|Reviews for Justification Of War|
| O.G 11/3/07 . chapter 1
This pretty much made my day. I happen to be a fan of cynical Bush-bashing. And I agree whole-heartedly about Iraq being a bad decision.
But, may want to do a re-write with all the wonderful new material you could put in. There's always
A) Black water. Those people with the big guns that are supposedly exempt from any sort of law.
B) Our "harsh interrogation methods". Oh! Look! We're making them think they're drowning and freezing them, but we're not technically /torturing/ them!
*sigh* But, I digress. I think I will spare you one of my little rants on the subject of Bush and the war. (And the way he's running up our national debt on killing people in Iraq but doesn't want to spent it on helping the country...)
| Forest Passant 4/4/04 . chapter 1
Tony Charles Lynton Blair? How did you know that? Why did you know that? Whose parents would name them Tony Charles Lynton?
Other than that, I agree.
But we in America can't tolerate people fighting against us in a war. Because it wasn't supposed to happen like that. They should have been GLAD we were overthrowing their government and installing our own little puppet, damn it, and so when they weren't, we were just a little bit pissed off.
Hmm, reminds me of some little kid having a tantrum after his play-date's canceled.
Anyways, it was good.
| Riv 2/5/04 . chapter 1
Excellently put. Everything in that essay I agree with and I feel sorrow for the men and women who have lost loved ones because the US and UK went to war over 'invisible weapons of mass destruction'. Power is all people need today for everything to go to their heads. Excellently put with that quirky humour that's so cool.
| mary 1/13/04 . chapter 1
i agree. he went in for the wrong reasons and as far as i am concerned he needs to be impeached for loss of human life while in the war ended 347 american soldiers have died and i dont know how many from england and over seas any loss of life is too many and bush needs hope the next leader can be more mature and act as if he really cares about what happens in the world.
| Omelettes 1/11/04 . chapter 1
Thank you! Thank you, thank you, thank you! I love what you've done here. It's almost as if you've scooped all of the thoughts I have about this issue out of my head and typed them up. But, as Soleil Antoinette said, you forgot just one thing, and that is the Iraqi oil! Neat time for the Americans to come and rescue all the poor Iraqi people from Saddam.
As well, I agree with you on the issue of the 625 people being kept at Guantanamo Bay. As far as what Mr. Lawrence said about it, I have a question for him- Would you enjoy being kept at a prison after being denied legal representation and without ever having been charged with an offence? Of course not. Whether it was within the rights of the U.S. or not, you'd be mighty pissed and rightfully so. I know I wouldn't like it, even if I were allowed to eat, sleep and practice my religion. As well, I know exactly what it's like to be in Cuba; I have many close Cuban friends who have family there. We send them supplies as well and bring whatever we can whenever we visit. I know how horrid the way in which Castro 'runs' his country is, but people with American passports should still be able to go there, as long as they know what they could potentially be getting into.
But I refrain from writing political essays for a reason- to avoid aggrivation such as this. So now, I'll stop, cool down & have a drink. Still, Spawny, I agree with you completley. Great essay!
| Diana Shore 1/11/04 . chapter 1
I see a common theme here with all of your 'political' (and I say that word loosely) writings; your intense dislike for President Bush. Is it because he's republican?
You keep harping on the fantasy that he 'wasn't' elected, but I see Cerulean Dawn and Steve Lawrence explained about the Electoral College already. There were other votes that had yet to be counted during the Florida Fiasco; the mail-in-ballots from the military members overseas. Do you really think that Bush didn't get the majority vote with the military?
Spawny, I truly love your other fiction works, but you almost lost me at the same point Le Creature gave up.
| C Shot 1/9/04 . chapter 1
Spawny, spawny, spawny... I've always been a fan of your work... but where the hell did this come from?
I agree totally with Stevey, so I am not even gonna start up a rant. Have a nice day.
| my two centavos 1/9/04 . chapter 1
I agree with the general idea of the essay but there were a lot of details, as pointed out by Steve, didn't go with facts or logic.
"Led by a country who's President LOST a democratic election."
I really think you should be getting ready for this coming year's elections and not bitching over the last one.
"In fact, try flying to Cuba from Canada without being arrested if you have an American passport. Not by the Canadians or the Cubans, but by the Americans. Because it's ILLEGAL for a US citizen to go to Cuba."
Well, that's because Castro is a dictator just like Saddam and also because back in the 60s, the US only wanted to go as far as sanctions and not risk nuclear war.
"We went into Iraq because, as Saddam pointed out earlier, we couldn't find Osama so we needed another target to aim for."
But like I said earlier, there are points in which I agree with you.
"Theory One: Saddam hid all the weapons in the desert somewhere just before being invaded, so he could come back and use them once the Americans left and still be ruler of Iraq. This theory is patently flawed, for the reasons that will be easiest detailed by the conversation below. This conversation, by the way, is purely a figment of my imagination."
It doesn't add up. You are fighting for your life but you don't use your most powerful weapons?
"Led by a country that currently has 625 people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. 625 people who have been denied legal representation. 625 people who have never actually been charged with anything."
So much for habeas corpus...
| Cerulean Dawn 1/9/04 . chapter 1
Nice little conversations, but I'm pretty sure they belong in "fiction" as you obviously just plucked them out of thin air.
"Who's president LOST a democratic election..."
Firstly, it's "whose" not "who's". Second, are we STILL bitching about this? It's easy to call Bush an idiot and make Gore into some theoretical super-President, despite the fact that he, uh, you know, NEVER accomplished anything. Third, President Bush can not have lost a "democratic" election because by definition America is not a democracy; it is a federal republic. In such a system, a body such as the electoral college selects the president. If you don't like it, well, the Constitution can be changed but, on the other hand, Democrats weren't whining about the electoral college before it cost their candidate the election. And you say the fact that Iraq has oil is too convenient...
"...not eligible for the basic human rights..."
Yeah, you're right. We're torturing them while we storm their homes in the night and rape their wives. Oh wait, that was Saddam...
"...someone had to pay..."
Oh, is that it? And if we find Osama, what will we do? Kill him three thousand times? This isn't about payment because, honestly, there's no repaying us. It's about removing madmen so that 9/11 doesn't happen again, and if it does so it won't with happen with WMD.
"That would be Muammar Gadaffi who has connections with terrorists..."
And also the Muammar Gadaffi who actually has a brain on his shoulders and is letting inspectors see whatever they want. Had Saddam assented as Gadaffi did, things could have happened differently.
| Steve Lawrence 1/9/04 . chapter 1
PS: It's North Korea, not South Korea, who is in talks about their nuclear program. Might want to clear that up.
| Steve Lawrence 1/9/04 . chapter 1
I agree with Le Creature, but I was somehow able to power through that babbling to get to something you're good at: misunderstanding and misrepresentation of facts.
Before I continue: Excuse my language here, but Jago, what the fuck are you talking about? When did Israel oppose getting rid of one of their enemies? Are you insane?
"Led by a country who's President LOST a democratic election."
Are we STILL bitching about this? Electoral College, all I gotta say.
"Led by a country that currently has 625 people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay."
"625 people who have been denied legal representation."
"625 people who have never actually been charged with anything."
"625 people who are 'illegal fighters', so as a result not eligible for the basic human rights most people would get. What exactly is an 'illegal fighter'? Surely it isn't someone who stands up in a war and fires a gun at the enemy? Doesn't everyone do that?"
They're called "enemy combatants" and we're within our rights according to Geneva-you can look that up champ. And what rights are they being denied? They're being fed, they have time for their religion, they get sleep, etc. What "human rights" are they being denied. Cmon Spawny, lets stop being sarcastic for a second. Attempting to prove the US is a hypocrite when it comes to justice isn't that easy.
"Led by the country that refuses it's own people freedom of movement. Don't believe me? Try flying to Cuba from America without being arrested. In fact, try flying to Cuba from Canada without being arrested if you have an American passport. Not by the Canadians or the Cubans, but by the Americans. Because it's ILLEGAL for a US citizen to go to Cuba."
And Spawny, do you know WHY we do that? It's called a travel restriction, and it's because of one man: Fidel Castro. And his past. And the fact that he continues to rule those people with an fist, through fear and murder. Or did you not know that? Did you not know that Castro, just recently, took 13 political prisoners and defectors that were returned to the country and executed them? This after the UN put Cuba on the Human Rights Council. What a joke that is. Did you not know Castro has his secret police grab freedom fighters across the country and has their heads decapitated and placed on a fencepost in their neighborhood as a warning to not join the "Resistance" (ya know, with those who want that free speech stuff). Or that he removes the private parts of that person and jams them into the head's mouth? Oh you didn't know that! Why did I? Because he was a relative of mine. My family sends medicine, food, supplies, you name it, to my family in Cuba all the time, so please, you know JACK about Cuba, don't talk about it if you don't know.
"Led by two countries that lied all along about the reason for going to war. We didn't go into Iraq to liberate a country. We went into Iraq because, as Saddam pointed out earlier, we couldn't find Osama so we needed another target to aim for."
Says you and your retarded "pretend conversation."
"I think it was wrong to switch our attention elsewhere and go after someone who had nothing to do with September 11th, just because we knew where he was and there was a history there. Remember, he tried to kill George Bush's daddy!"
Have you not been watching the news? Several connections are popping up, including Mohammed Atta who trained with Abu Nidal in Baghdad months before September 11th.
"And while we were doing that, we were coming to an arrangement to lift sanctions against Colonel Muammar Gadaffi of Libya. That would be Muammar Gadaffi who has connections with terrorist organisations that are both well known and long established."
Hypocrisy? I fail to see it. Guess what? If Saddam had dont what Muammar is doing, maybe, just maybe, this whole thing could have been avoided.
To backtrack for a second:
"Defence Minister: Well Sir, we have, of course, a huge amount of soldiers with out-dated weaponry. We also have 16 fighter planes, and a couple of hundred Surface to Air Missile Launchers."
Where the hell did you get that stat from?
"Yeah, right. Does anyone apart from me think a conversation anything even remotely like that ever took place? No-one would bury all his weapons just before being invaded. So, probability is, those weapons are NOT buried in the desert somewhere."
Says who? He buried his fighter jets! Why wouldn't he bury his weapons?
"It doesn't work. Neither 'theory' holds up under even basic scrutiny. Which, in fairness, is all I've actually given to them. The fact of the matter is, it looks like there ARE no weapons of mass destruction out there, and there NEVER WERE any weapons of mass destruction out there."
LOL...where the hell did you come up with that crapola? Basic scrutiny? Is that what you call a made up conversation. I feel I'm getting dumber just continuing. I must stop.
| James Jago 1/9/04 . chapter 1
Like Soleil said, oil had more to do with it than anybody -the President included- wishes to admit. Why else would they bother? The suggestion that anything Iraq posessed could threaten the rest of the world was clearly bollocks- Israel opposed the war and they're RIGHT NEXT TO IRAQ.
| Le Creature 1/8/04 . chapter 1
You lost me halfway through the first "conversation." Both were so contrived I couldn't stomach it. I can't discuss your points because your style stops me from reading.
| Soleil Antoinette 1/8/04 . chapter 1
Very good essay you have going here. I definately agree with everything you have said here - as invading Iraq was a... little suspicious.
Although, I must comment that you did miss out one thing in this piece - that Irap just conveniently has one of the most used and prized natural resources at their disposal - OIL. And the US just conveniently picks this time attacks them, to 'save' the people who have been under hardship for years...
But I'm not talking bad about the Americans (as I do have American friends and I respect the country), but I think people should realise everything just isn't in black and white.
You have done a wonderful and humorous job at displaying the 'gray' areas here. As always, looking forward to seeing what next is coming...