Friday, September 27, 2002

Cold Fury has a post up on 13 Questions for Appeasers. Aside from the fact that he tries to shift the burden of proof onto those who *don't* want to attack another sovereign nation with no apparent and direct provocation (which is a nice trick if you can pull it off) and the fact that by referring to his opponents as The Appeasers (the rhetorical equivalent of naming those who agree with him as The Imperialists) he indicates that he's probably not interested in an actual and serious debate, they're good questions. I'll do my best to honestly interpret the questions before answering them briefly (some direct quoting may result, and I give him all credit).

1. Can you present any evidence that inspections will work? We've been told many times that the inspections put his WMD production back several years. Of course, since it's been several years since we did any inspections, that's all the more reason to start them up again.

2. Do you truly believe that Saddam is no threat to the US and has no wish to attack us? I believe he would love to attack us, and, as Mike points out, he shoots at us pretty much whenever we fly over. While he is highly ambitious and often lied to by advisors, he also has a strong sense of self-preservation. That inhibits the threat. And if we have intelligence of a real, impending threat, I believe we should take appropriate action, up to and including the use of military threat. But I'm not convinced that's the case.

3. Do you really believe invading Iraq would hurt the war on terror? Yes. Our enemies in the war on terror have falsely accused this nation of arrogant imperialism, but Bush's actions teeter on the edge of that very attitude. His National Security Manifesto flat out says, "This is our world, and y'all are just living in it." The belief that we as a nation have the right to invade another sovereign nation merely because our leaders say that it is a threat is a belief that has led many nations down the road to empire, and thereby to ruin. I'd like to see us last.

4. Really? Or are you just pretending to support the war on terror? I've always supported it. I haven't supported every action we've taken, such as the cowardly suspension of certain previously assumed rights, but I believe that we needed to take military action against Al Qaeda.

5. This one's a direct quote: "Do you truly believe that the US should and must subordinate all decisions on how to properly defend its citizenry and its national interests to a fractious international body made up of unelected representatives sent by governments who are openly hostile to the US in many cases?" Nope. Just when it involves invading another sovereign nation. Seriously, when even our closest allies are skeptical at best, it's a sign we might be on the wrong path. I'll just say this, Mike: If you refuse to listen when your closest friends are trying to steer you straight, then what do you have friends for?

6. .......

You know what, I'm tired of trying to twist these back into reasonable questions. Mike, call me when you're willing to at least try to see the other side. There is a legitimate argument to be made against invading Iraq, just as there is one to be made in favor of it. I haven't heard it from very many people, though.

No comments: