12/24/03
Calpundit posted why we haven't found WMD in Iraq. Why I supported Iraq and still continue to do so has 3 parts: WMD, Saddam acting guilty, and potential of WMD.
Very few people claimed that Saddam had totally shut down his WMD programs and wasn't trying to restart them. Back then, saying Saddam didn't want WMD was like saying the earth was flat, you were an idiot if you believed that.
While this debate was going on, Saddam was acting guilty. Americans have a sense of when people are acting guilty and Saddam was essentially screaming 'I AM HIDING SOMETHING!!!' by his actions. A scenerio that would be compatable would be driving along, getting pulled over by a police officer, and then refusing to walk a straight line... Obviously, something is up with the guy that got pulled over.
Lastly, if we leave Saddam in power, is he going to continue to not be a threat to the US? Will he continue to not try to get WMD and attack the US? He doesn't have the means to attack the US now, but if we leave him alone for another 5 or 10 years, will he get the means and then try something? Is it worth the risk? We tried 11 years to reform him, and he just thumbed his nose at us and flaunted our containment.
Combined, I think there is a compelling case for attacking Saddam. It will be expensive, but I feel that in the long run it will be cheaper than trying to contain him for another 10-20 years.
Very few people claimed that Saddam had totally shut down his WMD programs and wasn't trying to restart them. Back then, saying Saddam didn't want WMD was like saying the earth was flat, you were an idiot if you believed that.
While this debate was going on, Saddam was acting guilty. Americans have a sense of when people are acting guilty and Saddam was essentially screaming 'I AM HIDING SOMETHING!!!' by his actions. A scenerio that would be compatable would be driving along, getting pulled over by a police officer, and then refusing to walk a straight line... Obviously, something is up with the guy that got pulled over.
Lastly, if we leave Saddam in power, is he going to continue to not be a threat to the US? Will he continue to not try to get WMD and attack the US? He doesn't have the means to attack the US now, but if we leave him alone for another 5 or 10 years, will he get the means and then try something? Is it worth the risk? We tried 11 years to reform him, and he just thumbed his nose at us and flaunted our containment.
Combined, I think there is a compelling case for attacking Saddam. It will be expensive, but I feel that in the long run it will be cheaper than trying to contain him for another 10-20 years.
12/4/03
SCSU Scholars weights in on plagerism. Personally, I have never quite understood where copying ends and plagerism ends. Obviously, lifting whole paragraphs is wrong but what about using half a sentance? What about a whole sentance? What about combining 2 sentances from 2 different sources together to make 1 complete sentence? There are all sorts of gray areas that I could never figure out. Oh well, only 3 more semesters to go and then I probibly won't have to worry ever again!
CATO Institude fights against banning alcohol. Instapundit weighs in. I agree with Instapundit. It was funny how I could fly an aircraft, drive a car, and screw as I pleased but I couldn't drink at all... Oh well, noone said the world would be perfect ;)
A Small Victory has an interesting post about flying. I remember the summer of 2002, where I would fly out of Madison. We had an Air National Guard squadron based at the airport. There was a tremendous change in everyone reactions when they took off from when I flew out of Madison in the summer of 2001.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)