Re: Re: Re: And the Search ends for WMD
 

I'm going to quote this post to allow a second opportunity for coop to take a look and respond . . .

Well-put Russ.

Fine I'll take the bait... but bear with me I'm living out the song Comfortably Numb now on Codine...


If it was about Geopolitics why didn't they say that? Instead the administration tried to sell it on 9/11, WMD, genocide, freedom, democracy, etc..... but mostly WMD. Now when other countries (well most of them) voiced their concern that the arguement for WMD was exactly solid, they were critized or reviled.... I'm sorry no matter how you try and spin it the administration used WMD as their lead horse or main arguement, and now the press should be asking the questions they should have been years ago (without attacks on their patriotism or "American-ness).

And this is a fair point, but let's address it in two different ways:

1 - You don't feel there was the potential for some dangerous weapons systems if the Iraqi Ba'athist government was left unrestrained? I mean, between the lack of cooperation w/ the UN, and historical seeking out (and receiving) nuclear systems . . . I think that the danger was present, even if the preexisting weapons were removed or (most likely) relocated.

2 - Even if we 'sold' it as WMD-based, the geopolitical concerns alone make this a fairly justifiable course of action, no? So while the press derides the Bush administration, why not devote some time to the positives of regime change to the geopolitical texture of the region? If it would have been easy to explain this to the masses as justification by the Bush admin, surely the press will have no trouble breaking the story either . . . right?

It's pretty clear that's not going to happen . . .

-RC
--"The people is stupid." --alexander hamilton

You are all hippies and therefore you should be allowed to attend Mardi Gras.

Well I'd argue that technically the Iraqi Ba'athists were restrained, and that the UN sanctions and inspections while resisted were working - along with the bombing campaign. The arguement of the Canadian government (which I agree with) was that a pre-emptive war on Iraq based on the "possibility" of WMD would create more of a geopolitical mess and fuel terrorism in the region.

Well actually the geopolitical and legal implications of a pre-emptive war easily outweighed what percieved benifit there would be. See the legal arguement against pre-emptive war has been on the books since Nuremburg (ironically put there by the US) - the message that was sent was that the if a nation feels threatened, it can launch a pre-emptive war to "protect" itself... which is why it was declared illegal by the UN (even by the, well now former UN ambassador from the US - he didn't last to long after that vote).

It could be argued that initating a scenario that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands, probably over a hundred thousand people makes the finding of WMDs an important point.

Imagine a medium size town in the united states stacked with bodies like cord wood for a good visual.

Revisionist history aside, the primary reason given to the American people was the possibility of imminent mass death bv chemical or biological munitions given by Iraw to terrorists.

Now personally, I'm all about the USA kicking ass and taking names. As long as we win, almost anything is forgiveable.

You want to depopulate Denmark next week because they have a violent muslim population? Well as long as I don't have to fight, my quality of life isn't directly affected, and we win decisively . .. have at it hoss.

Damn . . offer me some direct profit and I'll start the war myself.

However, those of us that are arguing for the war based upon the premises promoted by the Admnistration are on shaky ground.

Not because those arguments don't have validity. Its that those arguments don't have enough impeteus to be an obvious goad to war.

And the clincher, the reason that gave teeth to the proposal, the infamous WMD's proved not to exist.

I find the argument that the intention or ghost-like possibility of WMDs justified our killing of tens of thousands of people to be both disturbing and . . well . . stupid.

Imagine having a pedophile in your neighborhood that lives there with an locator anklet. Your child goes missing. You assume he abducted her. So you go in all commando style and burn his house down wiping him and his familty out, only to find that your kid just forgot to tell you she was staying at her friends.

Some situations go beyond "my bad." Or, he was a piece of shit anyway, so even though I was wrong, the neighborhood is a better place now that i killed him and his family and torched his house.

So i think we need to stick with a simple argument: We did it because we could do it, and we wanted to do it, and no one could stop us. If you don't like it . . well Fuck You. IF you stick with this, no one can refute you.


"America, Fuck Yeah"

Two points I would like to make:

1. Doesn't anyone think that perhaps evidence of WMD could have been moved to, say, Syria before the United States got there?

and more importantly...

2. Enough about the WMDs, ok???? The real question is has James' penis been located yet? :D ;)

It's either hidden with the WMDs -- or he never had one.