Self-Destructive, Man...
A couple of days ago I sent a few someone a link to this news story at msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12275328/) and just mentioned how it was good reading and that Fox News was sure to not report it. The reply I received claimed that the picture could be a fake taken in Wrightsville Beach and that we were still right in attacking Iraq based on "threatened things" being made to be "tested on us or someone else" by Saddam Hussein (SH). The email also claimed that the EU believed SH was "up to his old tricks" and that had we waited and not done anything in response we would be blaming John Kerry.
I believe most of the email to me to be sarcastic in tone, but a true depiction of the beliefs of this person at a fundamental level... these are the people I wish to change in our fight to rid the world of oppression, vindication, and preemptive attacks that change the world for the worse.
I wrote a response to this person's email in which I talk about some basic points-of-view that I have. Normally I would have left it at that, but decided to post my response here. This is what I wrote...
---------------------------------------------
The picture "could" have been taken at Wrightsville Beach. It would be a funny joke if it were in reference to a pretty sunset or a decision to take a vacation. But it is in regard to 35,000 dead people and a part of the world leading to total chaos. Yes, it "could" have been taken in Wrightsville Beach. Faux News could be run out of C-Ring in the Pentagon and you could be a communist with ties to Michael Jackson. But none of these are true including that picture being taken in Wrightsville Beach and we both know that.
Agreeing that SH was "up to his old tricks" with support of the UN and their inspections, and advocating a complete invasion of a nation are two different things. How many troops did those three countries, France, Russia and Germany, donate to the coalition? Must be a lot, since you claim they agreed with American intelligence and really wanted to put an end to the development of "threatened things"... see http://www.mpburton.com/troops.html for total count. It equals EXACTLY zero.
You then mention how we should wait for one of the "threatened things" to be "tested on us or someone else." Which "threatened thing" are you referring to? Would they take a large cargo plane and drop that truck on us? Would they fire a potato gun at the Jordanian border? Or another attempt at invasion of a border country with the result of total annihilation like the last time? Which weapon of mass destruction would have been used on us? You take the stance of, "well, we just didn't know, so we had to attack before we were destroyed." That statement has a fundamental flaw... there was nothing to attack us with. Had we done absolutely nothing, there would be no mushroom cloud over Washington, no mass destruction, no chaos. So, it seems like - and I kind of already know this - you have the stance that we should shoot from the hip at anyone who we think might want to harm us with force. And then after the smoke clears from our onslaught and "shock and awe" and the truth of the matter is that they had no capability of doing any of the things we claimed and they had none of the weapons that we so clearly insisted that they did we expect everything to be ok because our claims of WMD are just as acceptable as the reality of WMD or lack thereof. Where in American society is that kind of behavior accepted as the norm? Can I go to to government and claim my employer is laundering money, have the government start the investigation, fold the company, and then when it's proven that I'm wrong I'm seen as a good person who was doing the right thing? No way.
When was this doctrine decided to be acceptable in Iraq? How will the world look at us the next time we do this and the WMD actually exist? Will they shoot down any attempt to attack and leave us stuck with nothing but discredibiliy and fear of the future? Are we expecting the same sort of belief of the evidence by the American public and support for the invasion of a country preemptively when another Rumsfeld or Powell say that there are WMD pointed at us right now and if we don't attack, we will die? How do you think a person like me sees the situation in North Korea? I have seen no picture, no evidence, no proof. We claim that the Koreans cannot be trusted, but when they tell us they have WMD, that's good enough for us... we'll select the trust. How ridiculous.
And how ridiculous to be doing this with not just our existence on the line, but human existence on the line. Downright scary, in fact. If we were to start dropping nuclear bombs on Iran to bust a complex 75 feet under ground that we've never seen, that no one has inspected, that someone like yourself says there is something under there that could be "tested on us or someone else," shit will hit the fan like never before. And how exactly would that make us safer? Sending planes over Iran to bomb facilities that we suspect are making the "threatened things"... not even a nuclear drop, just just a typical no-fly-zone-take-out style clear-out? Should I feel safer, then? Like I'm supposed to feel safer now about what happened in Iraq? Do you really think I feel safer now that every Muslim east of Italy hates me? Who cares why or how or if it's justified or fair... it is what it is. International politics are a very delicate situation in which every walk of life with different morals, values, laws, religions, colors, beliefs, etc. have to agree on a very basic level on how the world should be. Right now there is a broad disagreement on that point and we are paying for it with our taxes and our security. I bet if we went back to the ways of our leaders 100 years ago and just left people alone who wanted to be left alone the world would be a better, safer, less fearful place. You hit us, sure, we'll kick your ass, but this, "let's get our hand in every pot and keep it just the way we want it regardless of what they think, believe, want" is ruining the world.
And then you talk about the blame game and that we would be blaming John Kerry if he was president now and all of these things came to light after the election. I wouldn't blame him for it. My blame on President Bush came well before November 2004. This was all done and decided within months of the 2001 inauguration and shortly after 911. I don't blame the people of congress, DEMs or GOPs, who voted for the war in 2002/2003. They were given one side of the story. I'm not totally sure why and the public will probably never know. But I keep hearing generals and retired members of the CIA and White House staff who say they said to the proper officials years ago that intelligence from credible sources refuting the evidence supporting WMD and the war was ignored and kept from the American public. Yet George Tenet, the director of the CIA, called the case for WMD "a slam dunk." I believe had we known then what we know now, the vote in Congress for the President to use force against Iraq would not have passed, the American public would have been VERY skeptical of the idea and this whole thing would have never happened. I blame the President and the people around him who spun the evidence to us for completely one-siding the arguments and even personally attacking those who disagreed. Just like in 2000 when Bush's election team claimed McCain had an illegitimate child with a black woman. No morals. No ethics. Just gimme what I want and get the fuck out of my way.
So, you must then deduct that this outcome, being acceptable, is justified based in part by knowing only the evidence in support of the actions as opposed to the reality of the situation itself (no WMD at all). An awfully risky business in regard to the existence of "threatened things" being "tested on us or someone else" and human existence. And what of this talk of us having to wait 20 years to effectively judge what is going on over there... like, "wait it out folks, it's a brand new country! It takes years for this stuff to work. They just had elections. ELECTIONS! WOW!" Yeah, the Palestinians just had a democratic election. And who did they elect in this democratic election? An accepted international terrorist organization, that's who. I guess the, "democracy leads to freedom" spiel we've been hearing lately is now proven to be false.
Yeah, feel safer now? Do we go bomb them now that they legitimately elected a terrorist organization as their leaders? Will that make it all better? Or do we just cut them off and let them squabble in their poverty until they have to come begging for help? Think BIG PICTURE. Forget Haliburton, forget elections. Think BIG PICTURE. Think of how we can do something so that people won't want to kill us. That's the ticket. I bet if every American family said, "you know what, I'm going to give the people of Iraq $20 to help build a school" they would start to like us. I bet if every family sent them a Koran they'd think, "maybe they're not ALL imbeciles." They wouldn't be able to. We could then REALLY say we did everything to help both sides agree to disagree, but agree not kill each other. And if after all of that they were still aggressive towards us, the rest of the world would REALLY be on our side, not just be on our side in that we agree that Islamic nations wants us taken out.
But instead we have a very small group of people making irrational decisions based on God knows what that keeps driving the wedge between us and the Middle East and their ideology. They seem to think that the bombs will change the way the world is and how people think. It does just that... it makes the world less safe and secure and makes people think how arrogant, selfish and irrational we are. And as long as this keeps happening, people like you will keep pushing for more of it and keep thinking that this V-Day style "win the war" mentality and agenda will overcome a person thinking, "I hate you."
Self-destructive, man. Completely self-destructive.
I believe most of the email to me to be sarcastic in tone, but a true depiction of the beliefs of this person at a fundamental level... these are the people I wish to change in our fight to rid the world of oppression, vindication, and preemptive attacks that change the world for the worse.
I wrote a response to this person's email in which I talk about some basic points-of-view that I have. Normally I would have left it at that, but decided to post my response here. This is what I wrote...
---------------------------------------------
The picture "could" have been taken at Wrightsville Beach. It would be a funny joke if it were in reference to a pretty sunset or a decision to take a vacation. But it is in regard to 35,000 dead people and a part of the world leading to total chaos. Yes, it "could" have been taken in Wrightsville Beach. Faux News could be run out of C-Ring in the Pentagon and you could be a communist with ties to Michael Jackson. But none of these are true including that picture being taken in Wrightsville Beach and we both know that.
Agreeing that SH was "up to his old tricks" with support of the UN and their inspections, and advocating a complete invasion of a nation are two different things. How many troops did those three countries, France, Russia and Germany, donate to the coalition? Must be a lot, since you claim they agreed with American intelligence and really wanted to put an end to the development of "threatened things"... see http://www.mpburton.com/troops.html for total count. It equals EXACTLY zero.
You then mention how we should wait for one of the "threatened things" to be "tested on us or someone else." Which "threatened thing" are you referring to? Would they take a large cargo plane and drop that truck on us? Would they fire a potato gun at the Jordanian border? Or another attempt at invasion of a border country with the result of total annihilation like the last time? Which weapon of mass destruction would have been used on us? You take the stance of, "well, we just didn't know, so we had to attack before we were destroyed." That statement has a fundamental flaw... there was nothing to attack us with. Had we done absolutely nothing, there would be no mushroom cloud over Washington, no mass destruction, no chaos. So, it seems like - and I kind of already know this - you have the stance that we should shoot from the hip at anyone who we think might want to harm us with force. And then after the smoke clears from our onslaught and "shock and awe" and the truth of the matter is that they had no capability of doing any of the things we claimed and they had none of the weapons that we so clearly insisted that they did we expect everything to be ok because our claims of WMD are just as acceptable as the reality of WMD or lack thereof. Where in American society is that kind of behavior accepted as the norm? Can I go to to government and claim my employer is laundering money, have the government start the investigation, fold the company, and then when it's proven that I'm wrong I'm seen as a good person who was doing the right thing? No way.
When was this doctrine decided to be acceptable in Iraq? How will the world look at us the next time we do this and the WMD actually exist? Will they shoot down any attempt to attack and leave us stuck with nothing but discredibiliy and fear of the future? Are we expecting the same sort of belief of the evidence by the American public and support for the invasion of a country preemptively when another Rumsfeld or Powell say that there are WMD pointed at us right now and if we don't attack, we will die? How do you think a person like me sees the situation in North Korea? I have seen no picture, no evidence, no proof. We claim that the Koreans cannot be trusted, but when they tell us they have WMD, that's good enough for us... we'll select the trust. How ridiculous.
And how ridiculous to be doing this with not just our existence on the line, but human existence on the line. Downright scary, in fact. If we were to start dropping nuclear bombs on Iran to bust a complex 75 feet under ground that we've never seen, that no one has inspected, that someone like yourself says there is something under there that could be "tested on us or someone else," shit will hit the fan like never before. And how exactly would that make us safer? Sending planes over Iran to bomb facilities that we suspect are making the "threatened things"... not even a nuclear drop, just just a typical no-fly-zone-take-out style clear-out? Should I feel safer, then? Like I'm supposed to feel safer now about what happened in Iraq? Do you really think I feel safer now that every Muslim east of Italy hates me? Who cares why or how or if it's justified or fair... it is what it is. International politics are a very delicate situation in which every walk of life with different morals, values, laws, religions, colors, beliefs, etc. have to agree on a very basic level on how the world should be. Right now there is a broad disagreement on that point and we are paying for it with our taxes and our security. I bet if we went back to the ways of our leaders 100 years ago and just left people alone who wanted to be left alone the world would be a better, safer, less fearful place. You hit us, sure, we'll kick your ass, but this, "let's get our hand in every pot and keep it just the way we want it regardless of what they think, believe, want" is ruining the world.
And then you talk about the blame game and that we would be blaming John Kerry if he was president now and all of these things came to light after the election. I wouldn't blame him for it. My blame on President Bush came well before November 2004. This was all done and decided within months of the 2001 inauguration and shortly after 911. I don't blame the people of congress, DEMs or GOPs, who voted for the war in 2002/2003. They were given one side of the story. I'm not totally sure why and the public will probably never know. But I keep hearing generals and retired members of the CIA and White House staff who say they said to the proper officials years ago that intelligence from credible sources refuting the evidence supporting WMD and the war was ignored and kept from the American public. Yet George Tenet, the director of the CIA, called the case for WMD "a slam dunk." I believe had we known then what we know now, the vote in Congress for the President to use force against Iraq would not have passed, the American public would have been VERY skeptical of the idea and this whole thing would have never happened. I blame the President and the people around him who spun the evidence to us for completely one-siding the arguments and even personally attacking those who disagreed. Just like in 2000 when Bush's election team claimed McCain had an illegitimate child with a black woman. No morals. No ethics. Just gimme what I want and get the fuck out of my way.
So, you must then deduct that this outcome, being acceptable, is justified based in part by knowing only the evidence in support of the actions as opposed to the reality of the situation itself (no WMD at all). An awfully risky business in regard to the existence of "threatened things" being "tested on us or someone else" and human existence. And what of this talk of us having to wait 20 years to effectively judge what is going on over there... like, "wait it out folks, it's a brand new country! It takes years for this stuff to work. They just had elections. ELECTIONS! WOW!" Yeah, the Palestinians just had a democratic election. And who did they elect in this democratic election? An accepted international terrorist organization, that's who. I guess the, "democracy leads to freedom" spiel we've been hearing lately is now proven to be false.
Yeah, feel safer now? Do we go bomb them now that they legitimately elected a terrorist organization as their leaders? Will that make it all better? Or do we just cut them off and let them squabble in their poverty until they have to come begging for help? Think BIG PICTURE. Forget Haliburton, forget elections. Think BIG PICTURE. Think of how we can do something so that people won't want to kill us. That's the ticket. I bet if every American family said, "you know what, I'm going to give the people of Iraq $20 to help build a school" they would start to like us. I bet if every family sent them a Koran they'd think, "maybe they're not ALL imbeciles." They wouldn't be able to. We could then REALLY say we did everything to help both sides agree to disagree, but agree not kill each other. And if after all of that they were still aggressive towards us, the rest of the world would REALLY be on our side, not just be on our side in that we agree that Islamic nations wants us taken out.
But instead we have a very small group of people making irrational decisions based on God knows what that keeps driving the wedge between us and the Middle East and their ideology. They seem to think that the bombs will change the way the world is and how people think. It does just that... it makes the world less safe and secure and makes people think how arrogant, selfish and irrational we are. And as long as this keeps happening, people like you will keep pushing for more of it and keep thinking that this V-Day style "win the war" mentality and agenda will overcome a person thinking, "I hate you."
Self-destructive, man. Completely self-destructive.
<< Home