|
by laudablepuss 02/06/2003, 1:18am PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Zseni wrote:
Look, it's useless arguing with you about this.
Me: The resolution is not sufficient grounds for a war.
You: WE HAVE TO BOMB IRAQ.
Me: The resolution is not a causus belli.
You: IRAQ IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
Phase II:
Me: Where was the threat in 91 when we already had, you know, troops and bombs all over the scene and plus revolutionary movements in the country to back?
You: Are we supposed to wait for him to bomb us?
Me: Hey, isn't North Korea nuke capable now?
You: ARE WE SUPPOSED TO WAIT FOR HIM TO BOMB US?
What is a causus belli, then? And when he actually has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, how are we going to attack Iraq and take Saddam's toys away from him? In the case of North Korea, the fact that they have nuclear weapons and the power to use them on their neighbor, Japan, makes them a very dangerous foe. Are you seriously saying that only when he actually has these weapons should we consider trying to prevent him from using them? Or maybe we should wait until he uses them first?
Stop focusing on the resolution. The resolution is a means to get our allies behind this worthwhile endeavor. Our allies are the ones who helped write it and pass it, so it's an obvious avenue for gaining their support. You haven't answered my question (or maybe you have in another thread that I haven't read yet) about whether you think Saddam is a threat. I might also ask what you think of Powell's presentation, which I just watched in its entirety save for the first few minutes on C-Span. Let me be as unambiguous as possible: You either believe that Saddam Hussein is developing WMDs or you don't. You either believe that he has connections to multiple terrorist organizations or you don't. You either believe that the weapons inspectors are ineffective or you think the opposite. If you believe all three, then I don't understand your reluctance to stop this threat.
Let me cut straight to the heart of the matter: if there is a war, Americans will die in it. There will be casualties. The world as we know it right now will change, and we will contend within our own borders with grief and shock.
However, unlike the Gulf War grief and shock, ours will be the grief and shock of aggressors. We will be making a pre-emptive strike against a regime we can't seem to prove anything against definitively. Doesn't that worry you? What is the status of those future dead servicemen and women - are they heroes? Americans were generally against nation-building in Afghanistan; are they going to be in favor of nation-building in Iraq? Why are we going, and what will we leave behind?
So the war is so totally indefensible because "we can't seem to prove anything against it definitively". What would constitute definitive proof, short of the use of these weapons? The Iraqis know where our inspectors are heading and move prohibited substances away from prying eyes. They deny everything and block all efforts. And yet thanks to some defectors and some very good luck, we've found positive evidence of weapons development programs, of commanders discussing the covering up of such projects (as in Powell's briefing), some hints at far larger projects. We've photographed a very large test stand for rocket engines (again in Powell's briefing) large enough to reach 1,200 km. We've intercepted shipments of very high grade aluminum tubes that can be used in a uranium enrichment program. Furthermore, we have been able to find NO evidence that the WMDs we KNOW he had have been destroyed.
To you all these questions and concerns are answered by the mere potential threat of a nuclear-capable Iraq and its vague ambitions to bomb the US. To me they are not answered by that. That is the end of the argument. Compounding the matter is my impotent rage at you for allow things like "enforcing the resolution" to play into your ideology at all; it is, I continue to point out, a justification, a rationalization, and not a motivation. I'm not really mad at you. I'm mad at a country which has allowed itself to go this far down the path of disconnect.
War or not war - how can it honestly matter very much to me? I won't suffer, and I know how to keep those close to me from suffering too. But here, in this country, I feel a more insidious war is being fought, one that I can't remove myself from, one that I can't protect my loved ones from. I'm paranoid about our nation's leaders. This war in Iraq seems to me too Vietnamesque for me to accept it with your easy comfort.
I will need to see more proof of Saddam's weapons, and on top of that I need to be convinced that war is the only way, that war will be the successful way, and that we will not pay too heavy a price for it internationally. To me that's only reasonable; if it's not equally reasonable to you, then there is no chance at all of our ever arriving at a concensus on this issue.
Paranoia is good when it's not extreme. Don't trust the government, by all means. I'm a Democrat and I voted for Gore. Furthermore, I don't like Bush, I think he's a moron, and I don't appreciate the way he's handled the international situation. But I've seen the evidence, I've read the arguments, and I'm totally convinced that we are on the right course despite all of this.
You need to see more proof. I wonder if there could ever be enough proof to satisfy you. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by Zebco Fuckface 02/04/2003, 11:58pm PST 
I thought Divide and Conquer pertained to one's enemies -nt- by Entropy Stew 02/05/2003, 12:50am PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by laudablepuss 02/05/2003, 2:42am PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by Zebco Fuckface 02/05/2003, 5:50am PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by laudablepuss 02/05/2003, 11:41am PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by CrackerBarrel 02/05/2003, 12:36pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by laudablepuss 02/05/2003, 1:21pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by CrackerBarrel 02/05/2003, 2:30pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by Senor Barborito 02/05/2003, 5:06pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by laudablepuss 02/05/2003, 5:43pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by Zseni 02/05/2003, 7:53pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by laudablepuss 02/05/2003, 8:51pm PST 
Ugh, sorry for the mispelled words. -nt- by laudablepuss 02/05/2003, 8:54pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by Zseni 02/05/2003, 9:25pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by laudablepuss 02/06/2003, 1:18am PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by Zseni 02/06/2003, 4:14am PST 
Wait just a goddam minute by laudablepuss 02/06/2003, 7:53pm PST 
Re: Wait just a goddam minute by Zseni 02/06/2003, 8:06pm PST 
Re: Wait just a goddam minute by Bodybag 02/06/2003, 8:26pm PST 
Re: Wait just a goddam minute by Zseni 02/06/2003, 8:44pm PST 
Huh. by laudablepuss 02/06/2003, 9:42pm PST 
At some point by Senor Barborito 02/07/2003, 12:20am PST 
HA HA -nt- by Entropy Stew 02/07/2003, 4:01am PST 
Re: Wait just a goddam minute by laudablepuss 02/06/2003, 9:40pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by Bodybag 02/05/2003, 9:51pm PST 
Cowing + "Which WW2 leader is Bush most like?" by Fussbett 02/06/2003, 12:25am PST 
Re: Cowing + "Which WW2 leader is Bush most like?" by laudablepuss 02/06/2003, 2:10am PST 
Re: Cowing + "Which WW2 leader is Bush most like?" by Fussbett 02/06/2003, 2:48pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by Senor Barborito 02/06/2003, 3:09am PST 
war killer = war criminal -NT- NT by Senor Barborito 02/06/2003, 3:12am PST 
Re: Senior Barborito even more insane than previously thought by laudablepuss 02/06/2003, 11:57am PST 
Re: Senior Barborito even more insane than previously thought by Zebco Fuckface 02/07/2003, 6:56pm PST 
Rust? by laudablepuss 02/07/2003, 7:11pm PST 
Re: Rust? by Zebco Fuckface 02/08/2003, 12:32am PST 
Re: Rust? by laudablepuss 02/08/2003, 5:15pm PST 
Re: Richard Perle: even more insane than previously thought by Mischief Maker 02/05/2003, 3:39pm PST 
Perfectly serious, not trolling, fire when ready, Gridley. -nt- by laudablepuss 02/05/2003, 5:11pm PST 
In the future, all debates will be fought with comic strip exchanges by Ray, of Light 02/05/2003, 8:35pm PST 
I didn't think anyone here was actually stupid enough to take Perle'e side N/T NT by Zebco Fuckface 02/05/2003, 8:31pm PST 
Re: I didn't think anyone here was actually stupid enough to take Perle'e side N/T by laudablepuss 02/05/2003, 9:00pm PST 
Re: I didn't think anyone here was actually stupid enough to take Perle'e side N/T by Zebco Fuckface 02/06/2003, 12:23am PST 
Re: I didn't think anyone here was actually stupid enough to take Perle'e side N/T by Zebco Fuckface 02/06/2003, 12:24am PST 
Re: I didn't think anyone here was actually stupid enough to take Perle'e side N/T by laudablepuss 02/06/2003, 3:46pm PST 
There goes any hope of UN Authorization for an attack [NT] by Cyrris 02/05/2003, 9:27am PST 
In related news, Colin Powell calls France a "bunch of fairies". by CrackerBarrel 02/05/2003, 12:46pm PST 
|
|