Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Team America: Roger Ebert Is An Idiot | Main | Paranoid News Alert »

Monday, October 25, 2004


I imagine the folks at Foreign Policy think they are being funny or clever in pointing to 21 rationales for war with Ba'athist fascism in Iraq. Anyone with an ounce of sense, however, will see that a number of these are different ways of expressing the same concern. And I fail to see how the Bush administration should be accountable for the statements of Senators, let alone Democratic Senators.

Want a reason for war with Iraq? Here are 21. A study by Devon Largio, a recent graduate of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, reveals that between September 2001 and October 2002 10 key players in the debate over Iraq presented at least 21 rationales for going to war.

Just as important are the plethora of rationales for not going to war. These can all be abbreviated to a few key themes: indifference to the fate of the oppressed, obliviousness to the words of the UFO cult that has sworn to kill or convert us all and a worldview defined by the loss of the 2000 presidential election and nothing else.

Posted by Ghost of a flea on October 25, 2004 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rationales:


So the leftist ideology can be boiled down to "obliviousness to the words of the UFO cult that has sworn to kill or convert us all and a worldview defined by the loss of the 2000 presidential election and nothing else."

Bushism is the cult at play here and it is clear that you have been soundly indoctrinated. If you actually believe that the war in Iraq was illegally waged to ease "the fate of the oppressed" you are beyond the reach of reason. Clearly you don't care about the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in this war, including young children and babies. It is obviously more important to you to insulate your "leader" from criticism than to condemn death and mayhem. Again, you are way beyond the reach of reason and you have my real sympathies for your pathology.

Posted by: Angry liberal | 2004-10-25 11:12:39 AM

Is Angry Liberal really one of you guys "dressed up" for Halloween? Because whoever you are, you win! A fine (though not brilliant)imitation of the type. Now, what should the prize be...?

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-10-25 12:27:40 PM

Before the war, on average, Saddam and his henchmen killed around 42,000 Iraqis per year. Even the most liberal estimates of casualities due to the war over the past year or so puts the number at around 10,000 killed. That means we've actually saved lives as a result, and will continue to well into the future.

No one likes war, but it's important to take out terrorists =and= state sponsors of terrorism.

Sometimes peace can only be found on the other side of war.

Posted by: Joel | 2004-10-25 1:25:42 PM

What Angry Liberal really meant to say was "surrender is the only acceptable solution"

Posted by: Kate | 2004-10-25 2:21:31 PM

A war to remove Hussein has always been just. A war to remove Kim Jong-Il would be just, if anyone cared enough to make the attempt.

The US may not have chosen to remove Hussein for only just reasons. The war and its outcome are still just.

Posted by: lrC | 2004-10-25 2:36:11 PM

You got me Kathy! I troll my own posts using moonbat pseudonyms as a way of driving up readership. Basically, I improvise a ludicrous tautology and dress it up with sophomoric Marxist rhetoric that serves to underline my original point... et voila!

Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-10-25 3:58:21 PM

I don't miss Saddam. The governments of France, Germany and China don't miss him (since he ultimately would have conquered Arabia and driven up the price of oil). The people of Iraq REALLY don't miss Saddam. Russia might have rather kept him around, since they are an oil exporter and would benefit from high prices.

The only "crime" that Bush committed, was to give his citizens the impression that this war can be waged with no great financial sacrifice.

Churchill said, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

Bush has said, repeatedly and falsely, that the economy is recovering, we're back on the road to prosperity, blah, blah, blah. As if there won't be Hell to pay for whatever number of trillions of dollars of debt he is running up.

I suppose it will ultimately depend on what Americans themselves vote for in the post-Bush era (starting in either 2005 or 2009). If they vote themselves a bellyful of socialism like Britain did in 1945, they are screwed. They will still be sending submarines of gold over to China in 2050, just like Britain was still sending gold to the USA until just a few years ago.

Consider this little bit from an economics web site, which I have amended to match Britain's situation THEN to the USA situation SOON:

"Why did all these "sterling balances" [trade deficits] leave Britain [USA] with a potential problem after the Second World [Iraq] War?

1. All of these holders of pounds [dollars] would want
to get rid of them after the war in order to buy goods.
Britain [USA] was unable to produce enough goods that
anyone would want because of war damage [massive malinvestment
in government spending and real estate speculation fueled by
ridiculously easy credit], and because its industry was entirely
tooled for war production [missile defence, prisons, teachers
unions and SUVs] and would require time to convert. No country
but the United States [China] had an economy after the war that
could produce any consumer goods. So everyone wanted dollars
[Chinese Yuan]. And if all these people cashed
in their pounds [dollars], the pound [dollar] would lose value
once the Bank of England [US federal reserve] ran out of dollars
and gold [real money] to buy back the pounds [dollars],
which means the pound [dollar] would have had to be devalued,
which means even more people would have tried to unload their
pounds [dollars]."

Posted by: Justzumgai | 2004-10-25 9:22:00 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.