|
Editorials: Editoriality Archives - Animations Commentary Pandora's Box! Video What Is? Contact Us Voices of the People Home |
At the place where I work, of all places, I got into a mini-debate with a friend and co-worker of mine over the Iraq issue. I thought about not airing it out in this forum since it was a private conversation and it wouldn't be fair to the parties involved. Then I thought that if people really think the way my co-worker does, that his views need to be exposed. I don't know whether it's fear, background or just liberal brainwashing that makes him think these things, but I feel that the right thing is to make people aware.
No, I didn't start this. It actually began over what this self-proclaimed "old Socialist" (who works for a major corporation of 10,000+ employees) e-mailed me regarding an online internal employee poll. Cletus (his name has been changed to protect the innocent) suggested that the poll was biased for asking the question: "Are you in favor or opposed to the U.S. taking military action against Iraq?"
Cletus: In your employee poll, I think you should have qualified the question to read, "Are you in favor or opposed to the U.S. taking unilateral military action against Iraq without UN Security Council support?"
Just my two cents!
Usually I'm very diplomatic in the workplace, but I couldn't let that go unchallenged:
A. I don't do the employee poll.
B. The campaign against Iraq won't be "unilateral." Thirty-five + countries, including many from the former Soviet bloc, are behind and are dedicating resources to the effort.
C. I don't have much respect for an organization that appointed Libya as chair of the commission for Human Rights.
Besides, the Security Council, which consists of 16 (?) members, has a majority of members in favor of action on the enforcement of UN Resolution 1441. Of the four states who have veto power, France is the only one who's declared they might use it. Even if they do use it, I don't take much stock in "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."
Just my $1.25!
Cletus's response:
Sorry, I thought you did the poll and just couldn't resist harassing you! Anyway, if the best argument you can advance is ad hominem in nature, consisting of calling France names, I think you flatter yourself by valuing your opinion at $1.25!
For one thing, the French deserve it (Anybody been watching Jay Leno lately? He's been averaging about five French jokes a night! Besides, I took "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" from Groundkeeper Willie of "The Simpsons"!). Secondly, he pretty much ignored my first two very valid points, so I couldn't let that go:
I suggest you read B and C again. To suggest that my argument is "ad hominem" coming from a Democrat is the pot calling the kettle black!
Sorry, but since Donald R., Dick C, and Shrub took the spotlight, I believe the conservatives have a corner on the name-calling market.
And, yes, poor countries tend to cave when strong-armed by an economic bully who can provide them with badly needed cash -- not to mention that they fear the U.S.'s influence over the IMF.
As to the Libya's appointment as human-rights chair, it's the way the system works (one country doesn't get to change the rules), and -- unfortunately -- Africa nominated Libya. Didn't notice Britain arguing against it, either?
But what about our buddies Turkey, Pakistan, and China? Fine, upstanding citizens I might add. And the Israelis? Well, they happen to be in violation of more UN resolutions than anybody.
Ad hominem deux: "I suggest you read B and C again. To suggest that my argument is 'ad hominem' coming from a Democrat is the pot calling the kettle black!"
Take that, you English-speaking pig dog!!!!!!!
Chiding me for name-calling, yet he calls President W. Bush "Shrub" (A moniker taken from that foul demagogueress, Molly Ivins!)? I respect Cletus a lot, but he's really lost me here. My response:
I don't think Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia really need our cash. They've got plenty of their own. Aside from that, many of those other countries you speak of should hold the US and its contribution to the IMF in awe since the US provides 60% of the world's aid. But there are plenty of marginal countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, Greece, etc. who are pretty independently-minded who've sided with the US on this issue. Why would so many swear allegiance toward going to war when their economies are only marginally dependent on US aid anyway? Maybe it's because the threat of terrorism is real. Citizens from within Iraq and Iran are begging the US to invade, in spite of the fear of retaliation. They don't have the 1st amendment in those countries, Cletus. I wonder if money is motivating them?
Have the Israelis been in material breach of 10 UN resolutions for 12 years? Have any of those resolutions involved weapons of mass destruction? Israel is a tiny country, democratically led, in the middle of a hostile region. It's easy to blame Israel where we sit.
I know Rummy and Dick can have pretty acid tongues. That's part of their jobs. But to suggest W is a "name-caller" is positively the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!
Well, I was gone for two days and really stewed in anticipation of what I came back to:
I respectfully disagree with everything you've said and could continue to debate the merit of your arguments, but I must leave. One parting note (you knew I couldn't resist): What's real is United States economic imperialism, and our willingness to use selective military might to achieve self-serving ends. That and our unqualified support of Israel is what feeds anti-American sentiments throughout the Muslim world and, hence, results in our security being compromised -- my son's and yours. Our main exposure to risk is our taste for empire and the quasi-religious, simplistic, black-and-white morality embraced by the Bush administration and its fanatical supporters.
The United Nations is standing firm to set a precedent, one that doesn't allow the U.S. to preemptively strike whomever it wants, without first exhausting other means. The world is tired of war, and history has shown us that war doesn't eliminate risk for long.
I pretty much decided that I wasn't going to protract this battle on company time, and told him not to send me politically-charged statements at work, no matter how right or funny he thought they were. I suggested a continuance of the discussion over beer at some point.
To Cletus's credit, he had sent me a follow-up "truce" e-mail, which I discovered after the fact.
But I disagree with everything Cletus said in his last e-mail. May I explain why?
...shall I go on?
