« What NYT editorials and runaway brides have in common | Main | Liberal spin watch: Rangel, Kuttner, Dubner »

June 11, 2005


A drug lord in Columbia and a drug dealer in Chicago are on the same team. They will never see each other and they probably don't care about each other. No one alleges that Saddam ordered or planned the attach on 9/11. The evidence if overwhelming however that he supported terror and the killing organizations he funded resulted in increased instability in the Middle East (see www.husseinandterror.com). Do we not go after a major drug lord just because he didn't order a specific drug deal in Chicago? Further, does it matter that the rationale changed after we found no WMDs. There are still many good reasons for kicking the SOB out - stopping the mass graves, prevent the continuation and creation of terror camps in Iraq, democratize a nation, put pressure on other Middle East nations to rethink their anti-American policies and promote democracy. I know this is all old hat for you (and for all of us). Do you think Europe, Japan, and Korea are thankful for US intervention when crisis came to their lands?

At the beginning of this incoherent comment, my blood was boiling, but it is now almost totalling gone. We are both so set in our ways, what's the point of even writing this? I feel like Dean trying to convince members of the RNC that they have never made an honest buck in their lives.

"Further, does it matter that the rationale changed after we found no WMDs. There are still many good reasons for kicking the SOB out"

Stop right there. Yes, it damn well matters what the rationale is. The United States is not the world police. If we're going to start "kicking the SOBs out", we'd better have a good reason to do it, AND, more importantly, we need to start kicking ALL the SOBs out, not merely the ones who happen to be politically expedient to do so. Mugabe in Zimbabwe. The jerkoffs in charge of Myanmar/Burma. Our good ol' buddy Musharraf in Pakistan. Uzbekistan. Kyrgyzstan. Fidel. Fucking. Castro. Where does this "kicking the SOB out" bullshit end? Do you even remember back when Dubya said he wasn't interested in empire-building?

Kicking the SOB out... christ, who propped his ass up in the first place?! "DERE SADAM: U HAVE OUTLIVED UR USEFULLNESS. IM COMING 4 U. LOVE, UNCA SAM"

First, I apologize that my use of "SOB" prompted such foul language. I should have been more careful.

Second, again, forgive my inarticulateness (I voted for the 87 billion...). WMDs were the initial reason we went in there; not the sole reason, else North Korea and other unfortunate nations have no excuse than to see some Tomahawks coming their way. All the intelligence that the French and Russians (the biggest undemocratic democracies) had said Saddam had them. Take that coupled with all the other evidence of Saddam being the swell guy he his leads to policy of regime change, which our beloved third way Clinton (hey, we can at least elect his wife) called for. The question of regime change then became when not if.

Thus, when I said "does it matter that the rationale changed after we found no WMDs" what I failed miserable to say was there are a lot of good reasons for kicking Saddam out despite the lack of WMDs, though, as you pointed out, all of them together wouldn't have been sufficient to enter Iraq without the WMDs intelligence.

Can we still be friends?

I think there are alot of people who swallow what they are told with ease. I think the rich and powerfull have been telling the poor and common for as long as history has been recorded. If you think the US should dominate the world and force its way on to other people, denying their right to choose, then ofcoarse we should be in Iraq, Korea, Diego Garcia, Central Africa, Mexico, most countries in South America, + where ever. But if you think people should be able to choose for themselfs you might reconcider America's posture in other countries affairs. I would also like to add, that if you concider you're self a Christian, then you would despise America's spornsorship of terrorism, and oppression obroad.... But if you like Big Mac's, Walmart's, and being lied too, keep fighting the good fight. Dont forget who rights History -- KEEP IT REAL, AND YOU"RE HEAD OUT OF THE SAND

--my apologies for the ommision of words

"I think the rich and powerfull have been telling the poor either what they want to hear or misinformation in order to control the general consensus for as long as history has been recorded."

Roney, keep it real. Let's see. Hmm. Would you like Hitler to make Germany's choices? Or the French's choice? How about the Czech's? Oh, they liked Hitler's choice very much. How about the pre-WWII South Pacific? I'm sure they liked Japan's choice. The Kurd's liked Saddam's choice. The Lebanese like Syria's choices for them. The 30 million dead Russians liked Stalin's choices. The 50 million dead Chinese like Mao's choices.

You see, Roney. We don't live in a world where people can freely make their choice unless, of course, they are free. How can Iranians make a choice unless they can choose? Oh, wait a minute! I am watching MSNBC right now of a demonstration in Tehran. I guessed Sean Penn recovered his camera from the state police. All those Iranians are all chanting in unison, "We want to be oppressed!"

Where did this Christian thing come in? What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you really care or think it matters, I'm a nonpracticing Jew.

And no. I don't like Big Macs. Haven't you see "Super Size It"?

I hope "Roney" doesn't think that "somebody" is me, `cause he ain't. Anyway, i don't interact with people who use obviously fake addresses. I will go so far as to say this: we do not have any such moral obligation to "save the world". If it's any consolation, i used to think like you do, but i've walked away from the "i'm gonna save you even if it kills you" school of thought.

John K: heck yeah, we can still be friends, even if i still disagree with you.

I'm not into the vitriolic filth that has become so common in blogoland.

I have struggled with the "save the world" attitude myself. We don't have a moral obligation until we say we do. We have involved ourselves in so many causes worldwide (for the better or worse) that it seems we have taken that responsibility already. I believe that individually we have a moral obligation to our "brothers and sisters" here in the States and around the globe. There is a lot of good work that is done by, frankly, do-gooders, whether they be altruistic atheists, born-again Christians, or anyone in between. Sometimes, though, the individual or group of individuals doesn't have the same impact that a whole nation has, as represented by its government.

I believe the main/controversial question, once we recognize there is a duty between and among humans, is when should the military force of a state be utilized to assist the truly needed. Who is more in need, those wasting away in sub-saharan African hospitals due to AIDS, or those who can't have their voice heard in a totalitarian state? Military force is a frightening and scary thing because you always know people will die. Are those deaths worth the potential good? Are the 1700+ Americans and many more thousands of Iraqis who died worth a free and democratic state and region? Would 1 American life have been worth it? Is 1 life worth something that might not work? People would heartily thank those who gave their lives in the Revolutionary War. Tough questions. I don't think you can be an absolutist in the answers. But then again, we all have different value systems.

I deleted a comment due to excessive personal insults. Please keep it clean.

John: very well put.

This big dumb idea that we are the world's liberating force when most Americans haven't the faintest idea what freedom means has got to be the biggest sham job of the century.

The US posturing that its the "beacon of decmocracy" and all that nonsense, its enough to send a normal guy in stitches. What democratic credentials does the US have? Most of its 'founding fathers' owned slaves. Plus, they were all rich white guys of English extraction. They'd have been happy to be living under the Crown if their economic interests weren't at stake.

The comments to this entry are closed.