Thursday, April 17, 2003

Some questions about Iraq:

  1. Why is it a bad thing for the Russians to spy on the British and pass information to Iraq (if that in fact happened), but a good thing for the British and Americans to spy on the nations in the United Nations who were being asked to support the attack on Iraq?

  2. Why do Americans say that the most important right of all is the right to the free possession of personal property, but yet cheer on the looting in Iraq?

  3. The reason that the Americans have made a big issue out of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq allegedly has is that the United Nations ordered the destruction of such weapons. Syria is under no such orders. Where does the United States obtain the right to insist that Syria give up its weapons of mass destruction (if it in fact has any), especially given the fact that it is Israel, the close friend of the United States, which clearly has the most weapons of mass destruction in the entire Middle East?

  4. Many Americans, particularly those who support the current Bush junta, claim that personal ownership of firearms is the main defense against tyrannical governments. Many Iraqis own firearms. What do you think are the chances that the Americans will attempt to restrict the ownership of personal firearms in Iraq?

  5. Since one of the main arguments for the attack on Iraq concerned the danger of Saddam to his neighbors, isn't it odd that the immediate American reaction to the assertion that it had bombed the street at Shu'ale in Baghdad was that the bomb must have been one of Saddam's anti-aircraft missiles, which fell on the street because the state of Saddam's military was so decrepit?

  6. Isn't it odd that another of the main arguments for the attack on Iraq was that the evil Baathist leaders were oppressing the Iraqi people, and yet after the 'liberation' the British and Americans immediately attempted to instal some of the same Baathist leaders as local satraps?


Hypocrisy.

0 comments: