Maybe the conversation will go like this:

Bush: Hiya--good mornin'. Here ya go--this is something my pal Berto Gonzalez scribbled out. It's lawyerly stuff.

UN: What is thees, Mister Preesident?

Bush: Well, ya got thirty days. That should give ya time to do what you've got to do.

UN: You want our help?

Bush: No--heh--I want you to pack. You're evicted, Kofi, and take all these lackeys with you.

Posted by: Joe Baby/Moronwatch at January 29, 2003 12:21 AM

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

By going to the UN last fall, the administration made this showdown inevitable. If Powell has a really hard-hitting case in his briefcase that day, we'll know that GWB is going into Iraq, regardless of what the French, Russians, and Chinese do.

If Powell goes up there with a softer case, then we'll know that the administration still hasn't worked up the nerve to defy the Security Council.

I'm hope the first case is the right one.

Posted by: Tobacco Road Fogey at January 29, 2003 12:35 AM

That should have been "I hope that the first case is the right one".

(fingers too fast for brain)

Posted by: Tobacco Road Fogey at January 29, 2003 12:39 AM

I really believe that the subtext of this speech was that it's going to be "are you coming with us or aren't you?" to the U.N.

Goddammit it better be.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at January 29, 2003 01:07 AM

My guess is that TV forces presidents into game show formats. So, now we have Bush, the contestant, picking between Door #1, Door #2, or Door #3. (In CLinton's games, it's Batchlorettes.)

I think Bush lost momentum. I've been thinking that since Americans removed their flags from their cars last year. And, I really don't believe you need to take everything with you to start fighting in Iraq. (It's not summer camp. Some stuff can arrive, like inventory, LATER!)

Okay, Bush doesn't like to be pushed into making decisions. And, Americans like to watch game shows (with lots of commercial interruptions) ... Yet, some day, I HOPE, we can discuss WHY it took so long?

Also, do you know what Bush's speech looked like if you turned the sound down? He looked puzzled. I don't think he knows what's behind any of the doors. So, excitement builds. WHOOPIE.

Posted by: Carol Herman at January 29, 2003 03:59 AM

The point about the UN relates primarily to European domestic politics. France has tacked onto Germany's position, but has left itself wiggle-room to change tack in light of new evidence. That's the meaning of Villepin's phrase "no reason at this time". Germany holds important elections this weekend, where Schroeder is desperately trying to hang on to a majority in the upper house of the German Parliament (it's a hopeless case). By going to the UN after the German elections, France gets to stand by Germany for the period that is important to Schroeder (that was his price for acceding to certain other French demands). But Powell the gets to present the "new" evidence, giving France a face-saving way of leaving Germany standing in the cold with its opposition.

At this point, no-one knows what the new evidence will be, but that hardly matters. With Bush having signalled that there is going to be war, the French will have little alternative but to acquiesce if it doesn't wish to be excluded from the post-war remaking of the region.

Posted by: Haruspex at January 29, 2003 04:59 AM

i'm curious as to what kind of proof the US will unload on the world to boost their insane 'saddam must die' plans; bush has been saying for MONTHS the US has incriminating documents, they keep saying they will disclose them, and the world is still waiting. what, does it take this long to forge fakes now? the US is usually pretty good at that, the US administration just sounds like a bunch of self-repeating fools

Posted by: alex at January 29, 2003 05:04 AM

I don't know what's up with the war part of the speech, but he had some great things in there earlier.

I especially was surprised about the AIDs aid to Africa.

Posted by: Lucas Goodwin at January 29, 2003 05:52 AM

I must say that Mr. Den Beste surprised me with this essay. I had no idea that he was really expecting Bush to really say openly, "Fuck the UN. We're going to invade and occupy Iraq, international opinion be damned. Anyone who doesn't like it can go piss up a rope. Yo, Schroeder, Chirac, Putin -- try and stop us, mm'kaay?"

As much as I would enjoy that, politicians don't work that way. I don't think Bush is willing to trash outright the "international order" -- worthless as it is. There is no support at home for doing this, and it could create some real trouble abroad for the likes of Blair, Berlusconi, and Aznar. If the U.S. starts reveling in its "rogue-state" image, supporting us becomes a real liability. Better to at least try to bully the UNSC into doing what we want -- it doesn't really cost much, and doesn't introduce a huge list of problems worldwide.

But, to quote Bush, "let there be no misunderstanding." Bush is dead-set on invading Iraq; he'd rather do this with the fig leaf of UNSC approval, but he'll proceed balls-in-the-wind if need be. The best indicator of this is the apparent willingness of the Administration to share classified data with the UN. That data wasn't classified for fun; it was classified because it would reveal our methods, and burn our sources. The only way you reveal it is if you believe that it no longer matters. That can't be true if you mean to simply have the inspectors use the data to find more weapons. The only way it can be true is if you don't believe the government you are spying on will be in existence long enough to analyze your findings and act on what it figures out. That can lead to only one conclusion.

And by that time, the case will also have been made to the American public. They'll see the evidence for themselves, and if the UNSC continues to block any action, they will see quite clearly that it's simply a pack of obstructionist tools. At which point, invading Iraq without UN backing won't seem like such an outrageous act. If anything, it'll be downright sensible.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 29, 2003 06:49 AM

But Alex, Saddam MUST die. Why would you be so insane as to want him to live and continue to torture, mutilate, oppress and starve his citizens and terrorize the entire civilized world?

Posted by: Robert Speirs at January 29, 2003 07:06 AM

Too often we realists in the pro-war camp are impatient with politics. We've got no stomach for it. Neither does W, but he has made a concession to politics this time. It really costs us nothing and may yet gain us a little more international support. It will help Tony Blair and our non-weasel allies even more. If the cost of waiting a couple weeks is low and we dodge the "unilateralist" label this time, we'll be in better shape when we really do need to act unilaterally - like when take out North Korea's reactor.

Posted by: Steve Maruth at January 29, 2003 08:28 AM

ALex evidently puts more faith and credibility in Saddam than he does in Bush.
Pathetic.

Posted by: Drake at January 29, 2003 08:46 AM

It appears that George W. Bush is a huge supporter of the UN. He keeps giving them chance after chance to redeem themselves from irrelevancy.

Posted by: ruprecht at January 29, 2003 10:12 AM

Powell's visit to the UN on 5 of Feb needs to mimic that of Adlai Stevenson - he needs hard proof, laid out in clear pictures. He needs to point to individuals, by name, and say "Scientist X did this between 98 and 99 to advance the Iraqi weapons program". He needs to walk into the UN and show a clear link between Iraq and terrorism.... and he needs to show Sadam as a clear and present danger to society at large, not just recycle the information that has been in the press for the past twelve years. Not in the soft-spoken manner Powell has been know to give speeches, but as a pit bull on the attack.

I fear, however, this will not be the case. I too was hoping that Bush would have said "Saddam's time has come." but that was wishful thinking. 5 of Feb will be a replay of the SOTU.

Good comments all, I enjoy reading.
-Van

Posted by: VMS at January 29, 2003 11:46 AM

For whatever it's worth, I feel a lot better today.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 29, 2003 12:49 PM

It's not about Bush giving the UN more chances to be relevant, although that would be nice, its about deploying needed forces and weapons systems and keeping the news agencies and everybody else as busy on non-essentials as possible until the bombs start dropping. This is camouflage in the modern news cycle; through them an irresistable bone and do what needs to be done while they are distracted with their (largely irrelevant) favorite causes/toys/stories.

Posted by: Cletus at January 29, 2003 01:08 PM

and Drake parrots bush's infamous "you're with us or against us" stupid rhetorics; there's more to the rest of the world than being against the US or for the US or whatever, I don't side with France/Germany's little scheme either, as S.Den Beste put it so brilliantly, they're political has-beens trying to get back in the game (re-worded for shortness); obviously i dont side with saddam either. what scares the shit out of me is how bush is just as big a crazy nut as saddam

which is exactly why monday's UN report was fair, bush can kick and scream like a 5 y/o, but there's still no tangible proof that saddam has banned weapons, so giving more time to the inspectors is more sound than launching an all-out pre-emptive strike against one man and millions of innocent civilians.

Posted by: alex at January 29, 2003 01:31 PM

The likelihood of "millions" of deaths in a pre-emptive strike is pretty much nil, civilian or military. Hyperbole is not a substitute for reason.

Posted by: Kerry at January 29, 2003 02:03 PM

alex (who apparently can't find the Shift key on his keyboard) writes:

and Drake parrots bush's infamous "you're with us or against us" stupid rhetorics; there's more to the rest of the world than being against the US or for the US or whatever

Actually, Drake does no such thing. His conclusion -- that you believe Saddam more than you believe Bush -- can be arrived at directly from your own statements.

Incidentally, Bush never said "with us or against us." What he was was "with us or with the terrorists." Which is entirely true: "neutrality" in the face of terrorism serves to help terrorists. (As Indonesia found out the hard way a while back.)

what scares the shit out of me is how bush is just as big a crazy nut as saddam

That would scare me too, except I see no evidence of that. Nothing in what Bush has done demonstrates insanity; the only way you reach this conclusion is if you believe Bush is lying, and Saddam is telling the truth. Hence Drake's (correct) conclusion earlier.

which is exactly why monday's UN report was fair, bush can kick and scream like a 5 y/o, but there's still no tangible proof that saddam has banned weapons

Bush hasn't kicked or screamed at all; what he has said is that Iraq hasn't cooperated with the UN search process -- which it hasn't, as made very clear in Hans Blix's report to the UN. Which, by the way, is the whole problem: UNSC res. 1441 was not some kind of search warrant for the inspectors to go to Iraq and see what they can find in spite of Iraqi attempts to frustrate their search. The resolution clearly said that Iraq must bring all of its WMD into the open, and cooperate fully at every point. It was up to Iraq to prove that it no longer had any weapons of mass destruction, or destroy the ones it has; the inspectors were there to confirm this, not conduct a country-wide search, which is impossible. Iraq has clearly not cooperated; it is therefore in material breach; no further evidence is needed. I think you have mistaken this for a courtroom drama.

As for "tangible proof" of Iraq having WMD -- there are some Kurds in northern Iraq that would just love to talk to you.

so giving more time to the inspectors is more sound than launching an all-out pre-emptive strike against one man and millions of innocent civilians.

Yes, by all means, let's have another flock of dunderheads milling about a hostile country looking for hardware. I'm sure than after Iraq goes nuclear, we all will be better off, including those "millions of innocent civilians."

(And really -- millions? Are you under the impression that our first move will be carpet-bombing Baghdad?)

Posted by: E. Nough at January 29, 2003 05:02 PM

i see you're using the same rhetorics as drake (shift key is on and off, bomb me too if you have to). the point i'm trying to make is that the US should (but will keep trying while people like bush run the country) is that disagreeing with US politics doesn't mean i agree with saddam; from my standpoint, jumping to those conclusions with such ease should have you thrown right back in 5th grade. i fully agree saddam is a menace, he needs to be removed, he's not only the head of a rogue country (diplomatically speaking at least, in many other ways as well), he's enforcing a regime of terror on his population. that's a fact i will not accuse bush of making up in any way, nor will i ever think it's debateable that saddam could be mistaken for someone even trying to comply with international sanctions and regulations. i say it again, i agree with the US', and countless other countries', stance on saddam hussein. what i find questionable, at the very least, is how the problem is approached by the US administration; war is not an answer. yes, i know, easier said than done, diplomacy has its enormous set of flaws, those flaws hussein is amusing himself with by faking compliance to the UN inspections and so forth, and that for several years.

what bothers me in this debate is how the US is proposing (and preparing) the "liberation" of Iraq (shift key well used, woohoo); the US (and France, and Germany, in fact, pretty much all western countries) tend to stick its nose (and bulldozer) where it sees something that could benefit its own interests, don't talk to me about liberation when free oil is the only item on the menu. the way i see it, this war is, once more, going to happen for the wrong reasons.

by the way, there are 24,001,816 people in iraq (taken from the CIA's worldbook site, population digits date from july 2002), i never said the US would kill millions of civilians (that's for miss hyperbole), but troops are bound to make a few gaffes, those who get classified under the lovely term of collateral damage.

Posted by: alex at January 29, 2003 05:37 PM

More insights from alex:

i see you're using the same rhetorics as drake

Really? News to me.

the point i'm trying to make ...is that disagreeing with US politics doesn't mean i agree with saddam;

No one ever contradicted you on this, though, so you are answering a charge that hasn't been made.

But you do refer to Bush as "crazy," and you accuse him of lying about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Which means that you believe Saddam, and disbelieve Bush. QED.

i fully agree saddam is a menace, he needs to be removed...

Wonderful. And you propose this to be done... how?

what i find questionable, at the very least, is how the problem is approached by the US administration; war is not an answer.

It's not? Why? And what is the answer?

yes, i know, easier said than done, diplomacy has its enormous set of flaws

In this situation, diplomacy is not merely flawed, it's useless. No amount of diplomacy -- not even large quantities of "strongest possible terms" -- will do anything to move Saddam even an inch from his throne. It's really quite simple: if you really want Saddam gone from power, war is the answer. It's the only answer.

what bothers me in this debate is how the US is proposing (and preparing) the "liberation" of Iraq (shift key well used, woohoo); the US (and France, and Germany, in fact, pretty much all western countries) tend to stick its nose (and bulldozer) where it sees something that could benefit its own interests,

Yeah, so what's your point? Why should it bother you that countries act in their own self-interests? (Incidentally, good use of the Shift key. Now go look up "run-on sentence.")

don't talk to me about liberation when free oil is the only item on the menu.

Oil is a side benefit, and a minor one. (It's not as though the Iraqi populace benefits from having it now.) Really, the U.S. could get cheap oil out of Iraq easily enough without having to go to war over it. This accusation is not just uninsightful -- it's patently silly. (Wouldn't it be easier to take over Saudi Arabia? They have more oil, and fewer resources to oppose us...) Now, if you want real oil politics, check out who has the largest oil interests in Iraq today. Hint: they love Jerry Lewis and drink a lot of wine.

by the way, there are 24,001,816 people in iraq (taken from the CIA's worldbook site, population digits date from july 2002), i never said the US would kill millions of civilians (that's for miss hyperbole), but troops are bound to make a few gaffes, those who get classified under the lovely term of collateral damage.

I'm aware of Iraq's population, thank you. And you used the phrase "strike against... millions of innocent civilians." What was the point of this phrase, if you didn't mean that to be some kind of reference to mass murder?

And honestly -- yes, there will be some innocent people who die as a result of American invasion -- nowhere near millions, but there will be some. And your point? Yes, it sucks, but far more will die (guaranteed) if Saddam is allowed to build nukes and expand into the rest of the Middle East. (How many Germans would have died if France crushed Hitler in 1934? How many actually died as a result of WWII?)

Hell, I bet the number of people dying unintentionally as a result of an American attack will be orders of magnitude smaller than those killed by the Hussein regime to date -- to say nothing of those whose lives will be improved dramatically after Hussein is worm food.

Oh, but I forget -- we need to listen to our betters at the UN (now with 25% more dictators!), and give comically ineffective inspectors and thoroughly useless "diplomacy" chance after chance. Maybe we can also make some Saddam voodoo dolls. Because, like, war is not the answer. No, sir.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 29, 2003 05:58 PM

when a country is attacked, all of its population is put under a stress, not just the people living in the vicinity. when the terrorist attacks hit NYC and washington, all of the US were in a state of panic, not just those living in NYC and DC areas; same applies to a country under attack: a city is getting bombed, you are 500 or 1000 km away and can totally fear for your life. this basic math doesn't just apply to US-centric situations.

Arg, why do i bother. have a good war.

Posted by: alex at January 29, 2003 06:34 PM

Now "alex" is saying that even if bombs don't harm civilians the civilians are "put under a stress." It used to be that those who wanted to argue against war would point out the dangers to our own people. But there were so few Americans injured in Afghanistan that this argument doesn't hold water anymore. So instead the "antiwar" folks harp on the dangers to the enemy.But Afghanistan also demonstrated that modern precision weapons cause very few civilian casualties. Which was more dangerous, to be a civilian in Afghanistan during the bombing or to be a civilian driving a car on American highways during the same period? So now they are driven to bemoaning the "stress" this might cause civilians. I should think living under Saddam rather more stressful. Oh, and "stress' does not take an indefinite article.

Posted by: doyne dawson at January 29, 2003 07:13 PM

Wow -- I've got to admit that I've never before seen the argument that we shouldn't attack Iraq because we'll scare people. It's certainly ...original. Sure says something about the quality and mercy of the U.S. armed forces, not to mention the absurdity of so many of the "anti-war" arguments.

As an aside, I wonder how many people in Iraq are under (cough) stress because the secret police can come at any time, and make them disappear. Nah, not important. War is not the answer. Just keep saying that. War is not the answer. War is not the answer. War is not the answer...

Posted by: E. Nough at January 29, 2003 08:39 PM

I feel sad for some of you. You are so bloodthirsty that you've forgotten the value of human life and seek to solve conflict with more death. Why don't you fly over to Iraq with guns blazing? While you're at it, you can head over to eliminate the brutal, undemocratic, Saudi regime, then liberate Iran, head over to China to free them, then make a final stop in North Korea to kick Kim Jong-Il's ass? And hey, if some civilians die, that's just the price of freedom, right?
What gives you the right to decide that someone's life is more valuable than your own? Honestly?
Like I said, go to Iraq and see death for yourself since you surely won't see any evidence of the brutality of war once the TV coverage starts. All you'll see is a bomb-camera from high above. Who knows where it is landing? They don't show you the charred bodies that result. They don't show limbs being blown off either. War is not a game, people.

This war will only breed more hatred for America. Please think about the value of human life before you presume to determine who dies and who lives. There is no compassion in war. Two wrongs don't make a right. Haven't you learned that yet?

Thank you.

Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2003 08:43 PM

Of course, if the United States wanted to go to war just for a secure oil supply, we would invade and occupy Canada, Mexico and Venezuela (which we could do today from bases on our own soil) and forbid those vassal states from exporting oil elsewhere in the world. Between the proven reserves in North America and Venezuela, we'd be completely self-sufficient in oil and maple syrup.

Of course, Alex is trolling in a second language (comment on parle «weasel» en français?), so the facts aren't going to convince him regardless.

Posted by: Chris Lawrence at January 29, 2003 08:45 PM

The irony of the anti-war left is that they place more value on the lives of the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does (who, by the way, will continue to govern those people in the absence of a war). The irony of those who support a war is that they also place more value on the lives of Iraqis than Saddam Hussein does.

Pop quiz: who's killed more Iraqi civilians: (a) the United States government, (b) the Iranian government, or (c) the Iraqi government? Even if you believe that US sanctions have killed Iraqi civilians (despite ample evidence that oil-for-food feeds the Iraqi people except in the Saddam-controlled portions of Iraq), the numbers still support conclusion (c).

Now I leave Dave to return to his self-gratification while reading the collected works of Robert Fisk.

Posted by: Chris Lawrence at January 29, 2003 08:52 PM

I don't know who Robert Fisk is, but if someone as logical as you referred him, maybe I should look into him, no?

I still would urge you to think about what war entails. You can give your arguments all you want, but in the end, there is still death, right? It's a knee-jerk reaction for people to want to hit the bully back, but what good does it do, ultimately?

At one time, Saddam was our friend (when he was Iran's enemy); now we call him our enemy and demonize him at every chance. Yes, he has killed his own people. In fact, he was gassing the Kurds back when the U.S. called him friend and knew what he was doing. So, things come around to bite us in the end, right?

If you cared so much about the Iraqis, why are you so eager to drop bombs on them? If you are so in favor of war, why don't you pull the trigger yourself? It's easy to sit here, thousands of miles away, and say "let's get Saddam!" when you don't have to do the real killing.

Please don't dismiss me as "anti-war left". I'm stating a fact: War is brutal. Dictators can be brutal too, but how are you any better for wanting to kill thousands of more people for the sake of removing the dictator? Contrary to President Bush's ideals, the world is not "black and white", "good and evil", "with us or against us".

Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2003 09:09 PM

Too many games at the UN. I don't see how they will collectively do the right thing and agree to remove Saddam by force.

Some, like the French, have their own cynical and mercenary reasons - it IS about oil for them.

Others won't want to be seen as in favor of war - any war. They will vote against war cynically believing that the U.S. will go to war anyway but, their vote will leave them blameless.

I remember what happened when Congress made noises about being consulted. GW basically said "OK, you're consulted. Now what are you going to do?"

What are these brilliant statesmen going to do if GW say "OK" when they say no war and the U.S. then declines to put forces between Saddam and the world? Saddam and his future actions become their responsibility. I don't think they will like that. In the end, there will be war.

Posted by: Fred Boness at January 29, 2003 09:32 PM

Dave, I know you think that your arguments are somehow original and insightful, but trust me on this one: they are as old as dirt, and much less interesting. I know that's unkind, but we've been over this every freaking day since 9/12/2001, and I'm sure our ancestors argued about it ever since they figured out the concepts of "friend" and "enemy."

It's trivially easy to make an argument against "war" as a concept, and that's all you have done. If by making a convincing argument you could actually end war, there might be something to what you are saying. But you are not going to end war. Even if you convince the entire civilized world to stop fighting and disarm, there will always be parts of the world that are, umm, less than civilized. Saddam's Iraq is one such place.

Ultimately, it is not the goal of the United States to liberate the Iraqi people; that's a useful byproduct of Hussein's removal, nothing more. It is also not really our goal to "avenge" anything by destroying Hussein's regime. The reason we are so concerned about Hussein is because he has clearly demonstrated imperial ambitions, weak neighbors, a very advanced weapons program, and he happens to sit on top of an invaluable resource that cannot be substituted (that's the oil angle). Nuclear weapons would allow Hussein to easily take over Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, putting him in control of more than half of the world's oil supplies. This would give him a humongous revenue source to build a tyrannical empire that would make the USSR look cuddly, not to mention quite a bit of leverage over the civilized world. (Especially Europe and Japan, which are almost entirely dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but also the U.S.)

You say in your post that Hussein was once a friend of the U.S. This is patently untrue: nations don't really make "friends" -- they just happen to have goals that align with those of other nations. After the Iranian revolution, the U.S. sicced Hussein on Iran, thus letting the two countries beat each other bloody, so they didn't get any more powerful. It was a cynical strategy, and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, but there wasn't any real alternative. (That's the problem with real life: sometimes all the choices suck, and you have to pick one you think sucks the least.)

When Hussein was just a small-time dictator, he could be ignored, or even used. Unfortunately, if nothing is done pdq, he will become a global-scale menace. It is that which the United States is trying to prevent. That it will rid the Iraqi people of a horrific, murderous despot, is icing on the cake, nothing more. We can't afford to have him around, and his own people sure as hell aren't going to miss him: win/win all around. And we're not "eager" to drop bombs on Iraqis; we certainly won't dance in the streets over the fact that they die. But we also understand that backing down now, far from saving lives, will cost thousands of times more lives in the long run.

(You ask what good it does when you "hit the bully back." I find this question absurd. First, it doesn't apply here. Second, ever seen a bully who picks on 250-lb linebackers? No? Why do you think that is? Do linebackers have better conflict resolution skills? Hitting a bully back teaches him -- and all the other bullies -- the lesson that messing with you is a bad idea. And if he's a slow learner, well, a bully with his skull bashed in is no longer a problem.)

Please, for heaven's sake, spare us all from banalities like "war is brutal." We know that. But buried within that admonition seems to be the implicit assumption that if our side simply backs off and rejects war, armed conflict can never ensue. Sorry, but that's wishful bullshit. Hussein is headed for a conflict with the West -- the only question is when. If the conflict happens today, it is on our terms, and the threat is removed with minimal cost to both sides. If we back off, let Iraq go nuclear, and ignore Hussein until he brings the conflict to us -- and he will -- it will be difficult, bloody, involve mass death on an unprecedented scale... and we may lose. Again, go back to the 1930s: how easy would it have been to invade and disarm Germany, and depose Hitler, circa 1935? And how hard was it to do by 1945? You're not seriously suggesting that we fall for this again, are you?

Finally, there is this abysmal slide into moral equivalence:

Dictators can be brutal too, but how are you any better for wanting to kill thousands of more people for the sake of removing the dictator?

First, we don't want to kill thousands, or even hundreds, or even a single person, to remove Hussein and his ilk from power. But we also understand that he must be removed from power, or else the deaths will number not in hundreds, or thousands, but in the millions. Unfortunately, we can't do this without some people dying, so we accept -- unhappily -- this cost. That's another one of those things about being an adult: you have to accept things that make you unhappy.

And second, there's a big difference in goals between removing a mass-murdering tyrant (who kills thousands yearly), and building an empire. Motivations matter. Results matter too. Our goals are nobler and our results are more appealing to us and Iraqis alike: that is why we are better. Strange that I should have to actually explain that.

You're right in your last statement: the world is not clearly divided into "good" and "evil" -- hell, I often wonder which side France is on. But surely it is not difficult to realize that a government which practices mass murder, rape, mutilation, and torture -- and seeks to bring it to far more people than it's already victimized -- is not in some kind of gray area in between? Hussein is evil, plain and simple, and we are better than he. He can't be allowed access to nuclear weapons, for that will give him enormous power. We have to prevent this. The only way to do so is to attack him while he is still weak; we can depose him with very few deaths on both sides. That's all there is to it. War may be brutal, but appeasement is suicidal.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 29, 2003 10:17 PM

The inverse of the "war hurts people" thread could be argued like this: you care for Iraqis, but don't wish to lift a finger to liberate them.

I've read this equivalent numerous times--"yes, Saddam is a bad guy and must be removed, but war is not the answer."

Then how else? Kofi Annan? Note what Lileks said--what kind of a cowboy takes a year to form a posse over an 11-year old indictment?

And finally, the "we supplied him" thoughtline--if so, isn't it time to take those tools back?

Posted by: Joe Baby/Moronwatch at January 29, 2003 10:22 PM

Mr. "Nough", I appreciate your lengthy response. Healthy debate is useful. But when one side says "my way or the highway", it's a sad day for America.
I realize that my points are "as old as dirt", but that doesn't make them less valid. It saddens me that people still aren't listening after all this time.

As for "imperial ambitions", need I mention America's own imperial ambitions in the past (and many would say our continued ambitions)? Do I also have to mention that America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another country? And also, our new foreign policy of "pre-emptive" action includes the possible use of WMD against other countries pre-emptively. Never before has America been so arrogant as to publicly state that any country deemed threatening to the U.S. faces a possible attack with WMD. I think that is part of the reason for the anti-American sentiment abroad (even in ally countries).

The nuclear angle has been shot down. By all accounts thus far, Iraq's nuclear program is nonexistent. Those aluminum rods that the president claimed could be used for enriching uranium were shown just days before to be used for conventional weapons, and even administration officials have admitted their mistake in that matter. So, the president lied about that.
And look, if this were really about WMD, we would be bombing North Korea and Pakistan, who have in the past and will probably continue to provide weapons to terrorists. But clearly this isn't all about disarming Iraq. At first, the president said it wasn't about regime change; now he is saying Saddam must be removed. He's also saying the Iraqi people should be free. So, which is it? He seems to change his tune.

You say, "Unfortunately, if nothing is done pdq, he will become a global-scale menace." I ask, why now? Why at this time in 2003? Surely if we waited another few months, Saddam wouldn't take over the world! But that's the thing -- we can't wait a few months because the weather will be too hot to fight. Doesn't this war seem a little opportunistic to you? (I would imagine it doesn't) Saddam hasn't done anything particularly different or aggressive recently compared to last year, or two years ago. So why didn't the president pursue Iraq BEFORE 9/11? Or why not immediately AFTER 9/11? How is he presenting a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. RIGHT NOW? Saddam Hussein may be a violent dictator, but he isn't stupid. Losing the first Gulf War must've been quite a wake-up call. I have no doubt that the American military will destroy Iraq's unorganized, unmotivated military. I think Saddam knows that too. But he's not going to go out easily -- he'll use whatever WMD he has againts our troops and maybe his neighbors. But I think he would do that out of desperation.

Most of the Arab world doesn't want this war.

You say, "Hitting a bully back teaches him -- and all the other bullies -- the lesson that messing with you is a bad idea. And if he's a slow learner, well, a bully with his skull bashed in is no longer a problem."
Is that the only lesson you can teach someone? If so, you are so simple minded that you're probably beyond hope. Did Ghandi organize a violent revolution? no. Did Martin Luther King Jr. advocate violence as a means of solving conflict? no.

It's funny you mention Nazi Germany considering Bush's granddaddy was a partner in banks that helped fund Hitler. But that's another issue for another time...

Here, you attempt to talk down to me:

Unfortunately, we can't do this without some people dying, so we accept -- unhappily -- this cost. That's another one of those things about being an adult: you have to accept things that make you unhappy.

THAT is bullshit. Just who ARE you, anyway? How are YOU "accepting" the cost of life in this war? You aren't doing a goddamn thing to "accept the cost". To you, those dead people are faceless. Would you be able to look an Iraqi citizen in the eye and say "you might die in our war, but that is just part of the cost. You'll have to accept that fact." That is bullshit, and I challenge you to grow some balls and realize that dead people are not "collateral damage". Bin Laden could just as easily say that those who died on 9/11/01 were collateral damage in the jihad against the west. Why don't you try explaining that to the victims' families? Not so easy when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?

I don't know how you can be so confident that there will be few casualties. Do you know something that everyone else (including the pentagon) doesn't know? Or maybe it's just that you've fallen for Bush's rhetoric that we can handily defeat Iraq with few consequences. Besides the human toll, what about the backlash of Arab nations? Do you honestly believe that this war will NOT breed more terror? An errant cruise missle drops on someone's house -- the surviving, disfigured family members now hold a grudge against America. This isn't far-fetched. When all you know is that a bomb killed your family, and you're desperate, people like Bin Laden will snatch you up and train you for the next 9/11. Doesn't anyone even consider that possibility? Hell, so many people in the world hate Americans already. Why should we add fuel to the fire?

Finally, to Mr. Moronwatch: how are YOU "lifting a finger" to help liberate Iraq? Are you sending food over? Are you killing Iraqi soldiers? Or are you just sitting here saying "Go George!"? You're not even questioning your government at this critical junction.
For the record, I don't think Bush's goals are completely noble. I don't think he cares much about the Iraqi people, though I don't doubt that there are many pro-war folks who honestly do care about the Iraqi people. I just think that Bush is leveraging that support to further his own goals. (we'll find out in due time what exactly those unstated goals are, but I'm sure there's a large factor of geo-political influence and probably even the "macho factor" which surely helped his dad.)

For Allah's sake, let's not go lightly into war, ok?

Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2003 11:33 PM

Sheesh Dave,
You use lots of words to rationalize cowardice. Let me tell you something: it is no more virtue to stand by and allow tyrants like Saddam to terrorize thier people than it was for neighbors to ignore the screams of Kitty Genovese all those years ago in Queens. Furthermore, refusal to defend one's self, family, and comrades from the bullies of the world is immoral and stupid becuase it encourges and empowers uncivilized and criminal behavior. They are the ones who force us to use violence (or the credible threat of violence) to remove them becuase negotiation is only a ploy to them. How many times do people like you have to learn the lesson that treaties have as much meaning to outlaw states as gun control laws have to murderers. In both cases, the only way the law is effective is if it is enforced. Emphasis on the force. We would not even be talking about inspection unless the US pulled out the stick.

the other Alex

Posted by: Alex at January 30, 2003 06:24 AM

Dave hits all the absurdities brought out by the anti-war camp. I'll (cough) try to keep my answers brief:

But when one side says "my way or the highway", it's a sad day for America.

Oh, come on. I've said no such thing. We've heard your arguments, here's why they don't wash, and we won't be discussing this to death. There is no "my way or the highway" here -- I don't have that power.

As for "imperial ambitions", need I mention America's own imperial ambitions in the past (and many would say our continued ambitions)?

Even assuming this wasn't completely absurd, it's irrelevant. I'm not interested in being a nice guy -- I just want to make sure threats to my safety and the safety of my fellow citizens, are removed. Saddam with nukes is one such threat; America with nukes is not. End of story.

And also, our new foreign policy of "pre-emptive" action includes the possible use of WMD against other countries pre-emptively.

I'm reminded of the annoying NBC slogan, "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you!" That "new" policy has been in place since the 1950s. Why should I worry about it now?

Never before has America been so arrogant as to publicly state that any country deemed threatening to the U.S. faces a possible attack with WMD. I think that is part of the reason for the anti-American sentiment abroad (even in ally countries).

Of course it has. And I'm not interested in having Belgium love me. Or, rather, I'm less interested in this than in having the likes of Iraq and North Korea know it's better not to mess with me.

The nuclear angle has been shot down. By all accounts thus far, Iraq's nuclear program is nonexistent.

By whose accounts is that? The UN inspectors have said clearly now: they don't know, because Iraq is frustrating their efforts. (Hey, weren't there similar accounts about North Korea? Oops...)

And look, if this were really about WMD, we would be bombing North Korea and Pakistan

Different countries, different situations, different approaches. Both Pakistan and North Korea are surrounded by strong, nuclear neighbors, don't sit on top of all the world's oil oil supplies, and have no imperial ambitions. They are not an immediate threat to the U.S., and since they already have nuclear weapons, attacking them would be tremendously bloody and costly. The whole idea is to keep Iraq from turning into such a nation: it could use this to expand east, south, and possibly even west.

But clearly this isn't all about disarming Iraq.

No, it's about removing Hussein from power and then disarming Iraq. It's really not possible to disarm an unwilling nation peacefully; all UN rhetoric to the contrary is pure fantasy.

You say, "Unfortunately, if nothing is done pdq, he will become a global-scale menace." I ask, why now? Why at this time in 2003? Surely if we waited another few months, Saddam wouldn't take over the world!

Wrong. As soon as Iraq has at least one working nuclear weapon, the whole situation changes. It will be far more difficult and costly to remove him, and the cost and difficulty will grow with each day. The best time to hit him is while he is weak and non-nuclear; that time is running out very quickly.

Doesn't this war seem a little opportunistic to you? (I would imagine it doesn't)

Not nearly as opportunistic as most of the "anti-war" anti-American rhetoric, no. The timing of this war is extremely appropriate, and I see no "opportunity" derived from it.

So why didn't the president pursue Iraq BEFORE 9/11?

Good question. I imagine he felt much as you do now -- I remember his speeches about the world respecting us more if we were a "humble country." I believe he now realizes this to be bullshit -- being humble is no protection. Just ask Poland.

Or why not immediately AFTER 9/11?

Because Iraq wasn't the prime actor in 9/11, and removing the Hussein regime has little to do directly with 9/11.

Saddam Hussein may be a violent dictator, but he isn't stupid.

Sure. I'll just sleep at night knowing that I'm protected from harm by the wisdom and sanity of Saddam Hussein, mass murderer. And his progeny, too.

(And really, what you are saying doesn't add up. If Saddam were really that smart, and all he wanted was to keep ruling Iraq, he could simply invite all the inspectors in, give them totally unfettered access, and destroy all his chemical and biological weapons, not to mention scrap the nuclear program. Then we might leave him alone to run his hellhole as he sees fit. And yet, he keeps frustrating the inspectors at every turn, clearly having something to hide, even though he knows this means eventual U.S. invasion. Why? Is he simply stupid and stubborn, or is he really hiding something? Either answer means exactly the same thing...)

I think Saddam knows that too. But he's not going to go out easily -- he'll use whatever WMD he has againts our troops and maybe his neighbors.

Oh, I get it -- he doesn't have WMD, but he'll use it if he has to. Great.

Also, was there a point to this? You just said yourself that Hussein is armed with WMD, and willing to use it. If he's willing to use it to blackmail against a U.S. attack, what makes you think he wouldn't use it to blackmail his neighbors into surrendering, if the U.S. withdrew? Seems like his very stance is explanatory of the need to turn him into worm food.

Most of the Arab world doesn't want this war.

And who cares?

You say, "Hitting a bully back teaches him -- and all the other bullies -- the lesson that messing with you is a bad idea. And if he's a slow learner, well, a bully with his skull bashed in is no longer a problem." Is that the only lesson you can teach someone? If so, you are so simple minded that you're probably beyond hope.

That's the only lesson you can teach a bully, yeah. (Well, the other one is that you can be picked on at will -- you can teach that one.) Sorry I'm not sophisticated enough to impress people by mumbling "War is not the answer" and "War is brutal."

Did Ghandi organize a violent revolution? no. Did Martin Luther King Jr. advocate violence as a means of solving conflict? no.

Oh, please! Neither Ghandi nor King operated against brutal dictators. The people they were addressing weren't bullies. Had Ghandi or King gone up against Hussein, they have been tortured and killed about 20 minutes after their first attempt at "nonviolent resistance." Ghandi's methods have their place, but only against people who are unwilling to kill you in the first place.

It's funny you mention Nazi Germany considering Bush's granddaddy was a partner in banks that helped fund Hitler. But that's another issue for another time...

What's so funny about that? And what in the blue blazes has Bush's grandfather got to do with Iraq? Hello?!

Way to dodge the rest of the issue, by the way.

Here, you attempt to talk down to me:

Hey, you're the one who started talking down, not to mention reminding us that "war is brutal."

THAT is bullshit. Just who ARE you, anyway? How are YOU "accepting" the cost of life in this war?

I'm an adult who has thought about all the possibilities, weighed the consequences, and understood that war is the best course of action, in spite of the bad parts of it. I am accepting the casualties by understanding that some people will suffer and die (including some Americans), and it will be lamentable, but far more will die if we don't invade and disarm Iraq today. Your outrage is completely irrelevant to me.

Would you be able to look an Iraqi citizen in the eye and say "you might die in our war, but that is just part of the cost. You'll have to accept that fact."

Quite easily. And many Iraqis would agree and support me. The Iraqi groups in America are obvious examples, but even many in Iraq are waiting for the U.S. to come get Hussein off their backs, even though they know the risks to themselves. They are adults too -- and they know that staying with Hussein is a much greater risk.

And even if they didn't agree, that still wouldn't stop me. Ultimately, I care about the safety of Americans more than the safety of Iraqis. It just happens to be the case that both peoples will be better off after Hussein is removed, which makes this a lot easier.

That is bullshit, and I challenge you to grow some balls and realize that dead people are not "collateral damage".

Fuck you, Dave, and the sanctimonious horse that rode in on you. I said it before: sometimes you have to take choices that are not perfect. If you can't accept that, it's your problem, not mine. I don't rejoice at the deaths of innocent Iraqis, but I won't be paralyzed into inaction -- which is guaranteed to result in far more deaths in the long run -- just because a few thousand Iraqis might die, in spite of my side's best efforts. By taking this attitude, you are permitting Hussein to use his own population as hostages. Oh, sorry, fuck them too, because your pure noble conscience must not be disturbed.

Bin Laden could just as easily say that those who died on 9/11/01 were collateral damage in the jihad against the west.

Uhh, right, see, he didn't actually intend to murder those people, he was just after the tall buildings. You are quickly degenerating into idiocy here; not that I find this surprising.

Why don't you try explaining that to the victims' families? Not so easy when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?

I don't have to explain it to them, because it ain't true. The victims of 9/11 were deliberately murdered in an attempt to intimidate us and make a political statement; I can see both worked on you, incidentally, so congratulations. The Iraqi people are not going to be wantonly murdered by the U.S.; we'll do everything possible to avoid hurting the innocent.

I don't know how you can be so confident that there will be few casualties.

Yeah, yeah, we heard this tune about Afghanistan, and the first Gulf war.

Besides the human toll, what about the backlash of Arab nations?

Excuse me, but I don't base my foreign policy views based on what the Arabs might think of them. If they have a "backlash" -- which always gets threatened, and never seems to come to pass -- we'll deal with it then.

Do you honestly believe that this war will NOT breed more terror?

I honestly don't give a damn, and this is one of the most appallingly immoral and stupid anti-war arguments I've heard. Let me say this very clearly: The United States does not allow terrorists to determine our foreign policy. You do that, and the terrorists really win. Then you get even more terror.

Having said that, though: no, I don't believe the war will result in more terrorism. The Arabs aren't exactly holding back terror now, and removing one of terror's prime sponsors will result in less, not more.

Sorry, I think you want the French, across the pond.

An errant cruise missle drops on someone's house -- the surviving, disfigured family members now hold a grudge against America. This isn't far-fetched. When all you know is that a bomb killed your family, and you're desperate, people like Bin Laden will snatch you up and train you for the next 9/11.

Sure. Why, just look at all the German and Japanese terrorism in the wake of WWII! And the Koreans in the 50s! There was terrorism stemming from the Vietnam war in the 60s and 70s -- oh, right, that was conducted by "anti-war" Americans.

Bin Laden is dead. And the best -- the only -- way to prevent terrorism is to kill terrorists.

Then you slip into complete idiocy:

Finally, to Mr. Moronwatch: how are YOU "lifting a finger" to help liberate Iraq? Are you sending food over? Are you killing Iraqi soldiers?

Joe is supporting this action, and no, that doesn't require him to pick up a rifle and go to the Middle East himself -- any more than your opposition to it requires you to join the Iraqi army. The argument is both ad-hominem and against a straw man, and its efficiency doesn't make up for its stupidity.

At any rate, Joe's point was that you seem to care about the Iraqi people only insofar as you don't want a single one of them hurt by an errant U.S. missile. Those that die from Hussein's brutality or simple idiocy are not your problem at all. Or rather, you "care" for them in the abstract, but you care more about keeping your own precious conscience clean. Well, I've got bad news for you: inaction is a choice, too. We can easily spare millions of Iraqis (and many others, primarily Arabs and Persians) from suffering at the hands of Hussein's nuclear empire. If you choose not to, their suffering is on your conscience.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 30, 2003 07:16 AM

You, Mr. Nough, who hide behind a false name, have already fallen for the president's fearmongering and the terrorists' intentions. Your selfish ramblings indicate that you want to look out for yourself, and Arabs be damned! You clearly HAVEN'T thought of all the consequences and options since you have completely dismissed the consequences of the growing hatred for the U.S in other countries. You seem to say that it doesn't matter that anyone hates us -- we'll "deal" with the hatred later. It's just that kind of "fast-food, quick response" that shows the world just how ignorant Americans are.
Here is the silliest thing you said:

And the best -- the only -- way to prevent terrorism is to kill terrorists.

That's just plain dumb, I'm sorry to tell you. That's like saying the only way to prevent severe bleeding is to put a bandaid on the wound. You're ignoring the root causes of terrorism, and you aren't even attempting to understand them. All you know is "terrorists attacked us -- terrorists are bad -- we should kill them so that they don't continue being bad."

Just because I oppose this war doesn't mean I oppose ALL military force, and it certainly doesn't mean I want to fight in the Iraqi army. This isn't about being either "with us, or with Saddam". It's that kind of absolutism that gets us into these messes to begin with.

What I was trying to say is that taking a human life is no trivial matter. And if anyone is so gung ho about potentially killing thousands of people, then that person should also be willing to do the killing himself. The difference is that America has many thousands of troops on Iraq's doorstep (you hawks can stop salivating...), yet Saddam has no way of launching an attack against us. So the threat of death is more imminent for the Iraqi people than it is for us. That is why I say you should be prepared to do the killing yourself if you believe the cause is justified. Please try to wrap your head around that concept. It doesn't mean I want to kill Americans. I don't want to kill anyone. Those "anti-war = anti-American" arguments are intended to deflect the discussion.

Caring about America and rejecting war are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 09:17 AM

" That's just plain dumb, I'm sorry to tell you. That's like saying the only way to prevent severe bleeding is to put a bandaid on the wound. You're ignoring the root causes of terrorism, and you aren't even attempting to understand them. All you know is "terrorists attacked us -- terrorists are bad -- we should kill them so that they don't continue being bad."

Wow!!! It sure took a long time to 'root causes' here, didn't it? I love that theory. If only they had been held more as children they wouldn't flown planes into buildings and murdered thousands of our fellow citizens. We just have to learn to LLLUUUUUVVV them more.

Good grief Dave. When someone is coming at me with a knife, I don't give a god-damn about why, I just want to make sure that fuck doesn't hurt me. That may make me an terrible bitch, but at least I'll be alive.

You also said this: "That's just plain dumb, I'm sorry to tell you. That's like saying the only way to prevent severe bleeding is to put a bandaid on the wound. "

Actually, it's more like saying the best way to avoid having your fingers cut off is to get rid of all the chain saws and knives. I believe France is the one advocating the band-aid.

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 10:07 AM

Don't twist my words and belittle the notion that there are underlying causes to terrorism. There's no such thing as an "evil gene".

Get this:

"Actually, it's more like saying the best way to avoid having your fingers cut off is to get rid of all the chain saws and knives."

Do you see the irony you're saying here? This is the same argument that Democrats have used with gun control. We know that guns don't kill people -- people kill people, right? Well, we also know that terrorists don't come out of thin air. The terrorists are the "guns" in this equation, and there are tangible motivations for their actions. The knee-jerk reaction of getting rid of terrorists (in the right-wing case) or guns (left-wing case) to solve the problem of killing is short-minded.

If someone is coming at you with a knife, eventually you WILL have to think about why he was doing that, because there's a good chance that another person will attack you later. And you can't possibly say that you'll continue to kill those knife-wielders one by one without even considering their motivations.

You're holding on to your life too tightly, Amy. Everybody dies sooner or later, and it's crazy to think that we're willing to kill thousands of people (innocent or not) just to preserve our own temporary existence.

You're more likely to die on the highway to work tomorrow than you are to die of a terrorist attack. That's not to say we should get rid of highways, but let's not live in fear of our own mortality. Because if we do, we'll only cause more and more death everywhere else.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 10:32 AM

Oh, jeez, Dave. You've got Marc Herrold Afghanistan civilian death data on your site like you believe him. Say it isn't so.

Posted by: Fred Boness at January 30, 2003 10:45 AM

"If someone is coming at you with a knife, eventually you WILL have to think about why he was doing that, because there's a good chance that another person will attack you later. And you can't possibly say that you'll continue to kill those knife-wielders one by one without even considering their motivations. "

I generally like to wait until I'm not longer being attacked before I sit around and wonder why they wanted to kill me. My first thought, upon being threatened, is NOT "Gee, why do they hate me?", it's "where the hell did I leave my gun?" You can hate that stance all you want, but like I said before, at least I'll be alive.

"You're holding on to your life too tightly, Amy. Everybody dies sooner or later, and it's crazy to think that we're willing to kill thousands of people (innocent or not) just to preserve our own temporary existence."

Wow. You are so amazingly profound, man. I am just clinging to life to damn hard. So what if someone wants to kill me? My life isn't that important. You'll excuse me while I go throw up.

" but let's not live in fear of our own mortality. Because if we do, we'll only cause more and more death everywhere else."

Translation = It's okay if Americans die, but not Iraqis ??

What the hell is your point?

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 10:48 AM

The point is that it isn't "ok" for anyone to die for the sake of someone else's self preservation. I never said it's ok for Americans to die. But since you and I are American, we have a responsibility that goes along with being the only superpower in the world. We could "kill them all and ask questions later", or we could actually try to do some real good. That must sound far fetched to you.

Contrary to what you may want to believe, the world will keep on spinning and spinning after you die. Our lives really aren't that important. It's a delusion. Our lives aren't worth killing others. You may say, "try explaining that to terrorists or Saddam Hussein", but that's missing the point. We take one step at a time. You may want an instant answer, but peace takes a long time. It takes a long time to cut through all the delusions we have. Unfortunately, the impatient among us would rather bomb foreign countries than attempt to understand themselves.

As far as the content of my site, I encourage you to comment using the comment function on my blog. This is not the place for a discussion of my site.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 11:29 AM

Dave, I am so sorry dear. It must be tough trying to get along in the world when you are obviously brain damaged.

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 11:41 AM

Amy, it must be tough trying to get along in the world when you are obviously so defensive. How old are you, 10?
If the only thing you have to say is that I am brain damaged, maybe you should go back to the drawing board and try again. Better yet, evaluate your own insecurities and stop fooling yourself.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 12:13 PM

Dave continues to amuse me, so I'll return the favor:

You, Mr. Nough, who hide behind a false name

Just what does my real name have to do with anything at all? About as much as Bush's grandfather, I imagine.

have already fallen for the president's fearmongering and the terrorists' intentions

I haven't fallen for anything. I actually arrived at Bush's conclusions before Bush did. Several years before, in point of fact.

(The terrorists' intentions were to cause us to depose Saddam Hussein? Wow, that's a new one... And how would you know that?)

Your selfish ramblings indicate that you want to look out for yourself, and Arabs be damned!

Well, I expect my government to look out for me, yeah. I'm wacky like that. I don't give any special weight to the needs of Arabs (or Poles or Belgians or Colombians) unless they also happen to hold U.S. passports. I'm not sure why you think I should.

You clearly HAVEN'T thought of all the consequences and options since you have completely dismissed the consequences of the growing hatred for the U.S in other countries.

Yes I have. And I'd rather have some more "hatred" of the U.S. in those other countries later, than a nuclear Iraq now. It's as simple as that.

Not that taking the course of action you suggest would result in less hatred for the U.S. Just less fear and more contempt.

You seem to say that it doesn't matter that anyone hates us -- we'll "deal" with the hatred later.

It matters. But we're going to have enemies anyway. I'd rather it be the left-wing mouthpieces in the UN, and the craven cowards in Paris and Brussels, than nuclear-armed dictators in the Middle East. In other words, I'll take weak enemies over strong ones.

You seem to think that the U.S. can simply befriend everyone on earth, and avoid conflict that way. That makes you a fool.

It's just that kind of "fast-food, quick response" that shows the world just how ignorant Americans are.

Yes, thank you for that marvellous insight. "Fast food, quick response" after 12 years of bullshitting by Saddam.

And the best -- the only -- way to prevent terrorism is to kill terrorists.

That's just plain dumb, I'm sorry to tell you. That's like saying the only way to prevent severe bleeding is to put a bandaid on the wound. You're ignoring the root causes of terrorism, and you aren't even attempting to understand them. All you know is "terrorists attacked us -- terrorists are bad -- we should kill them so that they don't continue being bad."

No, the idea that you can prevent terrorism by not making people upset is just plain dumb, because it presumes that it is possible to make everyone happy. I am happy to listen to someone's grievances -- against me or against anyone else -- as long as they are presented properly, without killing innocents. As soon as someone resorts to terrorism, I don't give a damn what motivated them: it doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure you consider yourself quite the intelligent and insightful commentator for pointing out that the best way to keep people from killing you in rage is to not enrage them; you're neither, and the idea is no more practical than cutting medical costs by telling people to get sick less.

Sorry to continue to burst bubbles, Dave, but we will make enemies no matter what we do, even if (especially if) we do nothing. (What did Poland and Belgium do to Germany again?) You won't make the whole world love you; the only way to survive is to make your enemies fear you. All your hand-waving and wishful thinking won't change that.

Just because I oppose this war doesn't mean I oppose ALL military force, and it certainly doesn't mean I want to fight in the Iraqi army.

Great. Please describe the circumstances under which you would support the use of the American military against a foreign tyrant.

What I was trying to say is that taking a human life is no trivial matter.

It's these stupendous heretofore-unheard-of insights that make you such a joy to read. Thank you again.

And if anyone is so gung ho about potentially killing thousands of people, then that person should also be willing to do the killing himself.

That's crap. We have a military for doing that. Someone can have an opinion that it should be used without being a part of it. Conversely, someone in the military can be opposed to this war, but they still have to carry out their orders. Being in the military has no connection to having an opinion on foreign policy, and your attempts to claim otherwise are absurd and disingenuous. (And, of course, if everyone who held pro-war opinions served in the military, you'd be out there yelling about how these gun-toting hawks need to be controlled by their betters, like yourself.)

More to the point, which you seem to keep missing with a nearly deliberate obtuseness, is the fact that we are not gung-ho about the war in Iraq. I'd very much like to avoid war altogether, but I don't see how that's possible in this case, without having a much larger, riskier, bloodier war later. It's not that I relish the choice of war, it's that I am picking the least-worst of all the choices I have. You keep arguing against some kind of militaristic straw man who wants to conquer and dominate just for fun. Sorry, no one like that here. (There's this guy in Baghdad, though...)

The difference is that America has many thousands of troops on Iraq's doorstep (you hawks can stop salivating...), yet Saddam has no way of launching an attack against us.

True enough. And I am all for using those troops to ensure that Saddam never does have a way of launching (or even threatening) an attack against us. We are not obligated to give him the opportunity. In fact, we are not obligated in any way whatsoever.

So the threat of death is more imminent for the Iraqi people than it is for us. That is why I say you should be prepared to do the killing yourself if you believe the cause is justified. Please try to wrap your head around that concept.

I'm not sure how to wrap my head around anything -- and definitely not a bit of hyperbole followed by a non-sequitur.

Those "anti-war = anti-American" arguments are intended to deflect the discussion.

I never accused you of being anti-American. But if you're going to tell Joe to back his opinions by picking up a rifle and buying a ticket to Kuwait, you'll have to back yours by picking up a rifle and going to "protect" the "Iraqi people" from the American invasion. His opinion is at least as valid as yours, and you don't get to tell others to put up or shut up without doing the same.

Caring about America and rejecting war are not mutually exclusive.

Thank you, Captain Obvious!

Posted by: E. Nough at January 30, 2003 01:06 PM

Dave, this is your best one yet:

You're holding on to your life too tightly, Amy. Everybody dies sooner or later, and it's crazy to think that we're willing to kill thousands of people (innocent or not) just to preserve our own temporary existence.

Wow. Wow. That we would kill our enemies to save our own lives -- what a crazy notion!

You're truly turning into a self-parody.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 30, 2003 01:08 PM

Oh, this gets better:

The point is that it isn't "ok" for anyone to die for the sake of someone else's self preservation.

Excuse me? So if someone threatens to kill me, I should just lay down and let him? Sorry, you'll have to save this one for the orderlies when they come to give you your meds.

But since you and I are American, we have a responsibility that goes along with being the only superpower in the world.

Actually, we do not. But we're taking the initiative anyway, to rid Iraq and the world of a murderous tyrant. Oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that our responsibility is to self-flagellate and let the rest of the world pick us apart, so they can get some "good" out of it. Or something like that.

We could "kill them all and ask questions later", or we could actually try to do some real good.

And once again, the straw man comes out. Kill whom all? Ask what questions? Do what kind of good? You never say. Platitudes, nothing more.

Personally, I have no problem with killing all the terrorists.

Contrary to what you may want to believe, the world will keep on spinning and spinning after you die. Our lives really aren't that important. It's a delusion. Our lives aren't worth killing others.

Wow, man, like pass the bong...

Hey, if the world will keep on spinning, and it's all a delusion anyway, why should I get broken up over someone else's death? Or is only my life a delusion? It's all so deep... wheels within wheels, man...

Now, coming back to reality for a bit: we'll decide what our own lives are worth, thank you. And I've decided mine is worth more than some terrorist's -- or for that matter, even some innocent Iraqi's. I don't want to kill the innocent Iraqi, mind you, but if it's a choice of him or me, well, I choose to keep on living. ...But hey, his life's a delusion anyway, so you should take it in stride, man....

We take one step at a time. You may want an instant answer, but peace takes a long time. It takes a long time to cut through all the delusions we have. Unfortunately, the impatient among us would rather bomb foreign countries than attempt to understand themselves.

Oh, man, that's some gooood weed! Which "step" are you suggesting now? How do you plan to achieve "peace" -- even over "a long time" -- if not everyone cooperates? You don't achieve peace with weakness -- that only gets you defeat and pain. Europe is not peaceful because they suddenly decided to, like, mellow out and be excellent to each other.

Impatience has nothing to do with me wanting to remove Hussein from power (which will involve bombing his country, natch). I want him gone as a threat; that's the only way to do it. If that means I don't get the Nobel Peace Prize, or to spout brilliant flashes of insight like "killing is not a trivial matter" -- well, so be it. Plenty of idiots around for that.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 30, 2003 01:21 PM

"As far as the content of my site, I encourage you to comment using the comment function on my blog. This is not the place for a discussion of my site."

It belongs here because it shows some of the baggage you bring to this discussion, Dave.

Posted by: Fred Boness at January 30, 2003 01:28 PM

It seems that you think conflict and military action go hand in hand. I think I said pretty clearly that just because I'm anti-war doesn't mean I want to be in the Iraqi military. Anti-war means that I don't support either side's use of military aggression. I didn't think that was such a confusing statement.
But I'm not surprised you would think that way. You think the only way to "defend" against an invasion is to physically go out and fight American soldiers.
Not every conflict can be solved with brute force. We differ on that point, and I don't think there is any way for you to see otherwise.

Did it ever occur to you that there may be millions of people who have grievances with the U.S. and who have tried to voice their concerns but have fallen on deaf ears? It's not easy for destitute people who have a problem with U.S. foreign policy to fly over to Washington and file a complaint. So, do you know what they do? They become desperate and easily fooled into believing that a suicide bombing will get the message across (somewhere along the line, the message becomse fuzzy though).
I realize that America cannot please everyone, all the time, but that doesn't mean we should ignore everyone's grievances. There are many many things our country could do (as the wealthiest and most powerful nation ever) to solve those grievances before war is even an option. We could be providing more humanitarian aid to countries, we could try cooperating with the U.N rather than undermine their efforts, and we could have participated in the Kyoto aggreement rather than thumbing our noses at the rest of the world. And that's just the thing -- our country has this attitude that we can do whatever the hell we want, and no one can touch us. Mark my words: that arrogance will only lead to more terrorism.

Your point about having the hatred of other countries later rather than a nuclear Iraq now echoes the short-sightedness of the current adminstration. So what if Iraq doesn't have a nuclear bomb now? So, those numerous other countries that will now hate us can potentially develop their own bombs. OR, more likely, countries like North Korea or Pakistan might sell their WMD to the highest bidder. Then what? We just attack those countries too? It's like I was saying with the armed attacker analogy: eventually you'll have to take a step back from the fighting and think about why everyone wants to blow us up. You can't just go along, destroying every new threat without looking at the bigger picture.
9/11/01 was a really large scale attack, but apparently it wasn't enough to make us take a broader look at the world. Instead, we went down the revenge route by bombing the rubble that is Afghanistan.(need I remind anyone that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian? it seems the bombs missed their targets by a few miles) Each Tomahawk missle costs $1million, but what in Afghanistan is actually worth $1million? Mud houses?

And please, I know that what I am saying is not new, but the pro-war folks have such a tendency to dismiss dissent simply on the merits that the dissent is not "new".

And your lack of a real name is only mildly signficant considering the relative anonymity of the Internet. But anonymous pundits generally don't receive much consideration. If you believe strongly enough in your cause, you won't have a problem revealing your identity.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 01:49 PM

Hey listen, your typical right-wing attempts to belittle my arguments by labeling me a hippy are immature. I don't smoke weed or do any other kind of drug.
For what it's worth, have you ever gone to war? Why do so many soldiers come back as anti-war advocates? Oh, that's right, it must be the weed!

Photography is my interest, and I've read and seen the work of some very brave war photographers. Some of them approached war with an opportunistic attitude in which they hoped to become famous, but I don't think it is any surprise that their minds changed to a fiercly anti-war attitude once they actually witnessed the brutality.
Anyone who supports this war should get some perspective first. Hell, even Stormin' Norman is not convinced that we should invade Iraq. Maybe you'll dismiss him as a hippy freak too...

I don't see how the post on my blog indicates "baggage". What is your gripe with the author of that article? Honestly, I didn't do a background check on him before citing the article, so maybe you can inform me.
What is your baggage? We all bring ideals to the table, so don't say you are free from "baggage". Since you don't provide a link to a website, I can't research your baggage and use it to discredit you. After all, when you have no real arguments, resort to discrediting the other person, right?

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 02:07 PM

You're losing it, Dave. The Herrold study is well known to seriously overstate Afghan deaths and has been quite properly discredited. You can't derive good results from bad data. As the computer types say garbage in, garbage out.

Posted by: Fred Boness at January 30, 2003 02:23 PM

Dave, I think the problem here is that you seem to honestly believe that the U.S. could have/ could do something to prevent these terrorists from hating us. They do not hate us because we didn't give them enough money. They do not hate us because we didn't ratify the Kyoto protocol. They do not hate us because we don't always play nice with the U.N. They hate us because of WHAT WE ARE. They hate that we are wealthy, and successful and happy and free. They hate that our females can walk around town half naked if they want to. They hate that our leaders were freely elected. They hate that we are a successful society, and they are not. Because that defies their very belief system. They were taught to believe that Allah would make them great and would strike down the infidels. Instead, the infidels are ruling the world, while they live in huts and cave and sleep with goats. No amount of money will appease these people. Osama bin Laden was a multi-millionare. Hussein is also unbelievably rich.

The bottom line is that we cannot give these people what they want, because what they want it for us to give up our freedom, lock up our women and adopt Islamic law. While you may think it's worth appeasing these people, I do not. And thankfully, our president doesn't either. Some things are worth fighting for. Some things are worth dying for.

(And if you must know, I am not in the military, but I do happen to work for Lockheed Martin, which makes all those shiny F-16s. I'm doing my part to help our country.)

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 02:27 PM

It seems that you think conflict and military action go hand in hand.

Certainly not. I just happen to think military action is the only way to keep this conflict from getting larger. I believe I've made this abundantly clear.

I'm anti-war doesn't mean I want to be in the Iraqi military. Anti-war means that I don't support either side's use of military aggression.

I understood that; it's irrelevant. Joe supports military "aggression," so you told him to go participate. You oppose military aggression, so I told you to go participate in the opposition. Otherwise, your bloviation is as meaningless as Joe's support -- which isn't surprising, because all we are doing here is stating opinions. That was fine, until you started implying that those of us who aren't carrying rifles to Baghdad aren't entitled to state ours.

You think the only way to "defend" against an invasion is to physically go out and fight American soldiers.

Once the invasion has begun, yeah. Was there some other way you were thinking of?

Did it ever occur to you that there may be millions of people who have grievances with the U.S. and who have tried to voice their concerns but have fallen on deaf ears?

Yes, multiple times. So?

It's not easy for destitute people who have a problem with U.S. foreign policy to fly over to Washington and file a complaint.

It's easier than sneaking a bomb into an American city.

Which is perhaps why acts of terrorism always seem to be carried out by reasonably well-funded middle-class people who have opportunities galore to go chant on the Hill.

So, do you know what they do? They become desperate and easily fooled into believing that a suicide bombing will get the message across (somewhere along the line, the message becomse fuzzy though).

That's when we come and kill them.

Most normal people won't do that. Not even desperate people. ONly the despicable kill innocents.

I realize that America cannot please everyone, all the time, but that doesn't mean we should ignore everyone's grievances.

No, we shouldn't, and we don't. Once again, thank you, Captain Obvious.

are many many things our country could do (as the wealthiest and most powerful nation ever) to solve those grievances before war is even an option.

Such as? Oh, here it comes:

We could be providing more humanitarian aid to countries

We are already by far the largest provider of humanitarian aid, much of which ends up in the pockets of dictators whose military removal you shriek your enlightened opposition to. It's not the starving that are looking to set off bombs in our cities.

we could try cooperating with the U.N rather than undermine their efforts

We cooperate with the UN on many humanitarian programs. Otherwise, the UN is nothing more than a worthless convention of third world dictatorial mouthpieces. There is absolutely no good reason for us to "cooperate" with them on anything. They have zero moral authority, and zero legal weight. (And really, are you seriously, genuinely saying that ignoring the UN breeds terrorism? Good grief...)

, and we could have participated in the Kyoto aggreement rather than thumbing our noses at the rest of the world

Yes, carbon dioxide emissions curbs -- that will stop terrorism and achieve world peace! Thank you, oh the wisened Dave, for letting us simpleton American warmongers have yet another intriguing insight into that sophisticated mind of yours!

I know it's pointless to keep asking this, but what the fuck does Kyoto have to do with terrorism in any way whatsoever?

And that's just the thing -- our country has this attitude that we can do whatever the hell we want, and no one can touch us. Mark my words: that arrogance will only lead to more terrorism.

The "attitude" is correct. It doesn't translate into simply doing "whatever we want," but we'll do what we believe is right -- not what the UN (now with Lybia leading the Human Rights Commission!) or France think.

And terrorism isn't caused by "arrogance," which I would describe as "self-confidence, and refusing to let small-time pipsqueak dictators and third-world rabble dictate to us how to behave." Terrorists have specific goals -- very few of which are shared by "Progressives" -- and they create terror in order to intimidate governments into playing along. It's not a reaction of "desperation" -- it's a deliberate, planned, initiated action, with a calculated hoped-for response. Demonstrate that the hoped-for response is not forthcoming, and terrorism ends. Killing terrorists is the clearest such demonstration. You prefer to wilt back and succumb: that's only going to get you more and more terror, since you will prove convincingly that terror works on you.

Your point about having the hatred of other countries later rather than a nuclear Iraq now echoes the short-sightedness of the current adminstration. So what if Iraq doesn't have a nuclear bomb now? So, those numerous other countries that will now hate us can potentially develop their own bombs. OR, more likely, countries like North Korea or Pakistan might sell their WMD to the highest bidder. Then what? We just attack those countries too?

Yes, if they pose a long-term threat. Or did you think you could just ignore the threat, and count on them liking you to keep you safe? If so, you're an idiot.

9/11/01 was a really large scale attack

Actually, it was a pretty small-scale attack. (Large-scale for a terrorist, I suppose.) A planned deliberate attack by an actual country would be far more horrific.

but apparently it wasn't enough to make us take a broader look at the world.

Ah, so 9/11 was meant to teach us a lesson. And stupid us, we failed to learn. I say a good thing, too, since if we actually did "learn," others might want to teach us a lesson as well. Lots of airplanes out there, and we have a lot of skyscrapers...

Instead, we went down the revenge route by bombing the rubble that is Afghanistan

Yes, that's what we did in Afghanistan: exact revenge. Nothing about destroying the primary sponsor and main base camp of al-Qaeda. Nothing about arresting and killing its leaders. Nothing at all about demonstrating to other countries that it's probably not a good idea to sponsor anti-American terrorists. It was all pointless bombing, you see; we just wanted to shift some rubble around.

.(need I remind anyone that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian? it seems the bombs missed their targets by a few miles)

What? You mean we should have bombed the poor innocent Saudi Arabs just because most of the hijackers happened to share a country with them? You bloodthirsty fiend!

The Saudis will get theirs, but regardless of where the terrorists were born, their main base and point of support -- not to mention their leader -- was in Afghanistan. It's gone now. Mission successful.

Each Tomahawk missle costs $1million, but what in Afghanistan is actually worth $1million?

You are just full of non-sequiturs, aren't you, Dave? Killing Osama and Mullah Omar and destroying the terrorist infrastructure -- weapons caches, training camps, leadership chains -- was worth way more than a few million dollars' worth of military hardware.

And please, I know that what I am saying is not new, but the pro-war folks have such a tendency to dismiss dissent simply on the merits that the dissent is not "new".

That's because all this crap has been refuted ad nauseam, and it gets tiresome. There are plenty of good arguments against the invasion of Iraq; you seem to have a preference for the comically imbecilic ones.

And your lack of a real name is only mildly signficant considering the relative anonymity of the Internet. But anonymous pundits generally don't receive much consideration.

So don't give me much consideration. It won't bother me in the least. (Since I don't lay claim to any inside knowledge, my identity is further irrelevant.)

If you believe strongly enough in your cause, you won't have a problem revealing your identity.

Sorry, questioning whether "thy belief is true" only works on fringe lunatics. I support the invasion of Iraq and deposition of Hussein, and need prove it to no one. I like my anonymity, if only because it forces people to consider the arguments, not the speaker. Though I admit it gets frustrating for those who want to go ad-hominem...

Posted by: E. Nough at January 30, 2003 02:28 PM

Don't say I'm "losing it", Fred. If I was misinformed about Herrold, then point me somewhere that refutes his analysis.
It's silly of you to imply that everything I say is garbage based on that one reference.

Instead of trashing me, inform me.

And also, don't identify me with something that someone else wrote. If his report is garbage, I'd like to know about it.
Please elaborate in a logical manner.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 02:29 PM

Dave goes full ad-hominem:

Hey listen, your typical right-wing attempts to belittle my arguments by labeling me a hippy are immature. I don't smoke weed or do any other kind of drug.

I confess, that was a bit juvenile. But really, I don't know how else to respond to an abstract absurdity like, "life is a delusion, and better we die than kill to defend ourselves." It's a statement that is as self-refuting as it is self-parodying. But hey, you're welcome to shout it from every rooftop.

For what it's worth, have you ever gone to war?

Have you ever been imprisoned by Saddam? What's this got to do with anything?

Why do so many soldiers come back as anti-war advocates? Oh, that's right, it must be the weed!

We're all anti-war advocates here, Dave. As I said in my first reply to you, it's trivially easy to make an argument against war as a concept, which is what you have done. Yes, war is horrible (though war against Iraq will be nowhere near as horrific as war against Germany, or the Vietnam War, precisely because of the disparity between the respective militaries). But other things are more horrible than a little war -- such as a big nuclear war, or being under the thumb of a murderous tyrant. And all of your airy commentary about life being a delusion and the need to take "small steps" to achieve "peace" over "a long time," aren't going to help one iota. When faced with a violent enemy, you sometimes have to resort to violence yourself.

Since you seem to be fond of analogies, I'll give you one: you know how people sometimes get their limbs amputated? Isn't that horrible? I mean, it's painful, and they are permanently disfigured, and sometimes the complications can kill you. Does that mean that limbs should never be amputated, under any circumstances? Or are there times when you have to pick the least horrific of the choices in front of you?

Posted by: E. Nough at January 30, 2003 02:37 PM

I support the invasion of Iraq and deposition of Hussein, and need prove it to no one. I like my anonymity, if only because it forces people to consider the arguments, not the speaker.

Speak for yourself, friend! You trash me as a hippy drug user and then say something like the above quote? Absurd!

I never said rejecting the Kyoto agreement lead to terrorism; I was providing some examples of grievances that many people in the world have with the U.S.

You also failed to respond to my point that we cannot continue destroying "threats" to the U.S. without looking at the underlying causes. But your words seemed to answer -- as long as there are threats to the U.S., you will support their destruction unequivically. That's a scary thought, and I'm glad you are simply an ultraconservative, ignorant arm-chair pundit rather than a policy maker. I guess that's the lesser of two "evils", right?

And Amy, I think you are simplifying the terrorists' motivations. Let's not turn this into a holy war. It isn't entirely. Saddam Hussein is clearly a secular dictator, so I don't think Islam influences his (irrational) actions.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 02:46 PM

"And Amy, I think you are simplifying the terrorists' motivations. Let's not turn this into a holy war. "

Silly me, I thought the jihad against the great satan was a holy war. Wonder where I ever got that crazy idea? Oh yeah! Now I remember! From the terrorists! Do you have some sort of special decoder ring, Dave, that tells you they were really fighting for some other reason? If so, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

"Saddam Hussein is clearly a secular dictator, so I don't think Islam influences his (irrational) actions."

I never said it did. I was talking about the terrorists. I do think of Saddam as a terrorist, mearly a terrorist enabler.

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 02:55 PM

I'm thinking 'Root causes make baby Jesus cry' would make a great tatoo.

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 02:57 PM

Surprise, surprise, I'll agree with you here:

When faced with a violent enemy, you sometimes have to resort to violence yourself.

But here's the catch....THIS war is not one of those times. Resorting to force should be an easy decision if the intentions are correct. But clearly, in this case, there is a huge conflict of interest. While I won't go so far as to say this is a war solely about oil, I (and many Americans) don't trust George Bush's intentions. He hasn't made the case to anyone except his republican lap-dogs. He can talk about liberating the Iraqi people, but he doesn't care about them.
Several months ago, he was saying this wouldn't be about regime change, but now he is saying something different. He went in front of the American people and claimed that the aluminum fuel rods that Iraq ordered were to be used for enriching uranium, which was a blatant lie. If he can lie about those things, how can anyone trust him?

You see, not only am I protesting war as an abstract phenomenon, I am particularly opposed to THIS war because the intentions are not correct. If I told you that war could be justified in some cases, you would think that you "won" the argument. Like I said, THIS is not one of those cases. And no, I can't give you a convenient list of things that would make me support a war. Life isn't so simple as to reduce foreign policy to a bulleted list of conditions.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 02:59 PM

U.S. Foreign Policy (in bullet form)

- Don't fly planes into sky scrapers

- If you do fly planes into sky scrapers we will kill you

- We will also kill everyone who thinks they can get away with something similar

- Oil is good (I heart plastic and other things made from oil.)

- The Kyoto protocol can suck it.

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 03:04 PM

Amy, the thick stench of sarcasm surrounding your arguments is a facade for your lack of any real insight.
I see that you're 23 (22?). At this rate, when you're 80, you might be able to listen to someone without blocking your ears and calling them a loony. Maybe all that sarcasm is clogging your eardrums.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 03:04 PM

Speak for yourself, friend! You trash me as a hippy drug user and then say something like the above quote? Absurd!

Which part was absurd? The part about me not having to prove my support for the war in Iraq?

I never said rejecting the Kyoto agreement lead to terrorism; I was providing some examples of grievances that many people in the world have with the U.S.

And you claimed that the grievances lead to terrorism. So if Kyoto is not a grievance that leads to terrorism, what exactly were you trying to say when you used it as an example?

You also failed to respond to my point that we cannot continue destroying "threats" to the U.S. without looking at the underlying causes.

I responded to it by saying that no matter what we do, there will be threats, so you can look at the underlying causes all you want, but ultimately you will have to face the threats, not appease them. That you ignored the response doens't mean I failed to give it.

But your words seemed to answer -- as long as there are threats to the U.S., you will support their destruction unequivically.

Credible threats -- yes. Absolutely.

That's a scary thought,

Why, pray tell Dave, is it "scary"? Are you saying you'd be less scared with anti-U.S. threats on the loose?

and I'm glad you are simply an ultraconservative, ignorant arm-chair pundit rather than a policy maker.

I'm not ultra-conservative, I'm not at all ignorant, I'm no pundit -- wow, Dave, zero for three! Oh, I'm also not a deluded fool who thinks that the way to deal with threats is to appease those who make them. That is freaking scary -- and since we're exchanging compliments, I'm ever-so-glad that you are no policymaker yourself, but rather a delusional, arrogant, self-parodying idiotarian coward, with notions of life and international relations that would get you laughed out of a stoner rally.

Have an enlighteningly progressive day.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 30, 2003 03:23 PM

Dave mocks Amy:

At this rate, when you're 80, you might be able to listen to someone without blocking your ears and calling them a loony.

Dave, she did listen. That's why she's calling you a loony. After some of the absolutely inspired stuff you have written today, I daresay that's fairly mild.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 30, 2003 03:25 PM

I'll have you know I didn't call anyone a loony! What a silly word! I'd much prefer jackass or dickhead. :)

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 03:38 PM

Also, I'm 22. I won't 23 until June 29th! So does that mean that I can shoot for 79 instead of 80?

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 03:40 PM

In addition to my young age and obviouse mastery of sarcasm, I have lost all control of my fingers. I can no longer type proper English. Gah. I think that means it's time to go home.

That should have read: "Also, I'm 22. I won't turn 23 until June 29th! So does that mean that I can shoot for 79 instead of 80?

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 03:41 PM

I've had "E. Nough" of your hawkish ramblings. If you wish to believe that our government has all the most noble intentions and reject any notion otherwise, then good luck to you. History would prove otherwise, my friend.

If I'd be laughed out of a "stoner rally", then I'm sure you'd be welcomed at a Klan rally.

For the record, I never said anything about appeasement.

You right-wing hawks never fail to jump at the chance to dismiss opposing ideas as "loony" and are always the first ones to resort to personal attacks.
I regret that I fell to your level.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2003 03:47 PM

Just to make things clear:

Nowhere did I say I will unequivocally support the government. I'm quite aware of the fact that they can try, and have tried, some very unsavory things. I just happen to think in this case, what they are doing is justified.

You can argue that Hussein is not about to go nuclear, and that Bush is lying. You haven't done so in any meaningful way; not that I would expect you to.

The "looney" label came from the, putting it very gently, silly notions you started spouting about how we must not kill "merely" to save our own skins. The rest of the thread was the usual idiotarian drivel about how you bring world peace by always "listening" to the "grievances" of others. It's patently ridiculous, as demonstrated by human history since the prehistoric times.

Dismissing opposing ideas as idiocy is a cheap shot; I normally don't do that. But some ideas really are idiocy. You happen to embrace them. Good luck.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 30, 2003 04:19 PM

Actually, Dave, the president said that the aluminum rods COULD be used for enriching uranium. Even if it turns out that Saddam is not planning on using them for that purpose the president didn't lie about it.

Posted by: Ken at January 30, 2003 04:21 PM

Can't we all just get along? It's like a war in here.

Posted by: Fred Boness at January 30, 2003 04:42 PM

"They do not hate us because we don't always play nice with the U.N. They hate us because of WHAT WE ARE. They hate that we are wealthy, and successful and happy and free."

Wrong. They hate you because you funded guys like Saddam and Bin Laden back in the days and made them dictators who inflicted pain and suffering on unsuspecting populations. They hate you because you, for so many decades, have controlled, corrupted and undermined goverments throughout the world to satisfy your own petty financial and political interests.

And the list goes on.

I was visiting London when 9/11 happend (I'm Canadian) and right after the initial shock, people were saying "about fucking time, they certainly asked for it". Yeah, it's a monsterous thing to say, and I actually agreed (and still do) with that statement. Not with killing innocents, of course not, that's just plain wrong, regardless who dies and why, but the idea that some people took action against the US' dominating weight in the world was exactly that, "about fucking time".

Thing is, the US still doesn't get it, still can't begin to understand they (the nation, not individuals) have done enough to piss extremists off. It's not envy, it's rage and frustration and despair, and above all, they have nothing to lose, because they'd rather die than being like you. This has nothing to do with anti-war movements, or European anti-American ideas; Europeans (and Canadians, you're wrong if you think we're your best buddies, think of it as a nation that got sick and tired of being taken for granted) suffer mainly from envy for not having your weight in the political scale, France and Germany's coalition is resistance to your gung-ho we-own-the-world oversight.

Anyway, not that any of this can matter to you.

Posted by: Jones at January 30, 2003 04:48 PM

Jones: Saddam and Osama hate us because we funded them??

Welcome to Bizarro World!

And if France and Germany are jealous of us, they have noone to blame but themselves. We didn't turn them into a bunch of socialists and tell them not to fund a military (well, we sort of told Germany that, seeing as how that have a rather lousy track record when it comes to military issues.)

Damn those Americans and their success! They must have sold their soles to the devil to get ahead. They couldn't possibly have just worked for what they have!

I'm not going to sit here and argue that the U.S. has never done anything wrong. Of course it has. But no other nation in the history of the earth has ever possessed as much power as we currently do while being so incredibly benign.

The idea that the deaths of over 3000 people were somehow deserved is just disgusting. People like you make me fucking sick. You obviously have no moral compass.

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 04:56 PM

"I'm not going to sit here and argue that the U.S. has never done anything wrong. Of course it has. But no other nation in the history of the earth has ever possessed as much power as we currently do while being so incredibly benign."

Benign? BENIGN? Are you out of your mind, or just too busy eating your 3rd BigMac to think? If the US is so powerful and has such a weight, which is pretty much my evaluation of your position right now, how can a nation be so benign to others? Is it because you "liberate" countries instead of "invading" them?

"The idea that the deaths of over 3000 people were somehow deserved is just disgusting. People like you make me fucking sick. You obviously have no moral compass."

As I said, it is a disgusting thing to say, but the US pushed and pushed for it; for reference, do you, as an American citizen, consider you can safely travel in the Middle-East? Of course not. Ever wondered why Canadians, French, Czechs, Swedes, etc, can do it without any kind of trouble? You're despised (again, You being the US), Clinton re-initiated more cordial diplomatic relations with the rest of the world (I'm not fan of him, but hey, the guy did do some things right), and he never undermined the US' prerogatives, but Bush (both of them) has you no where safe pretty much everywhere in the world again.

For the record, and the record only, 3000 deaths will never be ok, I do not cheer at anyone dying and do not approve in any way of the terrorist attacks on NYC and DC, but remember the Gulf War in '90-91, 180,000 deaths in Iraq. God knows how many every day in Palestine and Israel, sufficiently reduced ones in Afghanistan.

This is no guy running at you with a knife darling, you probably have better chances of winning the lotto than getting killed in a terrorist attack, so give me a goddamn reason NOT to launch an invasion on Iraq, will it really make your life better and more worthwhile?

Posted by: Jones at January 30, 2003 05:28 PM

"Benign? BENIGN? Are you out of your mind, or just too busy eating your 3rd BigMac to think? If the US is so powerful and has such a weight, which is pretty much my evaluation of your position right now, how can a nation be so benign to others? Is it because you "liberate" countries instead of "invading" them?"

Um, seeing as how the U.S. could single-handedly level the entire rest of the world, I'm going to say Yes, we are benign. And yes, we DO liberate other countries. We also sometimes have to save other countries' asses (*coughfrancecough*).

"As I said, it is a disgusting thing to say, but the US pushed and pushed for it; for reference, do you, as an American citizen, consider you can safely travel in the Middle-East? Of course not. Ever wondered why Canadians, French, Czechs, Swedes, etc, can do it without any kind of trouble?"

Honey, I hate to break it to you, but Canadians, the French, Czechs, Swedes and Americans all look the same. How exactly is it that you would be safer than I in the middle east? Do you run around dressed in a Canadian flag shouting "I AM NOT AMERICAN! I OPPOSE WAR!"?? No one is safe in the middle east right now, including the people who live there.

"Clinton re-initiated more cordial diplomatic relations with the rest of the world"

Hoo-boy. And some great job he did, eh? That N.Korea thing sure worked out well for ol' Carter and Clinton. And that peace in the middle east? I'm sure that Isrealis and Palestinians are thankful for it. Oh? What's that? North Korea decieving Carter and Clinton the whole time? There isn't peace in the middle east? Damn!

Also, if your theory is that we were attacked because the U.S. was evil, why were the Australians attacked?

"This is no guy running at you with a knife darling, you probably have better chances of winning the lotto than getting killed in a terrorist attack, so give me a goddamn reason NOT to launch an invasion on Iraq, will it really make your life better and more worthwhile?"

I'm sorry, I left my retard-translation book at work. I have no response to this strange run-on sentance. *beeep* Does Not Compute.

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 05:38 PM

"Honey, I hate to break it to you, but Canadians, the French, Czechs, Swedes and Americans all look the same. How exactly is it that you would be safer than I in the middle east? Do you run around dressed in a Canadian flag shouting "I AM NOT AMERICAN! I OPPOSE WAR!"?? No one is safe in the middle east right now, including the people who live there."

We all look the same, but we don't all sound the same.

You obviously have no clue as to how lound Americans can be, I'm guessing it's only obvious to natives when they're visiting another country. Here, Montreal that is, we actually have sort of an underground game every summer, "spot the yankee and send them in the wrong direction". Some local student papers have declared it passé because it's just too easy.

I don't have to run around wrapped in a Canadian flag, I just have to flash my passport or wear a tiny flag sewed to my backback. That thing alone is better than a force field sweetie, people in the Middle-East nudge you on the shoulder right away and invite you into their homes.

Why were the Australians attacked... Australia is obviously a Western country, the West is also the target for terrorists (yes, Canada is a western country, we are also in danger, yadda yadda), and it might've been an easier target at that time to hit that club than trying to bomb something in the US (you're not the only target, you're just the top point target).

Posted by: Jones at January 30, 2003 05:55 PM

I *heart* stereotypes.

Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 06:30 PM

This Den Beste character should get a job, or a girlfriend. His website is a mountain of garbage. And that Star Trek motif should be the first thing to go, buddy.

Posted by: Not E. Nough at January 30, 2003 07:39 PM

Jones, here's what the world would look like if the U.S. wasn't a benign power:

- The Americas would be occupied by U.S. troops. Mexico would have been invaded and toppled in 1917, after the Zimmerman telegram was revealed, and the remainder of Latin America would be run by US officials from the local embassy, like the Soviets ran their satellites.

- Instead of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. would have nuked Tokyo twice. Then we would have nuked Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and every other square inch of Japan.

- Japan, France, Italy, and Germany would have been annexed into the U.S. empire and would still be run by puppet regimes today. Well, Japan would actually be a giant radioactive heap, but we'd still claim it as our territory, not that anyone would want to live there.

- Instead of a Cold War, the U.S. would have nuked Moscow and Leningrad in 1947. The remains would have been coopted and placed under the control of a puppet regime.

- If the Red Chinese had dared take over China after the nuking of Moscow and Leningrad, Shanghai and Peking would have been nuked. The remains would have been placed under a US-coopted KMT.

- The South African apartheid regime would have been coopted, armed with nuclear weapons, and used as a front to take over sub-Saharan Africa.

- Israel would have been coopted, armed with nuclear weapons, and used as a front to reconquer the Ottoman Empire.

The proof that the United States is a benign power, Jones, is that people in Montreal look up today and see Quebecois and Canadian flags and are free to criticize the foreign policy of the United States without any fear of retribution.

Even though the Canadian government has not always agreed with the U.S., we still protect Canada from our mutual enemies and would consider an attack on Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver the same as an attack on New York or Washington or San Francisco. It's a shame a notable proportion of Canadians don't feel the same way about our country being attacked, but since we don't rely on you for our defense we at least can live with it.

Posted by: Chris Lawrence at January 30, 2003 08:03 PM

Man, bashing the morally superior is such a guilty pleasure...

They hate you because you funded guys like Saddam and Bin Laden back in the days and made them dictators who inflicted pain and suffering on unsuspecting populations.

As Amy points out, that's a most interesting conjeture: Saddam and Bin Laden hate us for supporting them in the past. Or was this some other, amorphous "they"?

They hate you because you, for so many decades, have controlled, corrupted and undermined goverments throughout the world to satisfy your own petty financial and political interests.

Yeah, those "petty financial interests," like containing communism and Islamic fanaticism, and making the world safe for second-rate nations with no militaries to speak of to feel safe enough to deride the only thing that stood between them and a "glorious worker's paradise," or the "glorious Islamic paradise" today.

I was visiting London when 9/11 happend (I'm Canadian) and right after the initial shock, people were saying "about fucking time, they certainly asked for it".

And there were people saying that here, too. Big revelation: the world is full of dumb assholes.

Yeah, it's a monsterous thing to say, and I actually agreed (and still do) with that statement. Not with killing innocents, of course not, that's just plain wrong, regardless who dies and why, but the idea that some people took action against the US' dominating weight in the world was exactly that, "about fucking time".

Uhh, killing innocents was the whole point. If you don't agree with that, you're not saying much else. So the U.S. pissed some people off? Big deal -- it's a big world, and someone will always be pissed. Canada and Belgium and Switzerland and Sweden have managed to avoid it? Also not much of an accomplishment, given that they stand for nothing, and do nothing, other than carp on the U.S. But make no mistake about it: the reason Ontario is not a Soviet Socialist Republic today is not sophisticated Canadian fore