WMD’s who needs them anyway?


Here it is, my pro-war response, well sort of, but I must first thank Jesse Heath for the well-written article, Lock for what I thought was an excellent point, and also for the other articles that criticized me. Not only am I glad that people wrote to express what they believe, but it also helps enforce one of my views on the war. You people were so angry at what I wrote, that you found errors in my argument, and did something about it. Isn’t that what our government did with Iraq? It started out as a war on terrorism, but they didn’t have a legitimate reason to attack Iraq, so they found/made one. Just like you found/made problems with my article, our government found a reason to go to war. They said Iraq was hiding WMD, yet they have not found them and probably won’t, but that was never really the point, was it. The government used WMD’s as their golden ticket into Iraq. They found a way to legally attack Iraq for harboring terrorism. In a way, those of you that wrote back in response to my article mirrored the way our government operates by finding problems (real or made-up) with an adversary and using them as a basis for your attack. I believe that you both were right in doing so. If something or someone, for the lack of better words, pisses you off, then you should do something about it. When we go back to 9/11 it is obvious something needed to be done in recourse for the attack on the towers. Iraq was harboring those that were responsible, and we found a reason to get at them. Who will commit acts of terrorism against Americans, now? It’s like in the movie Swordfish if they hit us, we will hit them back tenfold. The war lets the world’s terrorist know, if you mess with America, there will be quick and severe repercussions.
Now I will address my dissenter, Jesse Heath, on claiming that I am ignorant of the facts, when I am in fact not ignorant. I counter-accuse Heath of using undermining tactics, just as I was accused. It is very easy to discredit someone that has different views than your own by simply saying that they are ignorant of the facts, have “primitive logic,” or saying their arguments are “indefensible.” I am not ignorant, my logic is sound, and I can certainly defend my arguments. Your arguments were sound and I see where your coming from, but I still think what I argue is right. I think what you meant to say is that “you” believe I am wrong, not that I am ignorant. I have watched countless hours of war coverage and read countless articles, just as I’m sure you have. And yes, the stuff I find to be true is right winged, just as the information you use is to the left, no doubt. No one is ignorant here, we simply oppose each other and use material that supports our views, and just like our government we found ways to undermine our enemies and prove them wrong. When we firmly stand behind a political view we think that what we personally believe is right and what others believe is wrong, but we have to remember that everyone has reasons for believing what they believe in, whether we agree or not. You have your reasons and I have mine.
I would also like to point out that with my last article, it was not my intention to insult/mock anyone. I was trying to convert a few of you anti-war people over to my side and see that the war was a positive thing in many ways. This is not an apology by any means, don’t get me wrong (I don’t apologize) and I still support the war, but I want to make it clear that insulting/mocking where not my goal. I was trying to convert some of anti-war “folk” over to the undermanned, under gunned pro-war “folk” side (get it). I read anti-war article after anti-war article with little to no voice for the pro side. So I did something about it. And to those of you that are still insulted or didn’t like my poor grammar, “I ain’t got no problem with that.”Ben Dictus