My professors seem amused by my conviction that invading Iraq is a good idea. What makes it all the more frustrating is I’m using the exact same tools my professors gave me, logic and reason, and yet we are arriving at completely opposite conclusions. We can’t both be right, so let’s duke it out, shall we?
What throws me off my rocker is my profs are still hanging on to sentiments that were new when Bush took office. They still think jokes about Bush’s intelligence are funny, and they play it as a subtle justification for their cause. “Our president can’t form a complete sentence, so his proposed course of action can’t possibly be right. Har, har, har!” I’d love to see the forwards that my profs circulate among each other.
“Hey, you get the one with G.W. Bush and all the monkeys? Har, har, har!”
Now, I’m all for political commentary and keeping the president in check, but could you please act like you’ve thought things through a little bit in the past year? I don’t expect you to instantly agree with my rationale, but at least have some rationale of your own that extends beyond “Bush is an idiot.” I mean, damn. I feel like I’m learning all my logic and reason from idiotarians.
And please, if we’re not actually going to discuss the issue, keep the political commentary out of the classroom. When we’re discussing interragatory sentences, don’t use shit like, “Is Bush impeached, yet?” It’s cute commentary that doesn’t allow a counter-argument, but it is incredibly distracting. With the stupid things I have heard over the past two weeks, I’ve had to hold myself down a couple of times to keep from going ninja and beating people up for no reason. Hey, I’m all for questioning my beliefs, as the only way a thesis can become stronger is if it is met with an antithesis.
‘Saddam does not pose a threat. He does not have the infrastructure to build nuclear missiles.’
We have satellite photos that show new construction around old nuclear facilities in Iraq. I doubt Saddam is building orphanages.
‘It’ll be a big mess. We’ll stir up a hornets nest that will require 250,000 American troops for years, just to maintain order in the region.’
A bigger mess than a new crater in New York? A bigger mess than a couple million infected with anthrax? A bigger mess than the dissolution of the free world in the name of Allah? If we’re gonna play the ‘possible universes’ game, let’s throw in all the possibilities, ok?
“If it comes down to it, would you be willing to go over there?”
That’s an appeal to emotion, and has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of a statement.
‘If we invade, Saddam will use weapons against us that he would have never considered using.’
So you at least admit he has weapons. If he would never consider using them, why, pray tell, does he want them so bad in the first place? Once Saddam has nuclear weapons he has the power to do whatever foul thing he wishes, and can threaten us to back off by dangling a nuke over Israel. That’s the situation we’re trying to avoid; an intelligent madman with the leverage to act on his wild fanaticisms.
If this becomes the case we will need to fight him on his own terms, not ours.