Quote:
Originally posted by slang
I dont expect to convince anyone here that there is a smoking gun proving Iraq should be attacked. Smoking guns are rare, and when they exist, there is little debate.
|
Hard right wing extremists need no facts (no smoking gun) to justify actions. After all, because smoking guns are so rare, then Milosevikic needed no smoking gun to justify massacre of non-Serbian Yugoslavians. Is that proof that smoking guns are rare? No. It is proof that the smoking gun did not exist. Extremists are so desperate to hype their agenda that a smoking gun would be produced everytime - if it exists.
There is always a smoking gun to justify war - and must be. War is that serious. Pearl Harbor. Invasion of S Korea. Invasion of Kuwait. When a smoking gun could not be found, then one had to be invented. Gulf of Tonkin. Standard to US principles. We don't go to war without a smoking gun. A new generation didn't learn from history?
It is dangerous - albeit against American principles - to endorse war without a smoking gun. Too many only need emotion to justify their bias. Therefore invented is a new idea that the smoking gun is rare. Fiction.
Saddam is not a threat to the US and will not be until he is first a threat to his neighbors. None - not one - of his neighbors fear Saddam because, unlike bin Laden, Saddam is not attacking anyone - nor planning to attack anyone. Most every major US ally says Saddam is not a threat worthy of war. Those allies are the only signficant source of American intelligence. So where does George Jr get his incite? From people who now invent an idea that smoking guns are rare? This is right wing extremist hyperbole.
Its been thirty years. A whole new generation exists that did not learn how right wing extremists will do anything to promote war. A whole new generation must learn how dangerous Curtis LeMay types can be - people who need no smoking gun to justify war. It was Curtis LeMay who said we were already at war with the USSR and that the American public just did not know it yet. (No smoking gun required.) Reality was that right wing extremist was openly trying to promote war with the USSR. Right wing extremists must claim that smoking guns are rare to justify war - facts be damned.
In February, George Jr decided to return Saddam as enemy #1. Of course. The George Jr administration contains hard right wing extremists. Many were the same people who screwed up during the George Sr administration - which is why Saddam is still there. They want revenge - and don't need no stinking smoking gun to justify their right to remove Saddam.
Both bin Laden and the Palestinians have been undesireable destractions to this George Jr administration that came into power making the attack on Saddam its number one priority - and made that declaration again, secretly, in February. Because of that priority, this adminstration has done everything possible to connect Saddam with both al Qaeda and with the Intafada II. The administration failed when moderates (therefore called lefty liberals by our extremist brethern) exposed admininstration lies repeatedly.
Dan Rather leans left? Of course. Everyone leans left of Slang. Many from my generation died uselessly because same extremists feared truth - and therefore labeld the NY Times, Washington Post, Daniel Ellsburg, Walter Conkite - and even 'Dan Rather' as pinko lefty liberals. Reported were the facts - including the Pentagon Papers that demonstrated no smoking gun could have existed. Pentagon Papers demonstrated how right wing extremists made American the enemy of another nation - a potential ally - because extremists need no smoking gun to justify their biases. So instead attack the messenger - the NY Times, Washington Post, Daniel Ellsburg - and Dan Rather. Today we know that people such as Dan Rather were on 'hate' lists because they only told the truth - at the expense of right wing extremist rhetoric.
Oh how history repeats itself. The right wing extremist again claim no smoking gun is necessary to promote war. Those same extremists again label Dan Rather as liberal extremists. After all, if a political message is more important than reality, then one must attack people like Dan Rather. Extremists are more concerned with their ideas than the facts - smoking gun be damned. Facts become the enemy of extremists - as they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis - as they did during VietNam - and as they do concering Iraq. Fact remains - Saddam is not a threat to the US and is not even considered a threat to his neighbors. But he is a threat to the integrity of so many in George Jr's administration who should go down into history as having screwed up the Iraqi surrender in 1991.
That smoking gun must exist to justify war - or be just like those same anti-American extremists who got us into Viet Nam by outrightly lying. Smoking guns are rare when bias is more important than the facts. Dan Rather has been attacked only because he publishes facts. The fact is this president considers Saddam a greater threat than bin Laden - bias being more important than facts from history, our allies, or even reality. Bin Laden at least declares war on the US and all US allies. Saddam does nothing but remind administration officials of how they screwed it up in 1991.