roachboy

actually, irseg, the counter argument is as it has always been: the un inspections regime had done its job--the wmd systems had been destroyed---the process worked--and that if there were more systems, the inspectors would have found them---therefore bushwar was unnecessary and illegitimate---and.that is the main reason so many countries did not support this ridiculous colonial war.

and it is funny to hear the word cult being attributed to people who opposed the war--there were lots of reasons to oppose it--nothing unifies the position--why exactly do you support bush?

and wonder--given the appalling american support for dictator and dictator worse that hussein ever was over the past 60 years, i dont think the question is relevant. if the americans acted for moral reasons, they would never have installed pinochet, for example, and looked the other way during the murder of many many thousands of people in chile. if the american position was based on morality, you would think that they would not have looked the other way at the time when the gas was used against the kurds--it was only later, when it was politically expedient, that there were objections. this is simply fact--there is no way to argue around it.

do i think hussein was a shithead--yes.
do i think that justifies bushwar--no.

it turns out that the reasons for war have all turned out to have been lies.

now you are reduced to this position.
why hold on to support of the war if the rationale is now this flimsy on the one hand, and this far from the actual positions outlined in the run-up to it on the other?

i can understand maybe if you have people in iraq---that is seperate...in which case the argument would be totally different, and has nothing to do with politics.

but in principle. i simply do not see how you can argue your position seriously.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite