Saturday, June 26, 2004


I saw...

Farenheit 9/11 last nigt and, I must say, it was quite a moving film.

Like Triumph of the Will but in English!

I went into the theater thinking that there would be a lot I would disagree with.

The support for Ralph Nader's abjectly anti-war position, for example. Whereas Kerry believes Americans should die in Iraq under a UN mandate, Nader believes they should come home. Where do you stand, infidel?

With all of the facts layed out, however, I believe most of his opinions were right on the mark.

There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Take, for example, the assertion that only 1 member of the Congress out of 535 has a son or daughter serving in Iraq. Why did he narrow the scope so much?

[1] This measure discounts all war veterans to zero. The case in point which was most apparent was Senator Inouye of Hawaii:

Daniel K. Inouye, the third most senior member of the U.S. Senate, is known for his distinguished record as a legislative leader, and as a World War II combat veteran who earned the nation's highest award for military valor, the Medal of Honor.

[2] This doesen't count those who served in the military in general, such as Senator Jon S. Corzine, who served in the Marine Reserves.
[3] This doesn't count members whose children are serving in non-Iraq, non-Afghanistan operations.
[4] It does not count the extended family of members; to wit, a member of the North Dakota Congressional Caucus has a cousin (?) serving in Afghanistan.

Hopefully, this growing fervor against the war will change some opinions.

I think the fervor is shrinking.

John Stewart made an amazing comment on his show the other night.

I'd speculate he also made a funny one too...

He pointed out that if you look at the reasons why we went to war, the weapons of mass destruction, the ties to Al-Qaida, and the liberation of an oppressed people, those reasons could have described six or seven different countries, which makes me wonder why Iraq, out of all the ruthless dictatorships, out of all the terrorist countries (now we know otherwise), HAD to be first, HAD to be the example.

Well, you blood thirsty warmongering fascist imperialist neocon Jew, you are an ambitious one! Perhaps you would consider supporting Bush's reelection campaign if you believe we should attack the following nations:

[1] Syria
[2] Lebanon
[3] Iran
[4] Saudi Arabia
[5] the Sudan
[6] Yemen
[7] Somalia

I'm kidding about the neocon Jew part, but seriously - we took enough shit for attacking Iraq, the center of the Arab world. How many other nations do you want to hit?

Now that we have "liberated"(TM) Iraq, it comes to light that the first two arguments against Iraq were, if not false, extremely weak.

Does it?

[1] Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq.
[2] Link between Saddam and bin Laden found from Iraqi Government sources.

Oh and by the way, for someone whose people came from this you think you would not piss on the graves of people like this.

As someone who is Polish, I can state my fair opposition to the machinery of death.

Even before this war, there was a much better and more convincing argument to invade other middle eastern countries,

Are you doing this because of your pro-Israeli stance? Is the United States supposed to carry Israeli water by annihilating every nation that is a security threat to them?

actively harboring terrorists, and contributing greatly to the terror war that plagues our society.

Syria comes to mind,

Oh does it really now?

with ties to hizbullah, Islamic jihad, and Al-Qaida. (Not to mention the two-for-one deal we'd get with invading Syria, we'd get Lebanon free!)

I doubt we'd get Lebanon free...consider Israel's experience in Lebanon in 1980.

I'm not even going to mention Saudi Arabia, there's NO WAY Bush would ever go to war with the Sauds.

Warmonger. Seriously, if you want to go toe to toe with the Sauds, shouldn't we have a reliable footprint in the region first?

So here are the questions we can ask: Why was Iraq the goal for conquest?

Look at a map. Tell me how much power Iraq's strategic location is worth.

We've created a Baghdad - Kuwait City - Ankara? - Amman - Jerusalem - Cairo axis. Across the Middle East and running down the Eastern coast of Saudi Arabia (where the oiiiiiiiiiiillllllllll is) are a ring of American allied states. We are occupying the critical center of the Arab heartland. The strategic reason alone was good enough.

Why was the Bush administration so eager to place blame for the terror war on Saddam?

Because he was responsible for aiding and abetting enemies of the United States of America?

Why did we pevert this war against terrorism?

You little prevert. ;)

We peverted the war on terror because it is not enough to smash al-Qaida, but to drain the fighters and logisticians away from their war against us and to strategically encircle states that are opposed to America *cough Iran cough*.

...I'll let Michael More respond
And for after the movie, ask this question: How can we make things right?
try this

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 3:52 PM |

Return home