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

Erik Mattheis gozz at gozz.com
Fri Mar 21 17:43:29 CST 2003


On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 03:35 PM, Ken Kogler wrote:
>> 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?

I am saying that it is possible that Presidents intentionally lie:

"Cambodia is not a military target."
"I am not a crook."
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
"We have proof Saddam has WMD."

>  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.

And I believe there's stuff that the _shouldn't_ as it would compromise 
national security. But I don't see any explanation for why the Bush 
administration couldn't gain support for a just war with Iraq other 
than some variation on 1. The evidence wasn't convincing, and/or 2. 
They wanted to go to war without UN approval.

And either of those options makes the war unjustified.

> 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.

I kinda see sense in that, but am wondering why Turkey and Saudi 
Arabia, or any other Iraqi neighbors are part of the "Coalition of the 
Willing".

>  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.

With the exception that Hussein's track record has been clean for 12 
years, I agree with you here.

But I'd rather see 100 Billion of my tax dollars beefing up border 
security than eliminating one of dozens of _possible_ sources of WMD 
for terrorists. And there's never been a proven connection between 
Hussein and al-Qaida.

>> 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?

Actually, the UN has nothing to say about how countries run their 
internal affairs - indeed Iraq is a member of the UN.

I do disagree with the UNs policy against assassinations - this whole 
mess wouldn't have been possible if the Security Council would have 
approved an assassination of Hussein ... of course if that had been a 
possibility, things would have been playing out differently for decades.


>> 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.

Yes, of course, but in the matter at hand, it was unprovoked. Again, 
playing more devil's advocate, assuming he does have WND, Hussein has 
just been a bully within his own borders for years.

> 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...

As I mentioned before, Inspections and the no-fly zones were 
effectively containing Hussein for 12 years. If somethings not broken, 
don't fix it!

> 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...

Will post links soon ... haven't kept them organized.

>> hat'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.

As my older friend who was a leader of the Gay Rights movement here in 
the 70's says: "They don't listen to you until you start to break 
things."

But non-violent cilil disobedience usually requires consuming law 
enforcement resources: even during the incredible event here yesterday 
when the Minneapolis police were participants in the civil 
disobedience! I just can't believe it actually happened, it made me 
really proud of where I live.

Fun responding to your devil's advocate things, I just wish there were 
REAL pro-war people that know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

--
vanity project in progress:
<http://goZz.com/presents/aristotle/>
The works of Aristotle in a Macromedia Flash "Rich Internet Application"
ActionScript and ColdFusion Development
Minneapolis, MN
--



More information about the thechat mailing list