look at your values, the world is not a Peaceful place, and it may never be, but every time we try to end the regime of madmen like Saddam we may come a little bit closer to making your dreams of a Peace Filled planet a little more fact than fiction.

Okay, the song may be wrong in some of the things it said, but what it stands for is right. I am sorry for the general public if some of you people don't care about the rights and well being of others. Now is a time to back up our government, and to support the troops that are risking their lives for everyone concerned. I wonder what you guys are focusing on? Now once we have seen what the war did for those people, don't you guys see how ignorant you were being?

Thanks for the support guys

I thought this parody was AWESOME!!! I love this website!!

the answer my friend, isnt blowin up the world! yikkk, this parody made me sick!

Leaving aside the political rhetoric... This fails one of my fundamental tests of good song parody: it doesn't scan. I mean, just take the last verse for instance: "the fact that he is a Nazi" is terrorism against the English language. The tagline just doesn't resonate with me either. Partly because of the missing friend/wind rhyme, and partly because of scansion again. Hmm. Make it "The answer, you hack, is blowing up Iraq" ... see how much better that fits?

The Al Gore/Ollie North story is a complete hoax. Don't you people check your facts?