Uhh, I don't know if that's a compliment, but I'll take it as one nonetheless =p
Quote:BBB did not dispute that the WMDs exist.
But it's fair to say that the Bush admin overstated their case.
How on earth could you POSSIBLY know that Crave? Do you have any information that we don't? Have you any idea how long twelve years is? You know what? I'll just use the words of someone else who argues "on the same side that I use"
"The issue at hand is not one of assumptions and extravagant tabloid reporting as the detractors in this post may argue. ...[All of you], who seem particularly adamant in their demands for a triumph through the streets of St. Louis, with confiscated weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi magistrates on display, obviously have never driven through the state of California.
First and foremost, our intelligence pointed towards WMD being present in Iraq. Whether we find these WMD or not, is entirely immaterial. It is nearly impossible to locate WMDs in a country with inefficacious borders so porous, and contoured landscapes so extreme; especially considering the hostility of Iraq's neighbors. Elements within Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran, and even Kuwait and Turkey, will have more than happily facilitated Iraq's absconding with the WMD - and that is assuming that these countries actually monitor the vast expanse of uninhabited border, which each country shares with Iraq. Nonetheless, the United States has adopted a newfound proclamation of following its intelligence. I know ... [many of you] sat in your rooms the morning of September 11th, and wondered how something like that could have happened. The aftermath of September 11th, however, justified our war on Iraq.
How you may ask? After September 11th the FBI, CIA, and NSA were criticized for not following leads, which may have potentially pointed towards the actual attacks. Due to this, our country's disappointment in our national security checks has demanded that we pay attention to every piece of evidence which points towards any possibility that an attack on the United States may occur. Thus, if our intelligence points strongly ( which it did ), that WMD exist in ANY hostile country, the United States, due to this new onus of public sentiment, MUST vanquish the inimcable hordes.
Secondly, our mandate for attacking Iraq was in no way based on mendacious propaganda. Although the fact alone that our intelligence pointed towards the WMD's existance warranted an attack, there were many other factors. The most important one though, is the ineffectiveness of the United Nations. Iraq ritually ignored UN mandates. These are mandates accepted and supported by virtually every country on this planet; yet none of these were enforced by the UN. UN inspectors were harassed, threatened, and were forced to leave Iraq on at least 3 seperate occasions - each time in direct violation of the peace accord signed in 1992. This, within itself, ALSO mandated action by the United States. It doesn't matter what the United Nations votes, if the United States views that the UN is flawed in determining international policy, it reserves every right to manually repair the system. European and Asian politquing, rooted in irrational Euro-liberalism and Asian religious fervor, have no right in attempting to stifle American rationality. European countries voted that we do not attack Iraq and that we do not manually enforce a UN mandate, due to economic interests, and the fear of popular indigence. Asian countries, similarily, viewed this as a religious battle. Unfortunately, for those of us who are well informed on the matter, we were forced to sit through this war while ignoramuses protested "no blood for oil", and flashed other such inexcusably ignorant catch-phrases.
... I will therefore recaptulate my previous arguments:
1) WMDs are in all likelihood hidden in Iraq, if not already placed in the possession of other countries - hostile to the United States
2) US popular indigence post-9-11 warranted that we actively pursue all WMD indications
3) Despite the fact that we were warranted to attack on the WMD intelligence, violation of UN accords mandated that we as a PLANET ought to take action
4) Inactivity of UN members, along with economic politquing by quasi-socialist Western European countries render the UN useless, in a French/Chinese/Russan attempt to reestablish global bi or even tri-polarity
Already I have provided concrete evidence as to why we ought to attack for two reasons. I also lightly touched upon a motive as to why our current global system failed in light of French and Chinese hubris.
I suggest, Wordman, that you don't post in reply to *my post*, until you get a good dose of American history. You will find several well-documented examples of our Supreme Court, Congress, Presidents and populous using the documents, upon which our nation was founded over 300 years ago, to prove that we, as the most powerful nation in the world, do have every moral and human obligation to protect humanity as it currently exists. I will end this with a rebute to your conclusion:
"I am not anti-american because I am skeptical of this administration. I hope they find WMD. I support my country and want to believe in its actions. When they do find WMD, I can finally do that."
When you believe in your nation, you do not require proof. I suggest you use another word besides "believe", because obviously your treasonous personality does not warrant the patriotism associated with 'belief' in your nation. You and Ogrechow are not intellectual powerhouses able to disseminate the volume of information provided, and are therefore unable to decide, either morally or philosophically, whether or not we should have gone to war. YOUR job as an American is to follow along in a line. You are average, not exceptional, you are complacent, not a revolutionary. Do you want a world in which Geraldo Rivera, Jerry Springer, and the graduates of Kansas State University argue the merits of going to war, or would you prefer one in which intellectuals from the top universities on this planet discuss the true merits? It is for the intellectual elite to discuss these points with graduates from institutions throughout this planet. This is why we gauge intelligence, and how we efficiently allocate resources in every first-world country on this planet. You follow in line while *they* make these decisions, and don't worry, they will pass along our conclusions to you. If you cannot understand what they have to say, or why they have reached the conclusions they have reached, despite the proof layed out before you; I suggest you either read my explanations of these events to you, or go back to school until you DO understand what they have to say, and why they have to say it. "
There, now this has everything I wanted to say. Thanks Moo, and now Craven or anyone else might be so bold as to respond.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace