Since my semi-retirement I haven't recieved much hate mail. Occasionally, I'll run across a piece from somebody angry about what I said months or even a year ago. Well, the following is such a piece of mail. Due to my current apathy and non-givashitness I vaguely skimmed instead of reading the whole thing. It looks like a winner and will be submitted to the carnival of the clueless this week. Feel free to pick hm to pieces at your leisure.
Sorry, I tried to enter this comment on your article on WMDs and the document that proved that we should have gone to war with Iraq, but your website didn't let me. I'm sorry if this comes across aggressive, but it is an issue I'm quite passionate about. Enjoy!I'm sorry but this document is a joke. It discusses a so-called threat to American interests and security but never actually specifies what the threat is! It is just a "known threat." This is pathetic. Thousands of troops and innocent Iraqi civilians have died because of this known threat and I think their friends and families deserve to know cos' I sure as hell don't!
What's more Mr Warmonger (nice name by the way, really shows intelligence) you speak about how there were terrorist organisations being harboured in Iraq, some of which were responsible for 9/11 and that Suddam was supporting them. What confuses me here is that the CIA have admitted that the intelligence on this issue was faulty and that there were no such links between Suddam and terrorists!
When you mention that Iraq has used WMDs on its own people, I was wondering whether you knew who gave him the capabilities to do that. Oh yeah America! I was also wondering why we didn't attack Iraq at the time of this atrocity, this threat to security, because if it was a threat then surely it would make more sense to attack at the time. Oh that's right, because at the time America and Saddam were the best of buddies.
What is fantastically stupid about your point on Iraq having WMDs (which you don't even know exist!) putting them in violation of UN resolutions is that the war itself is in violation of UN resolutions. America and Britain had to go to war without the UN's approval.
Also I love the way you winge about human rights abuses that the Iraqis commit to their own people and how this has been banned by many UN resolutions. Its amazing! Have you even heard of Guantanamo Bay and the number of human rights abuses American service men are committing to people who have not even been allowed to stand trial. It's sick. To add insult to injury, in Iraq itself, American soldiers have been committing atrocities towards innocent Iraqi civilians. "NO!" I hear you say, "WE ARE MERELY LIBERATING THEM, WHILST LOOKING OUT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERESTS" Oh really, well tell me this, since when does murdering and butchering innocent Iraqi civilians come under liberation. Oh maybe you are liberating them from the constraints of BEING ALIVE! What possible threat could innocent civilians pose to America and what possible interests could Americans have in murdering them! It makes no sense. And you wonder why the international community frowns upon your actions. I swear, all Bush has to do is attach the words liberation, freedom and democracy (values entrenched deep into the hearts of Americans) to any policy he wants and the Americans will love him for it. The good nature of Americans is being exploited for merciless needless killing that doesn't benefit anyone except oil companies (who are drilling right now in Iraq, by the way) and building contractors. And your in favour of this? What gets to me the most is when people like you argue that people who disagree with Bush and the war in Iraq are un-American and that they want to go and burn the flag. This is nonsense, I consider myself Pro-American for being anti-Bush. We're talking about a man who turned a record budget surplus into a record budget deficit, a man who has the lowest approval rating of any president, a man who didn't even really win the election that made him first become president, a man who has had more vacation time than any president, a man who lied to the American people about going to war and a man who lied about how foreseeable the disaster in New Orleans was.
Also do you actually think that going to war with Iraq is going to reduce the number of global terrorists? Surely it might have occurred to you that murdering 40,000 innocent civilians is going to have some repercussions. In doing what you have done in Iraq you have merely created more terrorists and put the international community at more risk. So in looking out for your own national security, you have but it in great danger.
Also the idea that Suddam is an evil dictator and needs to be stopped because of the atrocities he is committing towards his own people, well I am sorry but there are so many dictators all over the world doing far worse things to their people than Suddam was, are you going to attack them too? Or have you realised that that rather expensive, stupid, reckless tactic ends one way. With a pull out. Come on America, we watched you guys through Vietnam and we know how the story ends. Lets grow up and move on from such a primitive way of dealing with other nations. We could try mmmmmm.....NEGOTIATIONS! And I mean actual diplomatic processes where you do not get impatient with the workings of the UN because you aren't getting your own way fast enough!
My final point is about the validity of the authorisation. I'm not sure but it seems to me that this is a document of America authorising itself to go to war. Impressive, but the international community (the UN) need to sanction such activity as well for the war to be legal by international law.
Nice try, but you (like every pro-war individual I have met, listened to or read the articles of) have failed to acknowledge the glaring contradictions, double standards and pitfalls in the argument for going to war. Maybe I can understand people being silly enough to be in favour of war in 2003, but after all that has happened since (Civil war pending, Human rights abuses, 2000 American troops dead, 40,000 innocent Iraqi civilians dead, Iraq being a war torn circus) I cannot understand how someone of average intelligence in 2006 can still be in favour of such a farce. My only guess is that you were in favour in the beginning and having watched what you thought was a good idea crumble before your eyes and now you are trying your hardest to justify to yourself and everyone you can that the war was a good thing, whilst burying your head in the sand to the failings and atrocities that myself and other anti-war individuals knew were going to happen all along.
You make an entertaining read though.
Entertaining reading? For some reason I feel like Savage Nation now. That just caught me as funny. Sorry.