Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?

[billvon 3,120]

>How do you feel about keeping a U.S. military presence in the area?

As part of a UN peacekeeper or ongoing inspection program? No problem. Maintain a presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Not a bad idea. Keeping an invasion force stationed next to Iraq? Not such a good idea in the long run (but has some value in terms of putting pressure on Iraq to comply with inspectors.)

>Do you think we should be a "watch dog" over Saddam?

The UN should, and we should support them in doing that.

>Personaly, I think he's proven to be very untrustworthy. I sure as
>hell don't want his finger on the trigger of any nukes.

I don't either, but there are much greater threats (Kim Jong-Il, Musharraf) to world peace - and they _do_ have their fingers on the triggers. So do we. I don't think we'd like it if the UN sent troops in to disarm us, so I don't think we should blow the "disarm dangerous countries!" trumpet too loudly.

[Guest]

Quote

> I agree that the US is the biggest threat this year, but I think US policy
>is focused on long term (i.e. more than one year) peace.

Bush has actually come out and said that the US will begin a new policy of preemptive invasion, so I think you'd be hard pressed to show that the long term goal is peace.

>Not that I agree with most US foreign policy, but I think the "leaders"
>feel they are going around putting out lots of fires before they get big.

I can definitely understand that, but I can't see how such a policy makes any sense when applied towards Iraq and N Korea. Here we have a country which is an unmitigated pain in the ass, but one that has allowed UN inspectors in and has given them full access, claiming they have no WMD's. On the other hand we have a country that has nuclear weapons, is developing an ICBM that can reach the US, has kicked out UN inspectors, violated half a dozen treaties, and says things like "We will tear the limbs from the United States, which is an empire of evil and a ringleader of war and unhappiness, into pieces." And we plan to invade the first country. It just makes little sense to me. Might as well invade Cube to oust that maniacal anti-US dictator Castro.

Magic word: China

Hussein has a few friends, but they are pretty weak.

OTOH, the DPRK has a very big and powerful ally just across the Yalu.

Fortunately, the Chinese position is that they don't want a nuclear-armed North Korea either.

Finally, no amount of aid or assistance will change the most brutal regime in the world, when the country's propaganda machine says their glorious leader walked on the moon and other fantasies.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[miked10270 0]

Just my $0.02...

How soon we forget! WE forget that Iraq not only HAS WMD in the form of nerve gas, but has a fair history of using it buth against the Kurds and against Iran in the war in the '80's. We forget how the UN Inspection teams were frustrated at every turn, refused access to places they wanted to examine for 48-72 hours, and this happened so often that they ultimately left in disgust!

Iraq has only allowed UN Weapons Inspectors in the last couple of months, and they have started by looking in the sites they were refused access to 5 years ago!

The Iraqis only allowed the UN back when faced with the sure and certain promise of imminent invasion, and seem to be co-operating with the UN so far. One wonders if their WMD programs have been dismantled, or simply moved. I suspect that the UN will get co-operation only as long as they aren't finding anything! If the UN teams start to "get warm" then expect a repeat of 1995.

I honestly believe that the only sure way of stopping Saddam Hussein developing WMD IS to invade, change the regime, and I suspect that suddenly the information will flow about his WMD programs. A change of regime will also remove the reasons for the blockading of Iraq and will ultimately benefit the common Iraqi!

I accept that there is no political alternative to the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Like Germany after WW2. Expect a UN administration to govern the country for some 5 years to allow some democracy to develop in Iraq.

As for North Korea, I believe that Bush is the first US President in a long time who WILL give the Chinese the opportunity to make a simple choice of friends... The US and Europe is the source of a MAJOR part of the Chinese trade surplus. Perhaps after Iraq has been dealt with then the Kim dynasty can also be faced. Again, we're looking at a country where the vast majority are impoverished - it's NOT communism, and again I believe that the common North Korean would benefit from a change of government.

At present I pervceive the US as being similar to a cop cruising in his patrol car. Heavily armed? Yes. capable of exploding into sudden acts of violence? Yes. Dangerous? Depends on what you're planning to do!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

At present I pervceive the US as being similar to a cop cruising in his patrol car. Heavily armed? Yes. capable of exploding into sudden acts of violence? Yes. Dangerous? Depends on what you're planning to do!

And I see it as a vigilante rather than a cop. Probably well-intended? Yes. Likely to think before acting? Probably. Figuring that if they don't like the law, they're the ones doing it, so fuck the law? Yes, and that's the scary part.

Sometimes the system sucks. But often it's better than not having a system -- if you don't, then you're assuming that the guy with the power and the gun is smart enough to know when not to use it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,120]

>WE forget that Iraq not only HAS WMD in the form of nerve gas, but
> has a fair history of using it buth against the Kurds and against Iran
> in the war in the '80's.

Quite right; we supported them as they were doing that because we didn't like Iran.

>I honestly believe that the only sure way of stopping Saddam
> Hussein developing WMD IS to invade, change the regime . . . .

Right. And if his son took over (who is crazier than he is) he certainly wouldn't develop WMD's. And if the Kurds were somehow leveraged into power - well, those people aren't warlike at all.

> and I suspect that suddenly the information will flow about his WMD
> programs.

Of course. Which will also handily disguise the new regime's work on WMD's.

>A change of regime will also remove the reasons for the blockading
> of Iraq and will ultimately benefit the common Iraqi!

We are currently the cause of the pain the Iraqis are going through, due to our economic sanctions. We think it's a good idea. We're doing it to try to get a good result (revolution against Hussein.) "We might stop starving you!" hardly makes us the good guy.

>At present I pervceive the US as being similar to a cop cruising in his
> patrol car. Heavily armed? Yes. capable of exploding into sudden
> acts of violence? Yes. Dangerous? Depends on what you're planning
> to do!

And if you refuse to admit that you have drugs in your house, he will kick down the door and kill your family. If you do admit that you have drugs in the house, he'll just kill you. Sound fair? (It goes without saying that it doesn't matter whether or not you actually have any drugs; he thinks you might.)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

> I agree that the US is the biggest threat this year, but I think US policy
>is focused on long term (i.e. more than one year) peace.

Bush has actually come out and said that the US will begin a new policy of preemptive invasion, so I think you'd be hard pressed to show that the long term goal is peace.

This is not so new. We invaded Grenada and Panama. We tried in Solmalia, but executive leadership was lacking on follow through.

Quote

I can definitely understand that, but I can't see how such a policy makes any sense when applied towards Iraq and N Korea. Here we have a country which is an unmitigated pain in the ass, but one that has allowed UN inspectors in and has given them full access, claiming they have no WMD's. On the other hand we have a country that has nuclear weapons, is developing an ICBM that can reach the US, has kicked out UN inspectors, violated half a dozen treaties, and says things like "We will tear the limbs from the United States, which is an empire of evil and a ringleader of war and unhappiness, into pieces." And we plan to invade the first country. It just makes little sense to me. Might as well invade Cube to oust that maniacal anti-US dictator Castro.

Iraq has WMDs. Chemical and Biological agents are classified as such. Regardless of whether we find a nuclear program or not, WMDs are there.

DPRK doesn't require as broad a coalition diplomatically or militarily as does Iraq. China doesn't want DPRK to have nukes, you know Japan is almost willing to change their Constitution to prevent it and ROK is stuck in the middle. Europe's interests are not as broad as they are in the middle east and the region itself is more isolated geographically.

And finally, we did attempt an invasion of Cuba, with distastrous results (Bay of Pigs). It wasn't a formal US invasion but Kennady lost a lot of face on that.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>This is not so new. We invaded Grenada and Panama. We tried in
> Solmalia, but executive leadership was lacking on follow through.

Agreed. Bush is just the first president to make it an official, announced part of US foreign policy.

>Iraq has WMDs.

I've seen no proof of that, beyond the records we have that we sold them some of the ingredients and infectious agents.

>DPRK doesn't require as broad a coalition diplomatically or militarily
>as does Iraq.

It would if we were threatening them with invasion, rather than being willing to deal with them diplomatically.

>And finally, we did attempt an invasion of Cuba, with distastrous
> results (Bay of Pigs). It wasn't a formal US invasion but Kennady
> lost a lot of face on that.

We also tried an invasion of N Korea that didn't work out so well, and we've fought Iraq before. At some point we're going to have to learn a better way of dealing with foreign countries.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

>WE forget that Iraq not only HAS WMD in the form of nerve gas, but
> has a fair history of using it buth against the Kurds and against Iran
> in the war in the '80's.

Quite right; we supported them as they were doing that because we didn't like Iran.

That was then, this is now.

>I honestly believe that the only sure way of stopping Saddam
> Hussein developing WMD IS to invade, change the regime . . . .

Right. And if his son took over (who is crazier than he is) he certainly wouldn't develop WMD's. And if the Kurds were somehow leveraged into power - well, those people aren't warlike at all.

> and I suspect that suddenly the information will flow about his WMD
> programs.

Of course. Which will also handily disguise the new regime's work on WMD's.

Hence the idea of Iraq becoming a UN governed protectorate, like post WW2 Germany, The Marshall Islands...

>A change of regime will also remove the reasons for the blockading
> of Iraq and will ultimately benefit the common Iraqi!

We are currently the cause of the pain the Iraqis are going through, due to our economic sanctions. We think it's a good idea. We're doing it to try to get a good result (revolution against Hussein.) "We might stop starving you!" hardly makes us the good guy.

Can anyone support a regime which remains of a ooting which places it's overriding priority as the acquisition of defensive and offensive technology?

>At present I pervceive the US as being similar to a cop cruising in his
> patrol car. Heavily armed? Yes. capable of exploding into sudden
> acts of violence? Yes. Dangerous? Depends on what you're planning
> to do!

And if you refuse to admit that you have drugs in your house, he will kick down the door and kill your family. If you do admit that you have drugs in the house, he'll just kill you. Sound fair? (It goes without saying that it doesn't matter whether or not you actually have any drugs; he thinks you might.)

If the cop has reasonable suspicion, then he can apply for a warrant to enter your house by force and search it. Any resistance would be met with reasonable force - the amount of force depends on the amount of resistance... If the search is positive, then you go to trial.

The intention is to force a change of government in Iraq. The intention is not to kill Iraqis, even Saddam Hussein. I'd bet that the US and UK military units would hope to drive to Baghdad without expending anything more than Diesel.

Remember Serbia? Did the coalition forces KILL Milosovic? No, he's presently undergoing trial at the Hague!

I must admit my stance has changed. Until recently I was "anti-intervention", I am now "pro-intervention", both in this case and in the upcoming case against North Korea.

I believe that we are moving into a more dangerous time in history - perhaps even more dangerous than we experienced during the cold war. Our model of peaceful, tolerant civilisation cnnot survive without a strong defence of it and prophylactic action IS justified at this time.

Just my $0.02 (and it's time to return the rented soapbox).

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[blackwidow 0]

whirled peas?

[billvon 3,120]

>Can anyone support a regime which remains of a ooting which places
> it's overriding priority as the acquisition of defensive and offensive
> technology?

Not sure what you meant there (ooting?) but we place a far higher priority on acquisition of weapons than just about any other country in the world - certainly in terms of total money spent. Most big countries (France, UK, Germany) outspend Iraq, and many others (India, Pakistan, North Korea) have nuclear weapons. During WWII, we placed our #1 priority on our military, and indeed _developed_ the first nuclear weapons.

>If the cop has reasonable suspicion, then he can apply for a warrant
> to enter your house by force and search it. Any resistance would be
> met with reasonable force - the amount of force depends on the
> amount of resistance... If the search is positive, then you go to trial.

OK. that's a good analogy. And if you applied it to the situation here I would agree as well. If we go to the UN to get a resolution agreeing to the use of force, then I would support being part of a coalition to disarm Iraq. That way we're not the rouge cop.

>I believe that we are moving into a more dangerous time in history -
> perhaps even more dangerous than we experienced during the cold
> war.

I think every generation says that. There was a time when a powerful foreign army destroyed one of naval bases without warning. If you read the press accounts at the time, they thought they were moving into a pretty dangerous time in history. Same thing with the cold war - just read what McCarthy had to say about the threat of world domination by the USSR. Not even the most extreme Husseinaphobe thinks we risk world domination by Iraq.

> Our model of peaceful, tolerant civilisation cnnot survive without a
> strong defence of it and prophylactic action IS justified at this time.

We're not high on the list of peaceful, tolerant civilizations. We wage war pretty regularly, we don't have a great history of civil rights, and we hold records in terms of number of people killed with weapons of mass destruction. We sell arms to terrorists, and created Al Quaeda. All that being said, we're generally pretty good, and we're getting better (at least, we were until recently.) But saying "the wars will continue until there's peace" makes little sense. If we continue this way, pretty soon the rest of the world will realize the greatest obstacle to peace isn't on their side of the ocean.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Iraq has WMDs.

I've seen no proof of that, beyond the records we have that we sold them some of the ingredients and infectious agents.

So the file footage of Iraqi villages in Northern Iraq, the aftermath of a chemical attack is not evidence?

Quote

DPRK doesn't require as broad a coalition diplomatically or militarily as does Iraq.

It would if we were threatening them with invasion, rather than being willing to deal with them diplomatically.

Russia maybe, but otherwise, who else gives hoot about DPRK? *tongue in cheek here*

Quote

We also tried an invasion of N Korea that didn't work out so well, and we've fought Iraq before.

Bill, please cite history a tad more accurately. How did the Korean war start? North Korea invaded South Korea. MacArthur landed at Inchon and literally saved the day. The UN invasion of North Korea was a total success until Mac got too close, and too boistrous about China. It was the Chinese army that drove back the liberating forces.

In terms of dealing better with foreign countries, we tried a very diplomatic, and very civilized, and I'll even say honorable agreement with DPRK. We caught them red handed and we're at fault?

Quote

At some point we're going to have to learn a better way of dealing with foreign countries.

Better than START? Better than NATO? Better than Mexico? Better than UK? Better than Sudan? Better than Yemen? Better than Bahrain? Better than India and Pakistan? Better than Egypt? Better than Japan? You have to admit, our diplomatic corps does an outstanding job. NATO is growing, which strengthens foreign relationships. We've directly poured into Mexico's economy. Blair and Bush are the two most unlikely foreign policy allies (Labor vs. Conservative) and they are in stride. We abstained from blocking Sudan from receiving aid and status through the UN because they have been cleaning their own house on the war on terror. Our relationship with Yemen is vastly improved. Bahrain has been elevated to a status not thought possible in the middle east and US relations. India and Pakistan are self explanatory. Egypt was a part of our coalition in 91 and you will see them again if needed.

This is a broad range of foreign relations where we do not see eye to eye in a lot of ways, yet we also do not seek the destruction of our respective neighbors or each other.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>In terms of dealing better with foreign countries, we tried a very
> diplomatic, and very civilized, and I'll even say honorable
> agreement with DPRK. We caught them red handed and we're at
> fault?

No, it's their fault, and they have WMD's. They have threatened to use them against the US, and have suggested that they will resume development of an ICBM that can reach us.

Yet apparently that's an example of someone we should treat diplomatically, whereas a dictator who poses no threat to the US, and who is cooperating with the UN, should be destroyed (or at least driven from power.) I just don't see the reasoning.

>Bill, please cite history a tad more accurately.

You pretty much repeated what I said. We tried an invasion of N Korea during the Korean war, and it didn't work out too well. We may have "saved the day" for South Korea, but China "saved the day" for North Korea as well. Which is about what we can expect when we insert ourselves in a civil war.

>Better than START? Better than NATO? Better than Mexico? Better
> than UK? Better than Sudan? Better than Yemen? Better than
> Bahrain? Better than India and Pakistan? Better than Egypt? Better
> than Japan?

No, I'd be perfectly happy with "as good as START" and "as good as NATO."

>This is a broad range of foreign relations where we do not see eye to
> eye in a lot of ways, yet we also do not seek the destruction of our
> respective neighbors or each other.

I agree. We have proven we _can_ do it, and even treating a country like Yemen diplomatically can be successful. We just have to be more willing to try.

[RevJim 0]

Quote

There is currently only one nation threatening war on another, and if a war does start in 2003, it will be the US that starts it.

Well, I said other. It takes more than one to fight, with few exceptions.

Now if they would all just be quiet and do what we tell them to....

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[happythoughts 0]

If we are considering volume of weapons and ease of mobility, then Texas may need to be invaded.

[RevJim 0]

Quote

If we are considering volume of weapons and ease of mobility, then Texas may need to be invaded.

Nah, Texas is the invading force!

Who needs a standing army? Just call Texas (though Wisconsin is right there with them for firearms per capita)!

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Here we have a country which is an unmitigated pain in the ass, but one that has allowed UN inspectors in and has given them full access, claiming they have no WMD's. On the other hand we have a country that has nuclear weapons, is developing an ICBM that can reach the US, has kicked out UN inspectors, violated half a dozen treaties, and says things like "We will tear the limbs from the United States, which is an empire of evil and a ringleader of war and unhappiness, into pieces." And we plan to invade the first country.

You are trying to use an engineering equation to handle diplomatic problems. When you are dealing with people it is not an exact science. Our leaders feel that they can still negotiate successfully with North Korea. Their leaders will be relatively truthful and uphold their ends of any bargain reached by diplomatic means. They do not feel the same about Iraq. Yes, North Korea has the capability to do more damage but we are not at the point of requiring a full blown war in order to handle them. If you solely use a country's rhetoric and capability to harm us as a litmus test then we should be invading China right now. China has been spouting serious anti-American rhetoric for years in its national newspaper. You would think they were at war with us when reading it. My point is, there is more to the decision than you seem to understand.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[billvon 3,120]

>Our leaders feel that they can still negotiate successfully
>with North Korea. Their leaders will be relatively truthful
>and uphold their ends of any bargain reached by diplomatic means.

The evidence of that being, of course, that they just violated half a dozen bargains reached by diplomatic means, and revealed they were lying about their progress on nuclear weapons.

>They do not feel the same about Iraq.

The evidence there being that they are complying with UN requirements.

It's become clear that our current administration simply wants to destroy Hussein rather than even try to negotiate; they have stated as much. I don't believe their desire to do that is based solely on national security issues, a cheap and reliable oil supply, a desire for revenge, or success in upcoming elections, although all those certainly play a factor. From their own statements, though, one of their goals is NOT a peaceful resolution of their conflict with the Iraqi government. They have as much as stated that they will not be content with anything other than a regime change.

>If you solely use a country's rhetoric and capability to harm us as a litmus
> test then we should be invading China right now.

Agreed. Fortunately we are dealing with China a lot more intelligently.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

From their own statements, though, one of their goals is NOT a peaceful resolution of their conflict with the Iraqi government. They have as much as stated that they will not be content with anything other than a regime change.

Resolved by the US Congress to President Clinton in 1998.

And what you cite as "cooperation" from Iraq, Hans Blix cites as incomplete information and still the inability to question Iraqi scientists in private. That flies directly in the face of the resolution.

Quote

Quote

If you solely use a country's rhetoric and capability to harm us as a litmus test then we should be invading China right now.

Agreed. Fortunately we are dealing with China a lot more intelligently.

Unfortunately, I am wholly uncomfortable with a nation that will arbitrarily gun down and massacre thousands of its own citizens. And the wonderful intelligence with which we're dealt with China, most notably from '92-'98, they've successfully stolen compact nuclear warhead designs and stockpile protocols, untold thousands of software licenses and unknown damage to the political structure through shell enterprises contributing to specific political campaigns. We may be conducting ourselves intelligently, but we're not being too smart.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[cgross 1]

THat is easy to say when you are in a different country half the year...

Why are you even here???

[miked10270 0]

Hot news - Saddam wasn't developing WMD after all...

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/hussein.html

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Genie 0]

>Personaly, I think he's proven to be very untrustworthy. I sure as
>hell don't want his finger on the trigger of any nukes.

I don't either, but there are much greater threats (Kim Jong-Il, Musharraf) to world peace - and they _do_ have their fingers on the triggers. So do we. I don't think we'd like it if the UN sent troops in to disarm us, so I don't think we should blow the "disarm dangerous countries!" trumpet too loudly.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Correct me if im wrong on this, but the rationale of the USA seems to be
a) We suspect he has WMD's
b) we suspect he may use these against us in the future
c) Therefore we need to go to war with him now.

a) Iraq does have WMDs (Chemical and Biological), used Chemical weapons against Iran and against his own citizens (total dead: well over 100,000 all told). There is not a country on earth that disputes this (except for people here for some reason). Chemical and Biological weapons are considered WMD.

b) Ask a Gulf War Vet who may be suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. From what I've been able to gather, certain regimens of anti-biotics have proven hopeful in treatment. There have been quiet suspicions that Iraqi artillery wasn't all conventional.

c) If that were the case, we would already be at war. In light of everything going on, I think the US, and indeed most of the world is conducting itself rather well.

Quote

Lets look at Iraq - they're looking at the US and saying
a) we KNOW the US has WMD's
b) We KNOW the US wants to go to war with us - they keep telling everyone!
c) So by american logic, iraq should attack the States right now. Shouldnt they?

a) Not only that, but the US has used them, which ended WWII

b) The US is also telling Iraqis that the only problem here is Saddam Hussein, there is not ingrained hatred between common citizens. I don't hate any of them myself.

c) It isn't that black and white. The problem is leadership. You cannot apply "logic" to Hussein, and therefore, the model you are applying doesn't work.

Quote

Now i dont think they should attack America - nor do i think America should attack Iraq. Perhaps the UN should attack Iraq in the future

Unfortunately, that is not the role of the UN, that is, to direct a military campaign directly. Even if the UN resolves that armed conflict is the answer, it will be a coalition lead by the US. In fact, that is the plan even if the UN doesn't "approve" force per se.

Quote

when its proved they're hiding weapson (as someone said if Tony Blair and George Bush know where these weapons are, would they ever tell the inspection teams) and i certainly believe that members of the UN should support the UN - but i dont think america should go to war with Iraq (theres rumours going around that George wants to attack Iraq coz "they tried to kill my daddy" - not a good enough reason for me for thousands and perhaps millions to die.)

This would indicate to me that you're not as objective as you desire to be. Being in Western Europe, that is a tough goal to reach. I know the G.H.W. Bush factor has been tossed around here in the US too. If this were true, it's certainly a more focused reason than the dozens that are really in play, from Oil to WMD, to regional security, ad infinitum.

Quote

What i really dont understand is the hypocrisy of it all. Why is it ok got America to bomb Iraq for the ab&c shown above when its not ok for Iraq to do the same? (personally i dont think either should be bombing either!)

Genie

The reason why you don't understand is the exact reason why your model doesn't work. In fact, if this model had been in place before WWII, you might not be speaking English right now.

Now, as much as everyone wants to say "America this, or America that..." let's remember that we are not the only country involved in this. Spain, Italy, UK, France, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar are all involved (plus many others).

edit: corrected context in one of my bullet points. I am not a Gulf War Vet (upper-bullet-"B" originally read "As a Gulf..." and I meant it to read "Ask a Gulf..." The correction is now in place.)

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!