Time for a Fisking
So I’ve got writers block when it comes to my Neuroscience Paper…so why not take a time out for an ol’ fashioned Fisking
of this AntiClue™ filled piece which Emperor Misha I would describe as: “Idiotarian lie, obfuscation and myth, all in the space of one little post. The author must’ve spent DAYS on NaziMedia cooking up that list”….and said list is titled: 12 reasons to oppose war with Iraq
1. Iraq is no threat to the United States.
With one of the weakest militaries in the region, Iraq is surely no threat to the world’s lone superpower. There is no evidence it has or is close to having a nuclear capacity. There is no evidence that it has the means to launch a chemical and biological attack against the United States, if in fact it has such weaponry. There is no evidence of any Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.
I smell a bunch of BS. Iraq does pose a threat to the US and to its allies in the ME. There is evidence of a clandestine nuke program in the works (and they’d have one were in not for Israel. As for bio/chem weapons, Iraq has yet to show what happened to all the ordinances they were supposed to destroy; and for that matter, what about today’s discovery? Iraq poses a threat through the TERRORISM it FUNDS and HARBORS. And yes, there is a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda; were you not watching SECSTATE Powell’s briefing to the UNSC? Ansar-Al-Islam, a terror group in Northern Iraq which terrorizes the Kurds is tied to Al-Queda. And the group who killed USAID worker Lawrence Foley in Jordan was Al-Queda and Iraqi based. Iraq also has posession of those unmanned drones, equiped for Bio/Chem weapons.
“Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong” — Ronald Reagan
2. Iraq is deterrable.
Even if it had the means to threaten the United States, Iraq would be deterred by the certainty of an overwhelming military response in event of any attack on the United States. That Iraq is deterrable is shown by its decision not to use chemical or biological weapons (CBW) against the United States or Israel in the Gulf War.
Um, Saddam is what we (with common sense) like to call a loose cannon. I can see him more than willing to use CBW against Israel or the US (especially the former). Plus if he goes unchecked, he’ll begin to extort us. Also, what if he gives CBW to Al-queda or another terror group? Huh? What then?
3. Iraq’s only conceivable threat to the United States is in event of war.
“Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States,” wrote CIA Director George Tenet in an October 2002 letter to Congress. “Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.”
October 2002 was a long time ago; especially in Military Intel terms. He’s already adopted terrorist actions….a bit too late on that one. And again, Iraq has attacked us.
4. Other terrorist risks rise in event of war.
A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq will provide new inspiration — and new recruitment fodder — for al- Qaeda or other terrorist groups, and will stimulate a long-term increased risk of terrorism, either on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens overseas.
That’s hypothetical for starters. And what did we learn from 9/11? We have to take out the terrorisrs when we first notice ’em. Just like Clinton fowled up by not taking BIn Laden when he was offered up on 3 seperate ocasions. We can take out a big terror funder and supporter now…what are we waiting for?
5. U.S. soldiers are vulnerable to chemical or biological attack in a war.
Although there is little reason to doubt the U.S. military will triumph relatively quickly in event of a war, U.S. soldiers face non-negligible risk of casualty. House-to-house fighting in Baghdad would be perilous.
While they may be vunerable; we’ve upgraded equipment and resources noticibly. And our troops are well trained for CQB, and while some may fall, they will not have done so in vain. They will have done so defending our nation and everything that it stands for. It would be better for a few troops to die than to have countless civilians die (note: I don’t wish anything bad on our troops; I’m just using a figure of speech
5b. If Bush administration accusations that Saddam maintains a CBW capacity are true, and if its claims of intelligence showing Iraqi plans to use CBW in event of war are both non-fabricated and accurate, then U.S. soldiers are at major risk.
See previous lines; but our reports aren’t fabricated and are accurate–and if we strike accordingly, we’ll minimize risk
5c. Last Sunday, 60 Minutes reported that army investigations show between 60 and 90 percent of its CBW protective gear malfunction. A Pentagon spokesperson actually suggested that holes in gas masks could easily be covered by duct tape.
I don’t always trust TV journalism…give me the studies themselves, then I’ll make my judgement. And if duct tape works, let’s give the troops some, what a noble idea, no?
6. Inspections can work.
To whatever extent Iraq maintains weapons of mass destruction, it is clear that the previous inspections process succeeded in destroying the overwhelming proportion. Iraqi intransigence notwithstanding, inspectors are now making progress. Despite the histrionics of the administration, past experience suggests the inspection process can work and finish the job.
Who are you, France? Germany? What is it with you people? The inspectors aren’t detectives for starters…they’re job is to inspect that the previous resoultuions have been completed; not to find new weapons. The inspectors have found Iraq in violation of said resolutions who knows how many times. Also, Iraqi dissidents, including scientists, and high ranking ones, have told us that inspectors don’t work….I trust first hand sources.
7. Common sense says: Err on the side of non-violence.
Since Iraq poses no imminent threat to the United States nor any of its neighbors, it makes sense to continue to give inspections a chance. War can always be resorted to later. But once a war is commenced, the opportunity to achieve legitimate objectives without violence are lost. In addition to the obvious costs, the use of violence tends to beget more violence, spurring a highly unpredictable cycle.
Common sense and Saddam are an oxymoron. You seriously think Saddam uses common sense? See above for the threat Iraq poses to the US and her allies. We’ve given inspections a chance…war is the last and only reort. And don’t give me the whole cycle of violence song and dance…please.
8. The doctrine of preventative war is a threat to international law and humanity.
Conceding there is no imminent threat to the United States, the administration has sought to justify the war under a doctrine of preemptive, or preventative, action. But if it were legitimate to start a war because of what another country might do sometime in the future, then there would be very little legal or moral constraint on war-making. This proposition is dangerous and immoral.
Int’l law is a joke…it requires all parties to agree to the laws…which as we can readily see, Iraq doesn’t abide by it, so it’s worthless. Int’l law has NO TEETH or consequences. Furthermore, I don’t concede your point. If we learn from History, we know we have to act. Saddam has already used Chem weapons, what’s to say he won’t use ’em again if he gets the chance to? Is it legal to idly sit by while a threat builds itself? Is it moral to expose people to potential harm and death? I think not.
9. Reject empire.
Many of the leading proponents of a war are motivated by desire to demonstrate U.S. military might, and commence an era when U.S. military power is exercised more routinely to satisfy the whims of elite U.S. factions. Many proponents now overtly defend the idea of U.S. imperialism, justified on the grounds that the United States — apparently unique among all previous aspirants to imperial authority — is motivated by promotion of democracy and human rights. But all empires have proffered such self-serving rationalizations to legitimize narrow self-interest. The present case is no different. Imperialism is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
The US is not seeking to build an empire…hello. By demonstrating superior military might we are infact enabling deterrance. We believe in the promotion of Human rights, liberty and freedome.
And now, to quote President Reagan:
“The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray to God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest” — Ronald Reagan
10. Revenge is not a legitimate motive for war.
There seems little doubt that part of the Bush administration motivation for war is the desire to “get” Saddam, since he refused to go away after the Gulf War and allegedly targeted the president’s father. Saddam is an awful and brutal dictator, and an assassination attempt, if there was one, is a heinous act. But revenge should be no basis for war.
Bin Laden and the Taliban thought we were wimps (“a paper tiger) b/c we didn’t strike back. We must show that we won’t tollerate terror or threats. Again: “Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong”– Ronald Reagan . What about the Iraqi people? Shouldn’t we help them by getting rid of the man who has killed so many, and ruined the lives of millions? This is not just revenge, it’s about doing what’s right.
And yes, even your beloved Pres. clinton called for war against Iraq in ’98; but he got distracted by Monica….
11. There are better solutions to our energy problems.
It overstates the case to say a war with Iraq would be a war for oil. There are too many other contributing factors to the rush to war. At the same time, it is not credible to claim designs on Iraqi oil are not part of calculus. And it is hard to see the United States caring much about Iraq if the country did not sit on the world’s second largest oil reserves. But it is past time for the United States (and the rest of the world) to move beyond oil and carbon-based sources of energy. Existing efficiency technologies and renewable energy sources, if deployed, could dramatically reduce reliance on conventional energy sources; and modest investments in renewables could soon move us away from an oil-based economy.
Um, this isn’t over oil in the least. If it was over oil, why didn’t we take the oil fields in ’91? Let me put that myth to death with this insight from Rush Limbaugh’s ClueBat™: “There is an embargo of Iraqi oil, but remember: it’s on the market anyway. If it were to flood the market, the price would go down – and all those evil oil stocks our president and vice president supposedly have (though they gave up millions worth to serve the nation) would be worth less. So the next time you hear someone chant this simplistic pap rather than face the true danger Saddam poses, tell them: “Yeah, this is all about oil – to France. France imports most of its oil from Iraq, and have sweet economic deals with the butcher of Baghdad.” That’s the truth, so speak it!”
We can move on from Oil, that’s a good idea; but that has nothing to do with Iraq. Heck, I’d like to get off Arab oil.
12. Iraqi lives are at stake.
Unless a war brings immediate abdication by Saddam, military action is sure to cause massive casualties among Iraqi conscripts and especially among Iraqi civilians. Solidarity with the Iraqi people — not their brutal government, but the people — requires opposition to a war almost certain to cause them enormous suffering.
Every day Iraqi lives are at state, b/c of Saddam and the Ba’ath party. While some people may unfortunately die b/c of our attack, it will not be in vain….as the “tree of liberty must constantly be nourished with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Just as some Afghanis suffered when we took out the Taliban, in the end, the net result was that many more have survived because of freedom and improved quality of life/society and the oppertunities available to them (e.g. medical, educational, occupational).
Let’s recap: Anti-Idiotarian Jaws: 12; Idiotarians: -12;
(Hat tip to Cheshire for some ideas)