| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| The Case Against the Iraq War: Oh, Jeez. |
| 2002-08-30 |
| Sassafrass Log points to this: A speech by Matthew Rothschild, Editor of The Progressive magazine I'd like to spend the next few minutes with you discussing an issue of utmost urgency: the impending invasion of Iraq that the Bush Administration is planning. Hokay. I've got a few minutes... This invasion would be unconstitutional. How 'bout if we declare war? I think we should. Even if we don't, if Congress sez it's okay, who's gonna bitch? It would be against international law. Not even given a legitimate causus belli, like f'instance shooting at our aircraft? Even without an overt action, a pretty good case can be made due to refusal to adhere to the "surrender" terms from Gulf War I. An ultimatum to disarm and permit inspectors or face the consequences should do the trick. It would violate the Christian doctrine of "just war." I'm not a Christian. Does that mean the agnostics, atheists, Jews, Buddhists and Ba'hais inhabiting the country can whack him while the Christians stand back and hold our hats? How about Unitarians, Wiccans, Druids, and that sort of off-the-waller? It would further damage U.S. relations with its allies, relations that are already frayed by Bush's mindless unilateralism. All that mindless unilateralism is predicated on an interpretation of our national interest that lotsa people consider to be legitimate. There's also a case to be made for standing up for what we as a nation believe to be correct. As Mom used to point out, if all the other kids are jumping off a bridge, that doesn't mean we should. The rest of the world has been wrong before. Remember the Cold War? It would wreak havoc in the Muslim world, where there's plenty of havoc already. And this is bad because...? (See previous discussions of the difference between stagnation and stability.) It could shake the U.S. economy, which is trembling right now. Perhaps we should get it out of the way, so the economy can settle down, rather than keep on edge for the next 8,000 years... And most importantly, it could result in the deaths of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of innocent people. Worst case: It could end with the United States dropping a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. No. That's the second-worst case. The worst case, what we're actually worried about happening if we don't act, is Baghdad dropping a nuclear bomb in the United States. |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #2 International law? I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Damage relations with our allies? Like, say, an unmentioned ally that sent 15 people to kill 3000 of ours? Mindless unilateralism? It's called "the national self-interest." Wreaking havoc? Quick quiz, Sherlock, last successful Arab uprising: (not Algeria, nor Iran, take your time). How would it shake the economy, once more? Would a nuclear attack shake the economy more? As for your innocents dying, you still haven't explained Mohammed Atta meeting with a friendly Iraqi intelligence officer and then...thousands of our innocents died. As for your spectre of nuclear war, I'll take my chances, thank you very much. So long as the EMP wave knocks out Iraqi communications, perhaps it won't be so bad after all. When you handle my laundry list of objections, then you can take more of my precious time. Now you go away. |
| Posted by: Brian 2002-08-30 23:39:52 |
| #1 "Worst case: It could end with the United States dropping a nuclear bomb on Baghdad." What about the case where Baghdad drops a nuke on Tel Aviv? Followed immediately thereafter by Israel dropping nukes on Baghdad, Damascus, Riahd, Mecca, Tehran, etc. etc. etc. Darned, left-liberals are so predictable. And short-sighted. They only ever look at the first step and never bother to look at the 2nd and subsequent steps. |
| Posted by: fred 2002-08-30 22:41:32 |