More News Media Propaganda

[Jimbo]

Chris Alger said You can quibble over whether civilian deaths caused by deliberate US acts will be "slaughtered" or merely "killed." The entire rest of the world watching the satellite feed from Aljazeera will know that the US devastated a yet another country without any credible pretext of self-defense in order to enlarge its political and economic might. They will properly view it as mass murder, and we should do the same. Yes they will view it in that manner and perhaps they will think twice before sending more of their terrrorist brethern if they fear retaliation on them and/or their friends and relatives. How can this be a bad thing Chris?

[andyfox]

"perhaps they will think twice before sending more of their terrorist bretheren if they fear retaliation"

I sure doubt this. The terrorists who struck on 9/11 didn't fear retaliation. I think we'll face more danger from would-be terrorists during and after the war, not less. Wouldn't doing something that others see as mass murder creates more terrorists?

[Clarkmeister]

That was a damn fine post.

[Chris Alger]

And after thinking twice a few of them will do something to try to make us think twice....

Oops! They already did!

Thinking twice is harder than it ought to be.

[nicky g]

"remember the very fine light anthrax spores in the letters which were made especially so as to become easily airborne and inhaled?"

Yeah I do. Noone else seems to though, probably because their most likely origin was the US military. Funny how nothing seems to have happened about it.
If terrorists really want nuclear, chemical or biological weapons they are going to either produce them themselves (AunShinRyKyo or whatever they were called managed to produce sarin, for example), or where that's not possible obtain them from decrepit ex-Soviet laboratories adn the like. What possible gain Iraq could get from passing such things to their enemies in al-Qaida is beyond me.

Good to see you back MMMMMM, I think you should stay around.

[MMMMMM]

I like it here, but I just don't have time for a lot of posting anymore. I'll probably post only occasionally and more selectively. Thanks nicky;-)

Saddam and al Qaeda may indeed once have been enemies, but I believe their relationship has evolved significantly over the years.

[nicky g]

I agree that the relationship is fluid. But the recently leaked intelligence reports suggested that it has now deteriorated to out and out enmity, even if there were ever contacts/explorations of collaboration. Indeed all the intelligence reports that actually come from intelligence agencies (CIA, MI6) and not directly from the White House, no 10 etc, seem to suggest that the war is a bad idea, counterproductive, and based on largely groundless that would only genuinely come into being by going to war. I'm not particularly confortable with CIA and MI6 assessments, but even less so with 100% politcically motivated reports from Bush and Blair.

[Glenn]

"I think we'll face more danger from would-be terrorists during and after the war, not less. Wouldn't doing something that others see as mass murder creates more terrorists? "

The terrorists want us to fear being attacked so that we go we accept their adgenda. The apparently have accoplished exactly what they want to with regards to your thinking. You're saying we shouldn't do something because they'll get mad. I say f them, I don't care what they think, and I'm not going to change my thinking because I am am afraid they will blow me up. There may be reasons to oppose a war, but this is not one of them. Even if we don't attack, they will hate us unless we are dead or Muslim. Period.

[nicky g]

No. The reason to avert war isn't because it will annoy the terrorists. It's because it will vastly increase their support amongst arabs, and creat many more new terrorists.

[Glenn]

Hi Chris,

As always your arguements are well thought out, but I think you are making two mistakes.

1. Just because we have supported bad regimes in the past does not make this war wrong. The arguement that we used to support Saddam is not valid. Even if everything else we have ever done is wrong, and our treatment of every other country is wrong, it is completely irrelevant to this case. In Saddam's case the USA wrongly supported him when he used chemical weapons against Iran. Now we say that he shouldn't use chemical weapons. I would venture to say that we are now correct. This mean we should now act upon our correct stance. If there were two terrorists that blew up a bunch of stuff and right before they blew something else up terrorist A realized it was wrong and shot terrorist B, is that wrong of him? Should he let terrorist B carry out his action because of his previously guilty actions? (Note: I am not implying anything about terrorism, I just need an example of people who do "bad" things)

2. The arguement that other countries have done things wrong and have not faced war is of course quite common. The difference is that with Saddam we have exhausted diplomatic means. Everyone says we are rushing to war, but he has been doing this for 10 + years. He kicked the inspectors out years back. Why? Maybe they smell bad. Or maybe he wanted to continue his weapons programs. And why would he want to make these weapons and face embargos etc...? So his people would have better lives? No, so he could terrorize and threaten neighbooring countries. Now we went back and he is of course screwing us around again. Isn't 10 years enough? How much longer should we wait? How do UN resolutions and diplomacy have any validity if you do not eventually back them up? It is like a child whose parents keep threatening to ground him but never do. Eventually, he will just ignore them and do what he wants. Nations are the same way. We need to back up our words with action or they have no validity. We have said for years, do this or we will eventually attack. The UN has supported this. It is time to call him out. People will die and it will be sad. But more people will die if every rouge nation believes that we and our allies are just a lot of talk. War sucks, but without a fear of war, there will be eventually be more war.

Is Saddam going to invade the US? No. Would he give weapons to terrorists? Probably. Is he a threat to his neighbors? Yes. Does this warrant war? Not immediately, but after 10+ years of trying to solve it other ways, it is time for him to go.

I am curious what alternatives you think there are (I don't think you'll say inspections but someone might...so here's a hint...inspections are a ridiculous idea)? That is what is the plan of action if we are not going to attack, and why will countries like Iraq listen to the UN or the US in the future if they see it is all talk?