January 23, 2003

it separates man from the animals

The United States continues to ignore the latest threat to international security.

Props to the monkeys down at Scrappleface.

wait, so you’re getting angry at other sovereign nations for showing opinions other than that of the u.s. gov? motives not withstanding, they have as much right to express and act on a particular political stance as we do.
and you’re still making the assumption that iraq is a threat to our national security. possibly, but not nearly as much so as north korea, a destabilized pakistan, or that damn bin laden guy we can’t seem to track down. that’s also not to mention a faltering economy and a rapidly growing voice of dissent in our own country. a single-minded drive to war could be as big or a bigger threat to the u.s. as iraq could ever be if it serves to split the country as violently as past wars (vietnam) have.

Yes, they have every right in the world to express dissenting opinions. And I have every right to disagree with them when I think that they are farking idiots.
Please note that I am not assuming that Iraq is a threat to national security. I am assuming that Iraq is a threat to international security.
Bin Laden is dog food, scattered across the mountains of Tora Bora.
With the North Korea situation, time is on our side. They need to resolve negotiations fast, and the more time we take, the more likely we’ll get the upperhand in any agreement. They are dangerous, yes, but there is still time (hopefully) for some sort of peaceful resolution.
Any sort of non-military resolution in Iraq will still leave the current regime in power, which is only desirable for those in the free world that have economic interests with the current regime (France, Germany, Russia).
Baghdad is currently outfitting its soldiers with gear to defend against chemical weapons. Is this because U.S. forces are preparing to use nerve gas against Iraq, or because Iraq is preparing to use nerve gas on U.S. forces?
Iraq has three distinct ethnic groups that Saddam has effectively kept from each other’s throats over the past few years, with the occasional state-issued gassing of Kurdish civilian populations. I don’t doubt that there could be a definite post-war mess, but I believe that the Iraqis deserve a shot at democracy.
The current regime is too efficient to allow any sort of dissolution from the inside-out. You speak up? You die. You co-operate with weapons inspectors? You and your family die.
I do not believe that Iraq poses a direct threat to the United States. I believe that they are a loose cannon that has made clear their willingness to supply terrorist organizations with the tools necessary to kill. I believe there is an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.
As much as I would love to be anti-war, to be a cranky cog, to call G.W. Bush nasty names, to rub my elite ethical ego, to tell the world to embrace love and puppies and dictators in the name of multi-lateralism, I can’t find enough justification for it. Either the anti-war crowd is horribly wrong, horribly lazy with their arguments, or I’m just a farking idiot.

maybe it’s all just a preditermined mess, loaded with the opinions that we went in with. as i sit and look at the situation as objectively as i can (which, for both of us, appears to be not at all) i can safely say something the exact same as you as long as i replace one small section:
“Either the [pro]-war crowd is horribly wrong, horribly lazy with their arguments, or I’m just a farking idiot.”
go figure.
too bad i don’t have the energy right now to set out some points for us to lay our ideas, arguments, and opinions down. i’d like to compare for a change – hold back on judgement for a bit, and just look at why we hold what we do for truth.
on the other hand, i’m heartened that 2500 duluthians thought it worth the time, energy, and frozen toes to march for what they believe in this morning. i just happen to be lucky that they have a similar goal to my own.
as for embracing love and puppies and the such – i don’t agree with saddam’s regime, i don’t agree with a lot of shit that goes on in the world in a lot of places, but i abhor the idea that violence will bring about a solution. i do not agree with donald rumsfeld that a certain amount of ‘collateral damage’ (i.e. civilian deaths) is worth the possibility of whatever might be accomplished (because i find this terribly unclear) by a u.s. war on iraq.
i’ll agree that a lot of the anti-war arguments are full of crap, but not without stating that so are a large portion of the pro-war ones. amazingly enough, there are also very, very intelligent points on both sides as well. we’re just picking and choosing that which we adhere too. maybe it’s a curse of humanity that we often think we know what answer we’re seeking before we ask the question.
end late night, sleep deprived, rant.

no, ultimately, you’re a great blogger. i just happen to disagree with your politics sometimes and, as such, like to poke and prod to see what lies beneath the original entry.
today’s post (on the rigors of apt. living in the winter): spot on.
cute puppies, too.

hehe. What it comes down is I don’t have the blinding tenacity or prolific writing ability or political background or ax-to-grind mentality to produce any witty and thoughtful commentary on world events.
But whatever. I just took up politics as a hobby. Some people sew. Others play golf. I warmonger.
Aren’t the puppies great?