January 30, 2003
A HEADLINE THAT DETERS READING:
Fighting an immoral war: Sure Saddam Hussein is an evil gangster, but... (Jack Lessenberry, Detroit Metro Times)Is it wrong if you feel like you need read no further than that headline to know that the author is dazed and confused? If the leader of a country is an evil gangster, how can a war to replace him be immoral? Certainly some tactics or strategy we might employ could be considered immoral--recklessly or intentionally inflicting civilian casualties for example--but how can it be immoral in and of itself to fight to stop an unquestioned evil?
Posted by Orrin Judd at January 30, 2003 2:13 PMWhat a piece of work. It's amazing how much stupidity and vituperation you can cram into one column, if you really try, to wit: ignorance of the U.S. electoral system (and why it is the way it is); comparing Bush to Hitler (TWICE, no less); and completely misrepresenting the requirements of all relevant UN resolutions that require that Iraq account for all of its weapons of mass destruction. I'd be worried that an idiot like this can get into print, except that his bitterness will only further alienate the 75% of the country that isn't composed of left-wing Democrats and Greenie wanna-be's.
One particular point really bugs me, however. His comment that "we've only found 16 chemical warheads, so where's the threat" (I'm paraphrasing) turns the point of the inspections right on its head. The question should rightly be "where are the other 29,984?" If you think about it, this could give us an interesting mathematical exercise to think about...since we know they had 30,000 warheads and the inspectors have found 16, that means inspections are .053% effective over, say, a given one month period. Thus in a hypothetical year they might find 7% of the warheads. Roughly extrapolating from those odds, in 15 years we would have found almost 70% of the warheads...so he'd only have 10,000 left! Oh boy, that makes me feel safe...
It goes without saying that the author of this crap is an idiot. I do find it funny that he writes about one of the "human shields in Iraq", a peacenik by the name of Rudy Simons. He writes that technically Simons could be fined $10,000 for traveling to Iraq, which is against the law. I find it interesting because the U.S. Government probably won't charge Simons with a crime. Even if they did, they would probably just fine him. No a terrible thing and something you wouldn't expect from someone the author likened to Adolph Hitler (twice no less). Compare that to that poor Iraqi guy who jumped into the UN Inspector's SUV last week begging for help while the UN security personell actually handed this guy over to the Iraqi Security. Where does the author think this poor guy is now? What does he think Saddam's sadists did to him?
Posted by: pchuck at January 30, 2003 7:56 PM