Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Who is right?
Is the war justified?
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
2003-03-21
11 KB |
|
|
 |
 n interesting phenomenon is going on. Many people are bashing the U.S. while ignoring all facts and information at their disposal. That behavior means to me that they are irrational people; beyond reason, and incapable or logical thought. Thus their disagreements and protest hold no weight.
Look, I know they will say, "this is just a difference of opinion", but the point is that in most differences of opinion, one person is right, and another is wrong. So not all views are equally valid, no matter how much they want them to be. Usually the one that is willing to look at the facts and information, and make rational decisions, is more likely to be correct. The side that is not considering the facts, is usually wrong.
Who cares if a child is throwing a tantrum about something that they are not thinking through? "But I want to play in the street", "I don't want you to go to work", and so on. They don't get a vote, because they are not behaving like rational beings. We might empathize and patronize, but we shouldn't capitulate because they are wrong, and our outcome is better than their outcome.
Some claim this is arrogant. I suppose it is. Doctors, Scientists, and many people that are right, and know they are right, are arrogant. When one side knows the facts, and studied the issues, and the other side will only attack with emotion, then the former is more likely both arrogant and correct. I'd rather be arrogant and correct, than feeling and empathetic and wrong.
So let's look at the facts behind the war.
               
We said there were banned weapons and weapons of mass destruction. France and Russia said "No, all clear there. We can trade even more weapons for oil now." Hans Blix, the political puppet of these countries and other U.S. hating people's of the world, wanted to only measure the few successes of the U.N. (mostly 5+ years ago), and ignore the failures or the rate at which Iraq was acquiring, developing or hiding weapons and technology. That's not objectively weighing the rate of success. Hey, why not. Do you think he's honestly going to say that both he and the U.N. are incapable of doing their charter? Ego is usually more important than results to politicians.
Facts are facts. Iraq has fired many missiles at us, at least a few went way longer than was allowed under the agreements. To rational beings, that's the end of the discussion. This wasn't a model of weapon that was banned, it was weapons of a certain range. They've exceeded the allowable range. I don't give a rat's ass if Hans and the rest of the world can't do math, or logic, I can. The discussion is over. There's no more arguing that they weren't violating the laws, or that they were disarming - this proves otherwise, clear and simple. They had weapons, they hid weapons, they can and have used these weapons. End of story. Only irrational children or self-serving politicians, will argue otherwise; and the very argument proves that they deserve to be ignored.
What about those nerve agent syringes and chem. suits, which are tools used in bio-chem warfare? Those were illegal weapons for them to have. They had them. They were stockpiled for use with weapons of mass destruction. Again, end of story. That's proof. Only idiots argue otherwise prove that they no longer get a vote by demonstrating that they are irrational.
We've seen people in bio-chem suits (before the war and during) moving things around place to place. That doesn't mean we know where the material ended in the shell game, but it does tell us it is out there. Now the irrational fools can claim that it is nothing; and maybe they just like wearing those bunny suits in the desert sun, and maybe Saddam is just a nice guy that's been misunderstood. Maybe those people wanted to be tortured, starved to death, denied their human rights. Again, that proves to me that those people are irrational and demonstrates that they don't have the maturity or wisdom to be considered.
We don't let children vote in this nation for a reason. And we tend to discount fanatics for reasons as well. How many apologies have we heard now that there's been proof? None, instead we get more snarling vitriol that this or that doesn't really count, or prove anything to them. Again, are those the actions of mature adults, or people that should be ignored?
I expect what we've seen is the tip of the iceberg. As they say, for each thing you find, there are dozens that you don't know about. We know about a few. We had a zero tolerance policy passed and accepted by the U.N. But they are so far beyond that it will not be funny.
Weapons inspectors stated that Iraq was 2 years away from a Nuclear Bomb in 1991 before we went in. We were able to eliminate most of the fissable material; but that they still are known to have these weapons programs and plans in place. They've tried to acquire these weapons. If they can get the material, they can and will make the bomb. Their records prove that they will use them. They've demonstrated that they will cheat and lie to the U.N., and are smarter than the U.N. weapons inspectors (in that they've successfully hidden bio, chem. and weapons violations from them). So should we trust the U.N. to do the job that they've failed to do for the last 12 years? How much until enouch is enough? The president, and people in the coalition from 50 other countries, think that 12 years is enough. I concur. The stupid and irrational people no longer deserve a vote.
   
Some claim that the war violates International Laws. They demonstrate either fanaticism or cluelessness. We're walking a line for sure, and there's some ambiguity. Certainly International Law has never prevented one nation from attacking another, or defending themselves against another. We have a case that can be made, and U.N. resolutions to point to. At worst, this isn't as clear cut as it should be; and we deserve a firm talking to. At best, it was completely justified. More likely it was a little gray and a judgment call. Those that fanatically scream that we are evil law violators, prove they are incapable of adult debate, and no longer get a vote.
On the other hand, let's look at the other side. The Russians have demonstrated that they've violated International Laws by giving Iraq banned weapons for oil. Oh, and those weapons were also banned by International Law, so not only the Russian, but the Iraqi's regime were behaving illegally. So who was against us in the U.N.? Countries that were directly profiting by violating International Law. Now we're supposed to listen to their protests about our actions? I don't think so. France, Russia and others have shown stupidity and complacency in this murderous regime; they deserve to be ignorend.
The Geneva conventions are international law too. Whose following that?
Just ask the following;
1) Putting Weapons next to civilian targets; against the law.
2) Dressing up in Enemy Uniforms; against the law.
3) Bombing or shooting your own civilians; against the law.
4) Intentionally using human shields; against the law.
5) Intentionally using non-targets (residential areas, religious places, historical places, and so on); against the law.
6) Killing POW's; against the law.
7) Torturing civilians; against the law.
8) Parading POW's in the media; against the law.
9) Retribution against families or people; immediate conscription or death choices; against the law.
10) Previous behaviors of this regime, gas and chemical attacks; against the law.
11) Falsely waving the flag of surrender, then shooting; against the law.
12) Bombing your own people, and trying to pin it on the U.S.; against the law.
13) Intentionally targeting hospitals, humanitarian aide, and people trying to save lives; against the law.
Are you getting the picture yet? If not, you've earned being ignored.
Look, I understand the U.S. is not perfect. We can discuss separate serious issues separately. Yes, the way we're holding people in Cuba should be debated, at some other time; but has nothing to do with this war. There are issues with foreign policy; also separate discussions. There's the whole Israeli thing; so what? These are issues that have nothing to do with this war. People that are arguing they are related are proving that they are irrational, and thus deserve to be ignored.
Two wrongs never make a right. Someone shoots your family, that does not give you the right to shoot his. So even if we are wrong in something else, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. This is basic logic (the basis of rational thought). And then there's the whole issue of degrees that the irrational are ignoring; because we once locked up terrorists that admitted they would do anything to destroy us, but then we treated them humanely, that's the same thing as those that are violating every law of humanity and morality known to man? If you argue that, then you're irrational, and no longer deserve to be listened to.
The facts are that they are doing wrong here and now. That needs to be addressed, here and now. You want to bring up those other issues; fine. I might even support you in some of them; as long as you are rational enough to bring them up as separate issues that have nothing to do with our behavior here, and as long as you are lucid enough to understand differences in degrees. As soon as you tie them in, or compare jaywalking with homicide, you're using that illogical rationalization; "well sure I beat my kids, but it is OK, because he's worse". That's wrong and irrelevant. The issue we're talking about is what you're doing, not what someone else did at some other time, in some other condition. If you don't get that, then you should be ignored.
In case you're not getting the picture, I think the issue is pretty resolved. There is justification for our actions. We can debate about whether we should have used a little more diplomacy, or if 12 years of sanctions and 20+ years of diplomacy were going to suddenly produce results. We can discuss foreign policy of the U.S., and many credibility problems and follow-through problems we have. We can do this after we finish this war, and save the Iraqi people, and protect ourselves, from an evil regime that is intent on terrorizing the world.
Sure, some people say that we are hypocritical because we have weapons of mass destruction. But they are ignoring the point that except for chemical weapons, we don't use them on our own people; and for 50 years haven't used them on others. And even in the case of chemical weapons, there's a radical difference between our teargas to control riots, and their mustard gas to kill dissidents or eliminate uprisings. Those that don't understand the difference in degrees, ethics or historical usage, prove that they no longer deserve to be listened to.
Tony Blair pointed out that this regime is an evil regime that violates human rights wantonly. And while that isn't enough (by itself) to make a difference and take them out, the violation of the U.N. and worlds stance on weapons of mass destruction are. I agree. Those that argue otherwise are ignoring the facts, and thus deserve to be ignored.
Sometimes when people disagree, one side is right, and the other is wrong. I have heard nothing from the other side that shows the slightest evidence that they are not wrong; and I have seen quite a bit that demonstrates that the coalitions cause is just. The louder the other side gets, and less balanced and more irrational, and bigger tantrums they throw, the more they demonstrate that they should be ignored. Your choice is clear. Be rational, or demonstrate that you deserve to be ignored.
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
