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 |