0
   

Blixful Amnesia

 
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 06:34 am
Thank God for Hans Blix. Whenever we become lax and forgetful about how the world changed on Sept. 11, former chief inspector Blix is there to make the case for mindless complacency. In a recent speech in Vienna he warned that one should be wary of the claim that "the risk that reckless groups and governments might acquire weapons of mass destruction is the greatest problem facing our world today." Why? Because "to hundreds of millions of people around the world, the big existential issue is hunger, and also that wherever you live on this planet, the risk of global warming and other environmental threats are existential."

Here we are at the crux of a debate over the United States' aggressive interventionism of the past few years. Is Islamic radicalism in potential alliance with terrorist states that possess such weapons a threat to the very existence (hence: "existential") of the United States and of civilization itself?

On Sept. 12, 2001, and for many months after, that proposition was so self-evident that it commanded near unanimous support. With time -- three years in which, contrary to every expectation and prediction, the second shoe never dropped -- that consensus has evaporated.

The new idea, expressed by Blix representing the decadent European left, and recently amplified by Michael Moore representing the paranoid American left, is that this existential threat is vastly overblown. Indeed, deliberately overblown by a corrupt/clueless (take your pick) President Bush to justify American aggression for reasons of . . . and here is where the left gets a little fuzzy, not quite being able to decide whether American aggression is intended simply to enrich multinational corporations -- or maybe just Halliburton alone -- with fat war contracts, distract from alleged failure in Afghanistan, satisfy some primal masculine urge or boost poll ratings.

We have come a long way in three years. The idea that Sept. 11 was a historic turning point, a wake-up call to a war declared by our enemies but ignored by us, has begun to fade. The week after the attacks, the late-night comedy shows went dark -- and upon returning to the air they were almost apologetic about telling jokes, any jokes, ever again. Today, Moore produces a full-length film parody of Sept. 11 and its aftermath that is not just highly celebrated but commands a huge popular audience. To be sure, Moore's version is not quite as crazed as the French bestseller claiming that the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were remotely controlled by the CIA at the behest of the president. Moore merely implies some sinister plot, citing connections between the Bush and bin Laden families. It's a long way from two years ago, when Rep. Cynthia McKinney was run out of Congress for suggesting that Bush had foreknowledge. (She is today in a tight race, with a very good chance of regaining her seat.)

Unlike the French book or the Moore movie, Blix is not deranged. He is merely in denial, discounting the uniqueness of the WMD-terrorism issue by comparing it to global warming and hunger. Yes, hunger is an existential issue to the people suffering it. As are car accidents, heart disease and earthquakes. But they hardly threaten to destroy civilization. Hunger is a scourge that has always been with us and that has not been a threat to humanity's existence for at least 1,000 years. Global warming might one day be, but not for decades, or even centuries, and with a gradualness that will leave years for countermeasures.

There is no gradualness and there are no countermeasures to a dozen nuclear warheads detonating simultaneously in U.S. cities. Think of what just two envelopes of anthrax did to paralyze the capital of the world's greatest superpower. A serious, coordinated attack on the United States using weapons of mass destruction could so shatter America as a functioning, advanced society that it would take generations to rebuild.

What is so dismaying is that such an obvious truth needs repeating. The passage of time, the propaganda of the anti-American left and the setbacks in Iraq have changed nothing of that truth. This is the first time in history that the knowledge of how to make society-destroying weapons has been democratized. Today small radical groups allied with small radical states can do the kind of damage to the world that in the past only a great, strategically located and industrialized power such as Germany or Japan could do.

It is a new world and exceedingly dangerous. Everything is at stake. We are now deeply engaged in a breast-beating exercise for not having connected the dots before Sept. 11. And yet here we are three years after Sept. 11, with the dots already connected, and we are under a powerful urge to ignore them completely.

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,483 • Replies: 44
No top replies

 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 07:03 am
Of course, it would be best if the US was the only country on Earth with WMD's. This way the world would cower before us and bow down as we enter and they would adhere to our whims and desires. But the world is not quite so simple. Korea, China, Iraq and many other countries possess WMD's. Of course, Iraq DIN'T have them but I suppose this is besides the point, right McG?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 07:09 am
Give it a rest NickFun.

Go take a break from your outrage before you get burnt out.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 08:18 am
Sorry McG! Does my opinion offend you? Why aren't we pursuing the countries that actually HAVE WMD's? Why aren't we bombing North Korea or China? Or are they next? Perhaps it would be better to pursue a strategy of PEACE, particularly with countries that have never directly threatened us nor ever fired a shot in our direction. Or have the causes we made make it too late for that?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 08:23 am
Offend me? ME?! I am un-offendable.

I also do not make foriegn policy. I leave that to those best qualified, as you should to apparently.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 09:21 am
McGentrix wrote:
I also do not make foriegn policy. I leave that to those best qualified, as you should to apparently.


But i always thought you were a Bush supporter . . .
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 09:58 am
NickFun wrote:
Of course, Iraq DIN'T have them


Why make obvious lies?
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:06 am
Karzak wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Of course, Iraq DIN'T have them


Why make obvious lies?


Lies? The real lies are the ones told to us by the Bush administration. We know Iraq once had WMD's because WE SOLD IT TO THEM! However, that program had long ago been dismantled. Bush and his band of outlaws lied to us.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:09 am
NickFun wrote:
Karzak wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Of course, Iraq DIN'T have them


Why make obvious lies?


Lies? The real lies are the ones told to us by the Bush administration. We know Iraq once had WMD's because WE SOLD IT TO THEM!


ROTFLMAO, you liberals have no honesty, this lie about the US selling Iraq WMD is so bogus that only a fool would still repeat it today.
0 Replies
 
astromouse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:13 am
Karzak wrote:

ROTFLMAO, you liberals have no honesty, this lie about the US selling Iraq WMD is so bogus that only a fool would still repeat it today.


Shocked
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:40 am
Um, noone from the admin has ever claimed that we DIDN'T sell them WMD back in the 80's Karzak. It's a pretty well-understood fact on both sides of the fence.

From McG's origional post:

Quote:
President Bush to justify American aggression for reasons of . . . and here is where the left gets a little fuzzy


Oh, if you do a little research, it's not fuzzy at all.

www.pnac.org

That's all you need to read to see why the admin is doing what it's doing.

I think it's important to note, that while I and many others do not agree with the measures that they feel are neccessary to protect America in the new century, I can see the fact that they at least DO want to protect it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:43 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, noone from the admin has ever claimed that we DIDN'T sell them WMD back in the 80's Karzak. It's a pretty well-understood fact on both sides of the fence.


No it isn't, it is an out and out lie.

The US did not sell iraq WMD.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:44 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, if you do a little research, it's not fuzzy at all.

www.pnac.org


We need a coo coo clock smiley!

Best I can do Drunk
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:45 am
Really? Can you provide me with links to back that up, Karzak? Let me look for some for ya....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:48 am
Any one of these should do.

http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0504

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/4185241.htm?1c

Pull your head out of the sand, man.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:48 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Really? Can you provide me with links to back that up, Karzak? Let me look for some for ya....

Cycloptichorn


If you are claiming that the US sold saddam WMD, they YOU are the one who needs to back it up.

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:48 am
See above.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 10:51 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:


ROTFLMAO, so, your definition of WMD is small vials of research biological material?

STOP THE PRESSES!!! WMD FOUND IN IRAQ!!!

By your definition there were WMD in iraq if there was a single vial of any deadly germ in any research facility, so the liberation was justified, right!
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 11:12 am
Slingshots could also be a WMD if you use those high-powered ones with the wrist attachment!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 11:13 am
NickFun wrote:
Slingshots could also be a WMD if you use those high-powered ones with the wrist attachment!


No they can't.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Blixful Amnesia
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 06:49:19