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