Prometheus 6   

Random thoughts while walking the web

So I�m on Warblogs:cc to see what�s new. An article on TalkLeft catches my eye.

When I read the articles I generally check out the comments, at least briefly�sometimes there are hundreds and I tend to skip those, but there were fewer than ten attached to this particular one, so I hit the link. In the comments a �warrior� says something about attacking Hussein in retribution for 911.

Now this bugs me.

Of all the reasons given by Bush and Co. for attacking Iraq, this is the one I simply can�t credit. I can see someone feeling he�d have to be punished for lying about disarming, if that�s what one believe he�s done. I can see pulling him into line with international law (although I�m going to have to ask how you�ll handle Israel�s flouting the UN authority, if that�s your reason). I can actually see someone believing and acting on the idea that conquering the Middle East is in the country�s best interest (though you�ll never convince me of it). These are decisions made based on the values one holds. If I held Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove�s values, reason would make me just as dangerous as they. In a perverse way, I can relate.

But when you tell me there�s an objectively supportable reason for invading another country and killing bags of people, you�d bloody well better support it objectively.

Here�s a big difference between convincing folks something is true and proving it. A serious effort was made to convince people but not to prove it. It seems like everyone was expected to just accept that the papers being waved about had valid information�my GOD, they didn�t expect anyone to actually check the validity of that stuff.

posted by Prometheus 6 at 4/9/2003 01:07:08 AM |