Intellectual Defenestration

I find it interestingly ironic that the significant majority of people who actually live in the cities devastated by the Sept. 11 attacks are not in favor of the "shoot first, think later" Bush policy.

Sure, America can always conjure up "shock and awe" on whomever they so choose but does this entail a moral imperative to do so?

Well, yes, if we can be sure that the culprits of such "evil" are the ones being repaid for their actions.

However, if we presume to unleash the fury of armageddon on anyone who disagrees with us or thinks we have too much power in the world then we make a grand mistake. For in proclaiming ourselves the democratic nation of freedoms for all people and death to whomever believes otherwise, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

The very rebellion and disgust with Western/American imperialism that has bred so many radical fundamentalists is fed for years to come by the shortsightedness and frankly, pride, of a nation that in practice cares little for the despondent, meek of this earth. Oh wait, are not the meek going to inherit the earth?

At no point in history has corporate greed and international exploitation been so pervasive as it is today. But hey, we can live a nice standard of living here in the good ol' USA where God blesses America. And if you don't agree then God inflicts shock and awe on you.

So what the hell are we Americans doing?

To further complicate the scenario, what role ought the church to play in an administration that disregards in practice the principles that in theory they claim to uphold.

Oh, we are a people frought with irony.

It is not that the world is not a better place without Saddam Hussein ousted from office, but that the "great" nation of America utterly missed a monumental opportunity to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with their God. (Obviously this call does not make sense for unregenerate Americans, but it is a direct requirement of all those who are in Christ.)

To be clear, justice demands requisite punishement for wrongdoing, no matter how bad someone may be, justice is not met if the recipient of our bombs is not directly responsible.

We cannot premise a war on false claims that have yet to be proven, then further not acknowledge any wrongdoing when the facts stare us in the face.

Pondered by drew at April 12, 2004 05:17 PM

Drew, Drew, Drew.

There's a heck of a lot of stuff there, so I'll just pick at a few things:

"At no point in history has corporate greed and international exploitation been so pervasive as it is today"

That's because the world conquests and cruelty of Assyria, Babylon, and Rome and the murderous barbarism of Hitler (10-20 million dead), Stalin and Mao (80-100 million dead) just don't hold a candle to the greed of Nike, Coca-Cola, and that damned Haliburton.

"that the 'great' nation of America utterly missed a monumental opportunity to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with their God"

I am having a very difficult time seeing how the removal of a cruel, psychotic dictator who murdered tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of his own people and the consequent attempt at the establishment of a democracy is so opposed to doing justice and loving mercy. It's not as if America was taking out the government of, say, Canada, Great Britain, or Germany.

Beyond that, there's not much I can say. All of what you listed as reasons for not going to war with Iraq basically boil down to (a) Americans are ignorant, arrogant, and oppresive and (b) Bush lied about the reasons. (a), even if true to the degree you state it is, is still only an ad hominem argument. (b) you haven't substantiated, although I'm sure you could pull out some claims, so there's no immediate reasons to deal with.

For those who haven't made the connection, Drew is the 'good friend' I mentioned in the post. We do this a lot.

Pondered by maphet at April 12, 2004 05:51 PM

"...even if true to the degree you state it is, is still only an ad hominem argument."

Ad hominem? Not quite.

These claims are true based on a multitude of publicly accessible information detailing the search for weapons of mass destruction to no avail, the desired yet nonetheless unsubstantiated connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with specific regard to the Sept. 11 attacks. To lead an entire nation into war that has not been fairly and adequately provided justification for such an event is simply wrong.

If one deduces that Bush is an an incompetent, trigger happy idiot who lacks the very necessary discretion and prudence to lead a strong nation, then the onus is upon that individual. Let logic light your path.

The former is true not because Bush is an idiot as you claim that I base my claims on, but rather that anyone who exercises such a lack of wisdom, discretion, and straightforwardness especially as it concerns the lives of thousands of people, may be considered any number of derogatory names.

Check your definition of Ad Hominem again.

Pondered by drew at April 12, 2004 06:18 PM

See, now you're actually giving substantive (although not necessarily valid) reasons for your arguments. Before, you gave no actual reasons for the Iraq war being wrong other than America in general and Bush in particular being oppressive and tyrannical. That was an ad hominem argument because, as you know, it merely concerned the character of the person in question; it is entirely possible for America to be all that you say it is and for the Iraq war still to have been just.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by "If one deduces that Bush is an an incompetent, trigger happy idiot ... then the onus is upon that individual" or by the paragraph following it. As an aside, I do think that if the person in question happens to be over you, then, especially as a Christian (Rom. 13), your logic and facts had better be incredibly impeccable before launching into any sort of massive criticism.

As for the reasons you give - first, the "multitude of publicly accessible information detailing the search for weapons of mass destruction to no avail" does not logically entail that Bush lied. It is also entirely reasonable to think that he (a) was lied to, (b) inadvertently used incorrect sources (e.g., the CIA et al were wrong), or (c) was correct, but we haven't found them yet. That everyone else for the last decade thought Saddam had WMD's too would seem to give more credence to (b) or (c).

Second, a search through Bush's statements on the war indicate that the link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq was not a primary reason for going to war. In reading through transcripts of half a dozen speeches, including the one given just when we went to war, I couldn't find any reference to Al-Qaeda. The reasons Bush did give were: Saddam was a threat to the world because of his WMD's and flagrant violation of UN sanctions, Saddam was a threat to the region (i.e., his sponsoring of Palestinian terrorism), and Saddam was a threat to his own people. Every one of these claims, except for the WMD one, is obviously true and indisputable.

To have adequate basis for saying that Bush is an idotic war-mongerer, it seems that you would need to show either that (a) the majority of his claims were intentionally false or (b) that the reasons given were woefully insufficient for war. You have yet to do either.

Pondered by maphet at April 12, 2004 08:17 PM

Ammunition for Drew - Silly Maphet, it's all Bush's fault!
http://price.baltiblogs.com/archives/002009.html

Pondered by Jeff Price at April 13, 2004 12:22 AM

You want evidence of the Bush administration's lies? Check out this top 10 list of the administration's lies. Most of these were wildly unsubstantiated statements, that they either must have known or should have known were false, or at least wildly unfounded.
For more scary reading, here's a list of statements about WMD in Iraq, same deal.

As for part (b), this was a pre-emptive war, which is unprecedented in US history. It was launched, supposedly, as part of the "war on terror", which was a response primarily to 9/11.
Without even bringing Dick Clarke into this, it is known that Bush has been waiting to attack Iraq long before 9/11. The Project for a New American Century published a report years ago that included their plan to attack Iraq. Cheney and Rumsfeld are founding members of PNAC (google will substantiate all of this, if you're unfamiliar with what I'm saying.) The Iraq war is not about terrorism, 9/11 just provided a convenient cover to launch it.

Pondered by Joel at April 13, 2004 11:44 AM

From: emaillist@vitw.org
Subject: Voices in the Wilderness - Falluja
Date: April 13, 2004 5:04:23 AM EDT
To: andrew@wibler.com
Reply-To: emaillist@vitw.org

Dear friends of Voices,

We are asking everyone in the United States to call their elected representatives at the Capitol switchboard, 202-225-3121 and President Bush at 202-456-1111 or 456-1112, and everyone living outside of the US to ask the US embassy in their home country to enact an immediate ceasefire of the US military's operations in Falluja. According to eyewitness reports there is a terrible massacre taking place in Falluja, and Iraqi civilians are caught in the desert with no place to go while the hospitals of Falluja have filled up with the dead and the dying. The Guardian newspaper reported today that the estimated death toll of Iraqis from this violence in Falluja is over 450 and the number of injured over 1,000.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1189395,00.html)

The following is part of an urgent appeal from Ewa Jasiewicz, who worked with Voices in the Wilderness and Occupation Watch in Iraq, lived there for 8 months (Basra and Baghdad) and in Palestine, mainly Jenin camp for 6 months, speaks Arabic, and who got back from Iraq 2 months ago. She is in regular contact with her friends in Basra and Baghdad. In the chaos of war it is difficult sometimes to tell exactly what is happening, so please be understanding of the unconfirmed nature of some parts of this report. In response to such an urgent situation we feel that calling on the US goverment immediately for a real ceasefire is the best possible short-term response.

"I just spoke to friends in Baghdad - Paola Gaspiroli, Italian, from Occupation watch and Bridges to Baghdad, Journalist Leigh Gordon, England, (NUJ, Tribune, Mail on Sunday) and a Palestinian friend with family in Falluja and friends in the Iraqi Islamic Party. Both he and Leigh have been ferrying out the injured from Falluja to Baghdad for the past three days. Ambulances have been barred from entry into the blood-drenched city. Here is their news, which they told me over the telephone tonight (Friday 9th)"

Paola:

"There has been a massacre in Falluga. Falluga is under siege. 470 people have been killed, and 1700 injured. There has been no ceasefire. They (Americans) told people to leave, said they have 8 hours to leave and people began to leave but they're trapped in the Desert. The Americans have been bombing with B52s (Confirmed also by Leigh in an email three days ago). Bridges to Baghdad are pulling out. We have flights booked out of Amman. Tomorow a team will go to Sadr City to deliver medicines. 50 people have been killed there.

?? (Forgotten name) the 'elastic' shiekh in Sadr City (I've met him, young, brilliant guy, describes himself as 'elastic' because he is so flexible when it comes to his interpretations of Islam and moral conduct definitions etc, he's pretty liberal) he has told me I should leave. He says that even he can't control his people. Foreigners are going to be targeted. 6 new foreigners have been taken hostage. Four of them are Italian security firm employees - they were kidnapped from their car, which was found to be full of weapons, and there were black uniforms. Baghdad was quiet today except for Abu Ghraib (West Baghdad, where a vast prison is located and is bursting at the seams with 12,000 prisoners) an American convoy was attacked there and 9 soldiers were injured and 27 were kidnapped. That's right 27. None of the newswires are reporting it though.

And I heard this from (*name best not to supply without permission). Its really really bad. They (Americans) have been firing on Ambulances, snipers are following the ambulances, they cannot get in."

Ewa's report continues, with text from another eyewitness (a friend who's been in Falluga today and for the past few days):

"We've been seeing it with our own eyes. People were told to leave Falluja and now there are thousands trapped in the Desert. There is a 13 km long convoy of people trying to reach Baghdad. The Americans are firing bombs, everything, everything they have on them. They are firing on Families! They are all children, old men and women in the dessert. Other Iraqi people are trying to help them. In Falluja they (Americans) have been bombing hospitals. Children are being evacuated to Baghdad. There is a child now, a baby, he had 25 members of his family killed, he's in the hospital and someone needs to be with him, why isn't anyone there to stay with him, he just lost 25 from his family!??? The Americans are dropping cluster bombs and new mortars, which jump 3-4 metres. They are bombing from the air. There are people lying dead in the streets.

They said there'd be a ceasefire and then they flew in, I saw them, and they began to bomb. They are fighting back and they are fighting well in Falluja. But we are expecting the big attack in 24-48 hours. It will be the main attack. They will be taking the town street by street and searching and attacking. They did this already in a village near-by, I forget the name, but they will be doing this in Falluja. Please get help, get people to protest, get them to go to the Embassies, get them out, get them to do something. There is a massacre. And we need foreigners, the foreigners can do something. We are having a protest, Jo (Jo Wilding http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk) and the others from her group are coming to the American checkpoint tomorrow. We haven't slept in 3 or 4 days. We need attention. I have photos, film, we've given it to Al jazeera, Al Arabiya but get it out too. Do everything you can. We are going back in tomorrow."

Please read Jo Wilding's report on Falluja:
http://vitw.us/weblog/archives/000663.html

"I'm sorry it's so long, but please, please read and forward widely. The truth of what's happening in Falluja has to get out."

"Hamoudie, my thoughts are with you."

April 11th Falluja

"Snipers are causing not just carnage but also the paralysis of the ambulance and evacuation services. The biggest hospital after the main one was bombed is in US territory and cut off from the clinic by snipers. The ambulance has been repaired four times after bullet damage. Bodies are lying in the streets because no one can go to collect them without being shot."

"We stop, turn off the siren, keep the blue light flashing, wait, eyes on the silhouettes of men in US marine uniforms on the corners of the buildings. Several shots come. We duck, get as low as possible and I can see tiny red lights whipping past the window, past my head. Some, it's hard to tell, are hitting the ambulance I start singing. What else do you do when someone's shooting at you? A tyre bursts with an enormous noise and a jerk of the vehicle."

"I'm outraged. We're trying to get to a woman who's giving birth without any medical attention, without electricity, in a city under siege, in a clearly marked ambulance, and you're shooting at us. How dare you?"

"How dare you?"
http://vitw.us/weblog/archives/000663.html

John Farrell, Voices in the Wilderness Chicago.

Pondered by drew at April 13, 2004 12:31 PM

Joel, your evidence there is nothing more then anonymous "wildly unsubstantiated statements", based on assumptions that the anonymous informer has 100% of the facts. Will it take another 9/11 for people to wake up and realize how important the "unprecedented...pre-emptive war" really is?

Thank you for drawing attention to the PNAC, what a testament to the vision and foresight of these great men, that are leading our country now, had in 1997 when they wrote their "Statement of Principles".

"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

"Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today (1997). But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Pondered by Jeff Price at April 13, 2004 12:41 PM

Drew - secondhand reports of American war atrocities circulated in an email list by an organization that has historically been more worried about the US sponsoring sanctions upon Iraq than Saddam killing his own people do nothing to validate your point or invalidate mine.

Joel - The top 10 list you provides center around the two issues of WMD"s and the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link. I don't deny that Bush made these statements - for WMD's, see my previous comment. For the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link, the statements given do not show Bush wilfully lied as he brought America to war. There was some evidence of a link (further justified by the current appearance of Al-Qaeda in Iraq), thus indicating that either possibly Bush &co exaggerated, that they had bad info, or that there was info that we don't know. To conclude that Bush lied on this point would be valid if it had been conclusively shown that there was no link and that Bush knew that; neither of those have been conclusively shown.

And besides all that, to reiterate my earlier point, the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link and the WMD's were two of multiple reasons given for war. To make the hyperbolic claims that have been made about Bush's evilness requires a stronger standard of support that what has been given.

As far as "unprecedented" preemptive attacks - cf. Korea, Vietnam, and, technically speaking, Germany hadn't done anything to us when we joined WWII.

I am curious, though, as to what the proposed alternative to a preemptive war is. Does America have to be nuked and then be shown Cartesian-style evidence for what nation did it before war is justified? How many people have to die before war is justified?

Pondered by maphet at April 13, 2004 01:27 PM

Sure, WMD and connection to Al Qaeda were not the only reasons given for war, but they were the corner stones of the argument, especially WMD. How many times where we told that if we waited for a smoking gun it would come as a mushroom cloud?

What could we possibly do besides pre-emptive attacks on a country that was not engaged in any military conflicts with anyone? How about let the UN inspectors do their work?
Quote from Hans Blix: "I still felt that three and a half months for new inspections was a rather short time ... especially now that the U.S. government is now saying you have to have a bit of patience, you know these things take time."

How about, if nearly the entire international community has strong concerns, step back and look at why that might me, instead of just assume they're a bunch of pinko wusses?

Another quote, from John Kiesling, who spent nearly 20 years with the State department:
"Unfortunately, every reliable source of our own was unable to find anything convincing so we were dependent on the defectors provided by Mr. Chalabi of the Iraqi national congress. It’s fascinating to see that he has been providing intelligence for many years and every checkable piece of that intelligence that’s come to public notice has proven to be false, or at least self serving in the extreme."

It's just hard to believe that the US administration has the best intentions in mind for the Iraqi people. Certainly Hussein was evil, I haven't heard anyone deny that. But the US has also imposed huge cruelty on the Iraqis. After the first gulf war, the US did not allow anyone to clean up the battlefields, which were contaminated with depleted uranium from the ammunition. This has caused cancer rates to go up by a factor of 6. The sanctions prevented hospitals from getting regular medical supplies, with which they could treated much of this. Agricultural equipment was sometimes put on hold as part of the sanctions.
Earlier they didn't seem to care to much about Saddam, here's Rumsfeld, with his good buddy Saddam, having a good chat.

Now I certainly don't know what happens inside the White House, but given what we do know, it's extremely hard to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt.

Pondered by Joel at April 14, 2004 02:22 PM

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we should, at least, not Bush give the benefit of the doubt for these reasons:

Bush should have given UN inspectors more time
Bush should have listened to the "entire international community"
The US administration, by its actions, showed it didn't really care about the Iraqi people.

Here's an off-the-top-of-my-head response to each point:
This reason is invalid because the past experience with inspectors was a failure, and no one has yet shown that future experiences would be different. UN inspectors, over the course of the last decade, had done nothing. It was pretty obvious that Saddam was not going to to be cooperative. And what do you expect from a bloody dictator - that he'll eventually, on his own initiative, escort you to his personal weapons cache?
If I remember right, Bush had more nations onboard for the Iraq war than BushI did for the Gulf War, so your statement that "the entire international community [had] strong concerns" is inaccurate. And the ones that were protesting the loudest, such as France and Germany, turned out to be involved in some shady deals with Iraq themselves.
For the record, you list actions that took place under three administrations other than Bush's: Reagan, BushI, and Clinton. So this really says nothing about Bush.

Furthermore, if you're not going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on the WMD's, what do you do about everyone else (Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Kerry) who had been saying for years that Saddam had them? Were they lying, too? If they were merely misled, what evidence do you have that Bush was not similarly misled? Why single him out?

Pondered by maphet at April 14, 2004 03:19 PM

1)
The inspectors were withdrawn (I believe) right before the first gulf war. They were never sent back. Bush demanded Saddam allow inspections to continue, and that Saddam present a thorough accounting of Iraq's weapons (question: would the US be able/willing to do this?). Some speculation was that these demands were so high precisely so that Iraq would not comply, and hence there would be a reason for war. As it turns out, Saddam *did* comply. Then Bush says inspections aren't enough, we need to invade.
Blix was generally happy with the way inspection was going. Progress was being made.

2)
I said *nearly* the entire international community. You're correct in noting that Germany and France had business deals with Iraq. Interestingly, the U.S. gets a lot more oil from Saudi Arabia than Iraq, and some of the 9/11 terrorists were known to come from Saudi Arabia. And the Saudi royal family has given money to family members of terrorists. Why is the US not doing anything there? Apparently they are still "allies in the war on terror."

3)
Yes, but some of the same individuals were involved, ie. Rumsfeld.
I've tried to be careful to talk about the whole Bush administration, not just Bush.

Finally, the others you list never (to my knowledge) advocated war on Iraq. When one proposes such drastic action, they ought to be very sure of the information they are basing that on, there is a higher standard.
A number of civil servants have come forward, both in the US and England, to say that the intelligence was significantly exagerated. Bush used intelligence that had since been shown false in his state of the union address before the war.
Both of these facts show that Bush was trying to decieve the public (ie. lie) about the need for this war.

Pondered by Joel at April 14, 2004 08:14 PM

Right. The point of the post was not to invalidate your point (as this is not the only thing in life) but to actually offer some first-hand accounts of what is taking place in Iraq at this time. Be careful not to believe everything you read from mainstream media sources. Remember the first lesson of historiography is to look at an event from a variety of perspectives. And always make sure primary sources are hold the highest priority. Contrary to your statement, vitw offers possibly some of the most reliable first-hand information we have access to at this time. Rest assured that countless books will be written in years to come detailing what actually has happened and is happening in Iraq.

Your assessment of vitw is incorrect. You should check your sources before casually writing off information that is very pertinent and reliable to the discussion at hand.

At the end of the day, it is clear that a person will not accept another's position when they are first committed to the activity of argumentation and not an open-minded pursuit of truth regardless of how this may affect their position.

It's not all about winning an argument.

There are real human beings being slaughtered at this time as a direct result of U.S. short-sighted policy and we have a moral imperative, to say the least, to seek out the truth as it concerns us and our country's affairs.

Unfortunately, I do not have hours in front of a computer to ruminate over these tantalizing thoughts or play games of rhetoric and argument.

I must get back to my class.

Peace,
drew

Pondered by drew at April 15, 2004 12:04 PM

Thoughts to be considered...(not ammunition for validation or invalidation of argument points)

Although he rejected the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam, George W. Bush is closely following the script of Johnson and Nixon during the Vietnam War. While predicting that the U.S. would be ultimately victorious, the administration is in fact desperately preparing for an escalation, including the sending of more troops to suppress the rebellion in Iraq. In fact, Bush announced tonight (April 13) that he is ready to send thousands more U.S. troops to Iraq. He denied that the rebellion in Iraq was based on a popular insurgency. He also admitted that the original rationale provided for the war - the elimination of Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction - was no longer the stated reason for the U.S. invasion. A.N.S.W.E.R. has always argued that the elimination of Iraq's so-called weapons arsenal was simply a pretext for an imperial foreign policy objective.

This is altogether reminiscent of the conduct of the Johnson and Nixon administrations during Vietnam. They lied to the people about the purpose of the war, the conduct of the war, endlessly tried to assuage public opinion by promising that there was a light at the end of the tunnel, and as the adventure encountered the stiff resistance of the Vietnamese people, they were compelled to regularly increase the number of troops sent to the conflict.

Bush's speech tonight espoused the worst kind of national chauvinism and racism. He asserted that the ongoing assault against the Iraqi people is part of the struggle by the "civilized world" against the Iraqi insurgents.

Bush is trying to convince the people of the United States that U.S. military operations in Iraq are directed against a small number of "fanatics" and "terrorists." He said that the war, which has taken tens of thousands of lives, was justified even though he admitted that no weapons of mass destruction had been found. The new rationale for this war of aggression, according to Bush, was that "we're changing the world."

The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition is initiating intensified actions at the local, regional and national level in the coming weeks and months to widen the popular movement that demands "Bring the troops home now, End the occupation of Iraq." A list of these activities can be found below. The popular mass movement that is sweeping Iraq in opposition to occupation, along with the worldwide anti-war movement, will grow in the weeks and months ahead. It is noteworthy that the Bush administration has, in tonight's speech, adopted at least in part the political program proposed by John Kerry. Kerry and now Bush are calling for an expanded role for NATO military forces in order to subdue the resistance inside Iraq.

Only the people's movement can create an effective challenge to the plans to impose U.S. empire in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Haiti, the Philippines, Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Colombia and among all those in the world who desire to be independent and sovereign.

The people of the United States are disgusted that the government spends hundreds of billions of dollars to kill people in the Third World, occupy their land, and use U.S. soldiers as cannon fodder in the enterprise. At the same time, the administration slashes funds for education, healthcare, housing, jobs and other vitally-needed social programs.

International Answer Coalition

Pondered by drew at April 15, 2004 01:58 PM

Too much Al-Jazeera and Clinton Kool-Aid here. Why do Bush-haters continue to act more like Israel running from Goliath, than David with his stones and sling?

Pondered by Jeff Price at April 15, 2004 02:20 PM

Where do I start?

Joel -
1) "The inspectors were withdrawn (I believe) right before the first gulf war. They were never sent back."

This is inaccurate. See the BBC timeline. From the timeline, it should also be obvious Hussein would only ever do anything under threat of force.

2) "I said *nearly* the entire international community"

You did. There's still a difference between "nearly the entire international community" and "Germany and France"

As for Saudi Arabia, sure it is corrupt. That doesn't mean that the Iraq war shouldn't have happened. And there's still a difference between legal oil trades and illegal. Germany and France were having under the table deals that brought into question their motivations for opposing the war and thus the need to have them on board for the war.

3) "Finally, the others you list never (to my knowledge) advocated war on Iraq"

Actually, they did. See Clinton's comments back in 1998.

Or, his wife: "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security"

Or, John Kerry: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an unacceptable threat. And if the Iraqi regime refuses to allow the international community to find and destroy those weapons through a non-negotiable, immediate, unfettered and unconditional inspection process, then together with the international community, we will be justified in going to war to eliminate the threat."

For another interesting take, see David Kay's speech given at Harvard, where he denied that Saddam had WMD's, but also denied that Bush lied. He argued that Bush, like everyone else was misled. He also argues that the war was worth it.

Drew -
VITW may be an accurate account of what is happening on the ground. It may not be. When you quoted them, I had no way of knowing either. Good historiography does look at a variety of perspectives, but good historiography also does not give mass e-mail sources much validity.

And, as for my assessment of VITW - it was based on their own web site. The fact that they were against sanctions against Iraq, to me, indicates a significant, pre-existing, anti-US bias, as they were obviously more worried about that than the actions of the dictator that caused the sanctions. Good historiography also takes into account biases such as those.

You also state: "At the end of the day, it is clear that a person will not accept another's position when they are first committed to the activity of argumentation and not an open-minded pursuit of truth regardless of how this may affect their position."

Exactly - this is my point (and why I think the "argumentation" that you put down is worthwhile). I think it is rational, given an honest assessment of the facts and logical thinking, to say that either Bush misjudged what he was doing, or that Bush was misled, or that Bush was actually right, but hasn't yet been vindicated. I do not, however, think that it is rational to conclude that Bush is a tyrannical mass-murderer; I believe that shows a prior commitment to a given set of presuppositions (i.e., America is the anti-Christ) and a willingness to be led entirely by rhetoric.

As for the rest of the statements, there are too many errors to begin. Nixon, for one, was the first president to decrease troop deployment in Vietnam. Beyond that, the only significant parallels to Vietnam are: it's a war, people are dying, and the American Left is opposing it.

And the current conflict is against a small number of fanatics and terrorists. That they are terrorists can be seen in their tactics, such as the killing and kidnapping of innocent civilians. That they are a small number can be see by Al-Sadr's sudden willingness to negotiate.

Bush repeatedly said Tues. night that he wants Iraq to be a free nation. That did not sound like US imperialism to me.

Lastly, HOW THE CRAP IS REMOVING DICATORS "chauvinism and racism."?!!?!! When did that happen? What happened to your Christian ideals of doing justice and loving mercy?

Beyond this, I think our presuppositions are simply too diverse to have any rational discourse. I am also rather overwhelmed by work and school right now, and will be for the next two weeks, so I am going to turn the comments off on this post. I simply don't have time to fact-check massive amounts of rhetoric.

May the Lord bless, and please look at sources other than ANSWER.

Pondered by maphet at April 15, 2004 03:12 PM