And the aftermath of this war? And the economics of this war? Will this war create yet another? A chain reaction?
You know the answers to those questions as well as I and everyone else does. Which is to say, not at all. I personally don't necessarily find uncertainty, in and of itself, a reason not to take action, but that's a personal issue underscoring my opinions.
Is 3,000 lives measured against hundreds of thousands of lives a fair trade-off?
I don't justify invading Iraq on the basis of the September 11th attacks. The evidence is sketchy, for the most part.
To me, it has to do with 12 years of Clinton-sanctioned noncompliance and, secondarily, the added perk that one future source of 9/11s may be mitigated. At the very least, an example will be made.
HG Wells once wrote, "in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
ROFL! More ersatz intellectualism...beautiful.
The individual responsible for that quote was Desiderius Erasmus. And the quote was, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
Here's a better quote from Henny Youngman: "This food is fit for a king. Here, King, c'mon boy..."
Is the US a bit blind in a belief that military might can replace consciousness?
No, in fact, I think that the application of military might is our response to a regaining of national consciousness.
Can we take this bad situation and somehow make it into a good situation?
Yes. We can stop wrangling with the U.N. and start the bombing immediately, taking preparatory time away from the Iraqi military and showing our "allies" that we're going to act, with or without them, from this point forward.
War is a last resort. What Bush is doing is not.
If war is a last resort...and Bush is pushing for war...and what Bush is doing is not a last resort...?
LOL. I think you'd better go back to writing silly, childish songs.
LPS5 |
