|Copied & pasted from the SOLO Yahoo Forum:|
Comments interpolated below. Logan's segments *with* arrows, Linz' without:
> From: "Logan Feys"
> Reply-To: SOLO_forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:33:25 -0500
> Subject: RE: [SOLO] Re: Giving in to the Terrorists: Spain says, "You Win" to
> Al Qaeda
> According to the article, (the government of) Spain had an "obligation"
> to (force its citizens to) bear some of the costs of the Iraq war
> because that's what allied governments expected. According to the
> author's post, it was "necessary" for the Spanish government to force
> citizens to participate in the war because Saddam was "arguably" a
> threat to them.
> I don't find these lines of reasoning persuasive at all. I say:
> 1. Spanish citizens had no moral obligation to do anything whatsoever to
> alleviate the suffering of Iraqis or ease the burden of U.S. troops or
> meet the demands of "allies." A government exists to protect its
> citizens interests, not obey alleged obligations or duties to other
> countries or international bodies.
Protecting the interests of its citizens will often, properly, lead a government to enter coalitions with other governments. The government of New Zealand, for instance, used to be part of a formal deal (ANZUS) with that of
the United States, because it knew that being part of such a coalition would deter a potential aggressor (e.g. in this time of Islamic revival, Indonesia) in the first instance, & lead him to be blown out of the water by the U.S. in the second, should he actually *commit* aggression.
Quisling/Chamberlain/Saddamite mentalities in NZ's socialist governments have torn that agreement up.
The commitment of the Spanish government to help out in Iraq was *not* the result of a formal coalition, but of an honourable acknowledgement that America's effort to topple an unspeakable despot Hussein was a desirable
project worthy of a friend's support.
> 2. It was not in Spain's interests to go to war (as the author himself
> seemed to hint at). The war was going to be fought anyway. Saddam was
> going to be overthrown anyway.
Not if the Saddamites had their way! Talk about stealing premises!!
The Spanish had virtually nothing to
> gain by participating and a lot potentially to lose. The Madrid
> bombings may have been a direct consequence of the government's war
Oh. So don't help a friend out in deposing a despot lest that despot's
soul-mates get angry? Jesus Christ!!
> 3. I don't think Saddam had any sort of plot in the works to bomb Spain
> of all places (let alone any other civilized country). You can come up
> with some potential reasons why waging war in Iraq could have or might
> have turned out to be in Spain's interests, but to say that it was
> "necessary" is an abuse of words and their meaning. Pro or con, the war
> was optional.
And the honourable option was to help.
> 4. Necessary wars are fought in response to clear and indisputable
> threats, not "arguable" or conjectured ones.
For reasons previously canvassed, but clearly not absorbed, there was absolutely no reason to give Saddam the benefit of a smidgeon of doubt.
> 5. International Islamic terrorist rings indisputably threaten people in
> most parts of the world.
Yeah, well, better not upset them, huh? We might rile them, & run the risk
of being bombed ourselves. Let's just let them bomb away, & cower in the
shadows while they do so, in the hope they won't notice us.
> 6. No major international terrorist attacks have been carried out by
> Saddam or Iraqis.
As yet. But the citizens of Kuwait, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis tortured/gassed by Saddam, about which unfortunates the Saddamites couldn't give a toss, might argue that this is hardly the point, were they
alive to do so.
> 7. Waging war on Iraq did nothing to discourage or weaken Islamic
It removed a vainglorious Islamic Attila who, as it turned out, was not quite the threat he was thought to be *only* because he'd been neutralised — in the face of opposition from Saddamites!!! - ten years earlier. The fact
that action against one piece of maggot-shit doesn't "discourage or weaken" *all* pieces of maggot-shit doesn't invalidate the action. The fallacy of Rationalism again!!
> 8. Pro-Iraq war fanatics will never be disuaded from their position.
> Costs don't matter to them. They'll never put a dollar figure or a body
> count representing how much it's worth to them. They don't think in
> terms of costs and benefits/consequences. To them, it's a "necessary"
> moral mission. They are emotionally vested in it. Consequently, even
> when most of the predictions made by anti-war advocates come true (no
> WMDs found, inordinate costs, heavy casualties, fueling Islamic
> rage/emboldening Islamic militants, hordes of new terrorists mobilizing
> and attacking within Iraq, terrorists carrying out retaliatory attacks
> against the U.S. and/or U.S. allies, etc.), the war mongers never take
> into account new evidence or reexamine their position. And most of them
> never will.
Hahahaha! This is *really* rich. Saddamites who couldn't give a fuck about Saddam's half a million victims suddenly getting all righteous about body-counts. 600 American soldiers? News for the Saddamites: when young Americans *volunteer* for military service, they *know* they might be called upon to lay down their lives overseas, deposing despots. Thank God for people like them, as opposed to chin-dripping weaklings who refuse to face up to the fact that the fight against tyranny *always* entails casualties.
Those young men & women knew it, & were staunch. Bless them for ever. If this makes me a "war-monger" then I wear the label with pride. Rather that than be an abject, simpering traitor waving a white flag at the first intimation of enemy anger.
> 9. While it is always morally optional to stand up to a bully, whether
> he be of the schoolyard variety or a brutal dictator, it is not always
> wise or useful. If I see some thug beating up some person I don't know
> or care about, I intervene at my own discretion, understanding that it
> may be risky to do so. I could shoot him dead and save his victim only
> to be hunted down by his gang of followers, who are hell-bent on
> retaliation against me and my family. I'm not going to risk my life or
> my family for the sake of a single act of justice on behalf of someone
> else. When a bully is doing horrible things to someone else but isn't
> directly threatening you, a policy of non-intervention may be the only
> one that is consistent with the goal of self-defense. When and if and
> how you do intervene is optional. The world is filled with horrific
> injustices, most of which you ought not try to (and realistically can't)
> do anything about except condemn in moral terms.
The world is filled with cowards devoid of the slightest notion of loyalty to one's values & one's friends. Cowards who think that self-preservation at *any* cost is a virtue. Thank God the Founding Fathers weren't like that!
"You have preserved three qualities of character which were typical at the time of America's birth, but are virtually non-existent today: earnestness - dedication - a sense of honour."
- Ayn Rand, address to West Point Military Academy.
Guess she *should* have told them to dissemble & go home, lest they annoy some pieces of terrorist maggot-shit.