Pro-war debate (WAS: RE: [thechat] protests?)

[Ken Kogler]

DISCLAIMER:
This is a hot issue, and one everyone has a VERY strong opinion on. I
just got out of a two hour ethics class, and I'm in the mood to debate.
Since we here at thechat seem to be primarily comprosed of people very
much opposed to this war, I figured this would be an interesting place
to raise a few counter-arguments. The statements below are points that
have come up recently in conversations I've had, and make *some* sort of
rational sense. 

I am not pro-war. Do not attack me for being so. I'm just playing
devil's advocate. Let's try to keep thechat civil, shall we? After all,
I didn't even mention the Atkins Diet. :)

Anyway...

> > I understand both sides of this issue and
> Assuming that by "this issue" you mean "the unprovoked United States
> led attack on the sovereignty of another nation." 

Also known as "preemptive strike" or "aggressive defense".

> If I'm correct, to
> understand one side of it you either have to:
> 
> 1. Have blind faith Hussein has WMD and furthermore 
>    feel personally threatened.

Are you honestly saying that you're as well informed as the president of
the united states? Once you get an all access pass to military
intelligence from around the globe, I'll take you word on whether or not
Hussein has WMD. That's not blindly believing everything coming from the
government, that's just common sense -- OF COURSE there's stuff they're
not telling us.

As for feeling personally threatened, I do. Hussein's WMDs can't reach
America. But that doesn't mean he can't kill some of my family that's in
Europe. He can kill hundreds of thousands of people -- keep in mind he's
got a track record for this sort of thing -- and he can also SELL his
WMDs to some group, like a terrorist cell, which doesn't have much of
that pesky international law to worry about. If Saddam sells anthrax to
an Al-Qaida operative, they could pretty easily bring it over here and
use it in Chicago. Border security is a joke. 

> 2. Disagree with International Law that has for half 
>    a century effectively contained the reign of 
>    ruthless dictators.

You're backing laws to protect mass murderers?

> 3. Believe that might makes right.

It doesn't. But what about a justifiable use of force?
 
> There is no middle ground on this issue. You either back unprovoked
> aggression, are against it, or have no opinion.

Or it's not unprovoked.
 
> How could someone start a war without "wanting to"? Seriously, that is
> a serious question, I'd like you to answer it.

Seems to me the current administration feels it has to, but does so
reluctantly. They've exhausted all normal diplomatic channels, and now
they have to resort to something more drastic. And if you're going to do
something, do it well...
 
> Things have happened that you're not aware of this week. Hundreds of
> people in various US cities have been arrested for legally assembling
> and asserting their First Amendment rights in an orderly and peaceful
> manner. I can send you links if you wish.

Please do. I legally assembled and asserted this week in protest to this
war, and nothing happened to me. I bet there's more to the story than
that...
 
> > My concern about present day protestors are:
> 
> I'm so glad you're concerned about personal choices I make.

If your choices affect *MY* life, then you're damn right I'm going to be
concerned.
 
>> 3.  They are distracting military and local law enforcement from very
>> important duties and issues concerning national security, regardless
>> of what country they are in.
> 
> That's exactly the point! To raise a ruckus. That's what every living
> creature does to indicate discontent. Make noise!

Can't you make noise without "distracting military and local law
enforcement from very important duties and issues concerning national
security"? Seems a bit counterproductive to do otherwise.

> Among the reasons I protest ...
> 
> 1. To show the rest of the world that not all Americans are raving
> homicidal lunatics.

If they need to be told that, then they don't understand anyway. That's
like saying all Muslims are terrorists. It's an ignorant generalization,
and those who resort to that are not people who's opinions I care about.


That's it.

--ken