From: "ICEKNIFE" <icNOekSPAMnife@lmi.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sat, Mar 22, 2003 1:04 AM
Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war against Iraq
Broadcast on NPR -- All Things Considered -- March 13,
2003
PETER FREUNDLICH:
All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this
correctly. We
are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make
clear to
Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored.
We're going
to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war.
The paramount
principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously,
and if we
have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then
by gum, we
will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to
defend. Am I
getting this right?
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq
is to vitiate the
democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound
to do that
too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important
to be
stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define
it.
Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension
at home, we
cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak
with one voice
against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices
to be heard.
We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf
to make the
point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein
seems to think
it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition
until it
agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms
of the opposition.
We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his
own people. And if
our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail
to understand
that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.
Listen. Don't misunderstand. I think it is a good thing
that the
members of the Bush administration seem to have been
reading Lewis
Carroll. I only wish someone had pointed out that "Alice
in
Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass"
are meditations on paradox
and puzzle and illogic and on the strangeness of things,
not templates
for foreign policy. It is amusing for the Mad Hatter
to say something
like, `We must make war on him because he is a threat
to peace,' but
not amusing for someone who actually commands an army
to say that.
As a collector of laughable arguments, I'd be enjoying
all this were
it not for the fact that I know--we all know--that lives
are going to
be lost in what amounts to a freak, circular reasoning
accident.
Peter Freundlich is a freelance journalist in New York.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
ICEKNIFE wrote:
> Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war against
Iraq
Now let me see if I understand his arguments. He
doesn't like the Bush administration, so anything
they do he will criticize, even if it is just a
continuation of existing US foreign policy, that
under a different administration he might have
even approved. But this places him in a peculiar
situation because his enemies' enemy (Iraq) is also
the enemy of a lot of people either in his social
circle, or those who he would like to have in his
social circle, those being people who support
Israel.
So he is caught either opposing the Bush
administration and sounding suspiciously anti-
Israeli, or the intolerable situation of supporting
the Bush administration, like Howard Stern. So he
tries to use the UN as a straw man, ironically, just
like the Bush administration is doing, to avoid the
real issue.
So is he more like Alice, or Humpty-Dumpty?
--
"This hedgehog will live with us!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 07:11:49 -0700, "nu-monet v5.0"
<nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
>ICEKNIFE wrote:
>> Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war against
Iraq
>>
>Now let me see if I understand his arguments. He
>doesn't like the Bush administration, so anything
>they do he will criticize, even if it is just a
>continuation of existing US foreign policy, that
>under a different administration he might have
>even approved. But this places him in a peculiar
>situation because his enemies' enemy (Iraq) is also
>the enemy of a lot of people either in his social
>circle, or those who he would like to have in his
>social circle, those being people who support
>Israel.
>So he is caught either opposing the Bush
>administration and sounding suspiciously anti-
>Israeli, or the intolerable situation of supporting
>the Bush administration, like Howard Stern. So
he
>tries to use the UN as a straw man, ironically,
just
>like the Bush administration is doing, to avoid
the
>real issue.
>So is he more like Alice, or Humpty-Dumpty?
That's a copout.
Anybody who is opposed to the war is automatically only
opposed to the
war because of knee-jerk politics?
Why not address the actual points he made rather than an ad-hominem?
--
Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void
It is shining
It is shining
- John Lennon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Joe Cosby wrote:
> "nu-monet v5.0" wrote:
> > >ICEKNIFE wrote:
> >>
> >> Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
> >>
>> Anybody who is opposed to the war is automatically
> only opposed to the war because of knee-jerk politics?
>
> Why not address the actual points he made rather
than
> an ad-hominem?
No. Not everybody. But this guy *is* knee-jerk.
My attack isn't so much ad-hominem, as putting up
straw men to make *him* look silly, like *he* put
up straw men to make Bush & co. look silly.
Not every argument for or against the war is well
thought out. I can think of lots of better ways
to show anti-war (or pro-war, for that matter)
arguments then this guy did.
I guess the subject is serious enough for me to
want to tell dumbasses to shut the fuck up and let
the people who will make reasoned arguments be
heard.
Stupid arguments *for* this war:
1) Racism
2) Theft
3) Colonization
4) Religion
5) Love Israel
Stupid arguments *against* this war:
1) Hate Bush/He's Stupid/He's Insane
2) No War for Oil/Anti-Corporate/Anti-Globalization
3) MAD/WMD Proliferation is better than war
4) Anti-Americanism
5) Hate Israel
People that can overcome these arguments and still
have reasoned opinions are those worth listening
to. For example, the BIG question, the one that
NOBODY is really answering but EVERYBODY should be
talking about, is "what next?"
Now, this might be "what next with Iraq?"
or "what
next *after* Iraq?", but the bottom line is that
Iraq is not the ENDING to this war, it is the
BEGINNING.
And holy shit! what is it going to be next? Are
you aware that North Korea is about to shit itself
in abject terror that we're going after it next?
It's talking about going nuclear RIGHT NOW.
And what about a dozen other countries on the shit
list? If you want an anti-war argument, how about
arguing against a war with Iran? There are some
serious freaking ISSUES that need to be talked about
and NOW, not after the fact.
Is the BEST this guy could have come up with just
a nyah-nyah-nyah at Bush?
--
Give me thank or kill me.
--nu-monet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "ICEKNIFE" <icNOekSPAMnife@lmi.net>
"nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
wrote in message
news:3E7CEA8A.1BE2@succeeds.com...
> Is the BEST this guy could have come up with just
> a nyah-nyah-nyah at Bush?
You want to talk about serious issues, take it somewhere
else, you
disgustingly inappropriate freak.
And you can say what you want about my posts, but if
you EVER think
you can come around and put down HATE, well, you better
just think
about turning your DICKS in to "Bob" for the
duration, until you
return to your stupid fucking SENSES!
besides, I didn't see it as an argument aginst the
war, merely a
deconstruction of the given "rationale".
if YOU don't hate Bush, yer a fucking RACE TRAITOR,
young subjeemer.
Who cares if he's republican or democrat, christian
or fruitarian,
CONswervative or a wee frilly libbie? He's fucking PINK,
you stupid
STUPID stupid little yeti-turd!
AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!! NUKES FOREVER! DIE MONKEY DIE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
Sure, personally though I think all of the arguments
he made were
valid.
To me the worst part about this war is not that we are
going into
Iraq, or even that we are doing it on Goober's watch.
The fact that
we are shitting all over the UN in the process is what
really pisses
me off.
Any hope of future world peace is via the UN. If the
other
potentially-violent countries in the world are able
to look at the UN
as a neutral arbiter then there is some hope that we
can avoid the
endless cycle of wars which is going to eventually lead
to a world
and/or nuclear war; not to mention that it ensures
the continuation
of terrorism. (As long as we are going to war with
countries or
racial/ethnic/political groups who know they can't fight
back and win
in a full-scale conflict, terrorism is -inevitable-.
That's what
terrorism is and why it is succesful and continues,
it is a succesful
way of fighting back against a larger, stronger opponent).
The world isn't going to accept "The US decides
what's right or
wrong". The world can eventually accept the UN
as a standard of
international law.
It's no different than if the largest, richest state
in the US decided
that if they wanted to declare war on Wyoming or whatever
and the
federal government didn't like it, that is just tough
shit.
Eventually, it would demolish the validity of the federal
government.
So IMO the 'reasoning on the war in Iraq' hits the nail on the head.
All of the US's justifications for the war are transparently
full of
shit. And our hypocritical pro-democracy rhetoric is
at the heart of
the absurdity of it.
--
Stop incest, BAN COUNTRY MUSIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Joe Cosby wrote:
> Any hope of future world peace is via the UN...
There are really "two" UNs. The Security
Council
and the General Assembly. The Security Council is
a holdover from the Cold War, and has a permanent
membership and some rotating seats. Only the
permanent members have veto power for Security
Council resolutions.
The original concept of the Security Council was
that members should be the nuclear powers. But, in
addition, that not only should the nuclear powers
be *stable* forms of government, less likely to
use their nuclear weapons; but also that they should
restrain those other nations in their respective
"spheres of influence" *away* from possessing
nuclear
weapons.
In other words, among its primary functions was to
prevent other nations from becoming equal in power
to themselves. And thus "the permanent members."
However, times change. The Security Council no
longer fits its own design specifications. Spheres
of influence are now largely seen as illusory. The
proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and
materials exists *outside* of traditional government
boundaries, for example smuggling and terrorist
organizations sponsored by "rogue" states.
So now
we have a new situation:
Those nations which are militarily dominant
*exclusive* of nuclear weapons, and who are willing
to use their military outside of their nation, must
use force to constrain *unstable* nations and
organizations from the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. This is the US, Britain, Russia and France.
There is *no* diplomatic way to do this.
The reason being that the vast majority of nations
are still politically, socially, and culturally
immature. Ignoring those "developed" democratic
nations that are culturally liberal still leaves a
large number that are unpredictably supportive of
nuclear proliferation. No positive effort can offset
longstanding paranoias and hatreds that are rife and
insistent on "nuclear protection."
Only coercion will do. As of right now, nations that
are unpredictably dangerous include Iran, India, North
Korea, Pakistan, Israel, Libya and even Egypt. Each
of them lust after nuclear weapons, and have expressed
willingness to use them.
And there is NOTHING the UN Security Council or General
Assembly can do to even slow down any of these nations
in their efforts.
BUT THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE IS A VACUUM OF
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMULGATE PEACE.
The UN Security Council may be outdated, but it is
not the only game in town. There are, in fact, dozens
of redundant international organizations that are
actively used to avoid military conflicts. And those
are in addition to the other international organizations
that are also used for diplomatic forums, such as the
WTO, the G-7, NATO, SEATO, the EU and NAFTA.
But this really ignores the United Nations General
Assembly. And why? Because it deserves to be ignored:
1) Slightly more than half of the 185 U.N.
representatives believe that having your
picture taken "steals your soul."
2) The 'Official Snack Food' of the U.N.
is termites and grasshoppers, which have
been voted by the general assembly 11 times.
3) Theodore Guisel (Dr. Suess) is believed
to have ghostwritten about 600 resolutions,
simply, and with illustrations, so that
representatives could understand them. They
were then translated into their native tongues.
4) The single most popular gifts purchased
by representatives are cigarette lighters
and matches, reflecting the delegates
fascination with fire. Often small fires
are started throughout the building, including
cooking fires started on carpets.
5) The average representative has a 4th
grade education, and the majority are of
the belief that the world is flat, to
varying degrees. The majority does not
believe that the US landed on the moon,
thinking it just another Hollywood movie.
The average pay of the almost exclusively
patronage jobs offered to delegates' relatives
is $100,000/yr.
6) Dozens of resolutions proposing animal
and human sacrifices to alleviate natural
disasters have been narrowly defeated by
the General Assembly, as have resolutions
to include "drums" for translation, along
with spoken English and French.
7) Several hundred weapons, both real and
"magical" are confiscated from delegates
each week. These often include such things
as blowguns, poisons, voodoo dolls, darts
and arrows. Projectiles are frequently
thrown at speakers behind the main podium.
--
"HERE LIES NU-MONET.
GOT TRIPLE HIS MONEY BACK."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "ICEKNIFE" <icNOekSPAMnife@lmi.net>
is "vast majority" a euphemisim for EVERYONE
EXCEPT US, THE MIGHTY
MIGHTY SUBGENIUS NATION?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
I'm not so sure I'm a SubGenius anymore.
I'm sorta feeling like schisming off for a while.
Like taking a holiday or something and groveling
before the pagan altar of Kali before starting a
campaign of murderous rampage culminating in the
eradication of the occupying British Army.
Kinda of an Arizona nationalist movement. Then
invading Mexico or something. Lots of senseless
slaughter and burritos. But just for the summer.
--
Rev. nu-monet
High Priest
Church of Kali, U.S.A. (Reformed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "ICEKNIFE" <icNOekSPAMnife@lmi.net>
jeeez, ya don't stop being a sub just cuz ya skiz!
you just have a new DENOMINATION!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
BUT I *WANT* MY SENSELESS SLAUGHTER AND BURRITOS!@!
(oops. sorry. gas just then.)
--
"A stupid movie WILL NOT make you turn
down a blowjob. Simple as that."
-- nu-monet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "ICEKNIFE" <icNOekSPAMnife@lmi.net>
ooooooo, EMPIRE POOL!
Which country does Bush invade next?
ok, I'll be the sport, put my puddings on Luxembourg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
From: "ICEKNIFE" <icNOekSPAMnife@lmi.net>
"Joe Cosby" wrote:
> "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
wrote:
>> >ICEKNIFE wrote:
> >>
> >> Commentary: Illogical reasoning of a war
against Iraq
>> >
> >Now let me see if I understand his arguments.
He
> >doesn't like the Bush administration, so anything
> >they do he will criticize, even if it is just
a
> >continuation of existing US foreign policy,
that
> >under a different administration he might have
> >even approved. .... So he is caught either
opposing the Bush
> >administration and sounding suspiciously anti-
> >Israeli, or the intolerable situation of supporting
> >the Bush administration, like Howard Stern.
So he
> >tries to use the UN as a straw man, ironically,
just
> >like the Bush administration is doing, to avoid
the
> >real issue.
> >So is he more like Alice, or Humpty-Dumpty?
>
> That's a copout.
>> Anybody who is opposed to the war is automatically
only opposed to
the war because of knee-jerk politics?
>> Why not address the actual points he made rather
than an ad-hominem?
this is just a guess...
because he didn't think that'd be funny, maybe?
ok, well, here's something funny:
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf
Y'know, I just hate to see anyone facing pink retards
without
headBRANEheadBRANE ammo. So I post this shit.
Original file name: Commentary- Illogical reasoning - converted on Monday, 21 July 2003, 13:45
This page was created using TextToHTML. TextToHTML is a free software for Macintosh and is (c) 1995,1996 by Kris Coppieters