I too have a valedictorian friend at Berekeley, an intersesting AIM log:
Me: hey, anti-war ppl, you lose
Me: HA!!!
Him: no, brad, no. we all lose
Me: i win, and so do the surviviors of the coming war
Me: and every person who dislikes WMDs and tyrant dictators
Him: yes, if they won, they would be getting rid of wmds and tyrant dictators, but that's besides the point
Him: with war comes loss of freedom
Me: if "they" won, who is they?
Him: they is either side
Me: war has shown an increase in freedom in many key examples in modern war
Him: saddam has warned that he oqn't keep the war on the iraqi front
Me: saddam's military capabilities don't extend past the iraqi front, and if you mean terrorism, that is expected
Him: well, tell that to the future victims
Him: tell that to the cilviliand in iraq who hate their leader but will be killed by us anyway
Me: victims of terror or war outside iraq, the latter won't happen and the former is unlikely
Him: we've been bombing iraq for over a decade, didn't stop 9/11
Him: us attacking iraq won't stop terrorism
Me: we bombed iraq during desert storm, thats it
Him: and the regular bombings since then
Me: ur right, it will cause a rise in terrorism but a ddecrease in funding and technology
Me: there were no regular bombings, look it up
Him: the terrorists showed us that they don't need technology of their own to stop us
Me: any bombing was enforcing the no fly zones
Me: they do need funding
Him: you think saddam is the only one funding them?
Me: no, but if we make an example of him, it will deter others in the region
Him: one of they sources of income for the bin laden family is their investments in u.s. defense contractors
Me: as if the message was not strong enough before
Me: show me that link Jon
Me: i'm sure it is VERY indirect
Him: Carlyle
Him: (Link:
http://www.bushwatch.net/bushmillions.html)
http://www.bushwatch.net/bushmillions.html
Me: my main question for the anti war ppl is what is the alternative
Me: ?\
Him: i'm not saying that nothing should be done about saddam
Me: *sniff* sniff, i smell bias
Him: it is well known that both the bush and bin laden families have heavy investements in the carlyle group
Him: as pointed out to bush by the saudis
Him: the more weapons we make, the richer the bin ladens get
Me: ok, so by common investment he gets money, his assets are frozen, THEY CAN'T INVEST
Me: and are an anti bush web site and saudi arabia unbiased sources, no
Him: bush said that any organization that aids terrorists would have their asstes frozen right? you think he froze his own assests too?
Him: as you may recall, the saudis are on bush's "side"
Me: no
Me: they are pro islamic 100%, the US link is a business deal
Me: and of course he would not freeze his own assets because his assets are not the same as bin laden's
Him: well, the u.s. propaaganda machine says that the saudis are on our side, and they are helping in the war on tewrrorism
Me: but they aren't, they want us to continue to buy oil from OPEC while they gove money to suicide bombers and fund al qaeda
Me: i believe the saudis give a home to the al jazeera tv network
Him: well, they may not "really" be on our side, but the u.s. keeps telling itself that they are
Me: and as long as we use their airbases to bomb iraq, they have no credibility
Him: so countries that help us in the war on iraq aren't on our side?
Me: thats a generalization
Me: and that is a logic trap
Me: "not gonna"
Him: ok, so the saudis help us in the war, they fight terrorism (or so say the u.s. commercials), and the royal family is very close with the bush family, and they're not on our side?
Me: obviously they fund terror, and any relation is business, so yes we fund terror, but the funding will be less when iraq is freed and we can focus on other sources of funding
Me: we cannot do everything at once, thats ludicrous
Him: yes, i'm not debating about whether something needs to be done about iraq
Him: but is war the only way
Him: why don't we give the weapon inspectors the time they need to search, instead of us giving them unrealistic deadlines
Me: apparently, the inspections carried on for 10 YEARS did not solve the problem, and we have tried assassination
Me: the inspectors had 10 years, if thats not enough time he hid those weapons damn well
Me: we can't just wait for them to strike israel, or US soil
Him: as far as i know, the u.s. hasn't been able to convince very many countries of the case for war
Him: just becuae nothing was found in 10 years doesn't mean that they're well hidden, it might mean they don't exist at all
Me: france - 7 billion oil prospecting, germany, same or more, russia traffics weapons and so sdoes china, need i say more?
Him: do we want to set a precendent of the u.s. attakcing any country whom we don't find weapons in cause they "might just be well hidden?"
Me: no, because that s not the only evidence we have, we know they had them and weren't destroyed
Him: you duid hear recently of the case where they discovered that the supporting documents for Niger weapons trade to ira were forged right?
Me: also, sattelite and U2 surveillance shows strong evidence
Him: then why doesn't anyone believ us?
Me: they don't want to believe us because of their money
Me: but we have the balls to spend our money that we don't really have to remove the threat and a tyrannical gov't
Him: what about the known threat in n. korea? they definately have wmds. we know that. but we focus on iraq. n. korea is a definate immedaute threat
Him: if they think that they're next, what will stop them from attacking us?
Me: ok, lets fight both, i'm down with getting drafted, you?
Me: thats what i'm talking about, engage two different enemies with WMDs at the same time
Him: the world doesn't need anymore american cowboys
Him: but we know n. korea has them for sure
Him: iraq is a maybe in the future kind of deal
Me: or pussies
Me: iraq also is in a region that is most sensitive
Him: if you think that not willing to take another human being's life is "pussy" then i'm sorry for you
Me: not willing to do anything is being a coward, ur saying let "them" inspect the weapons, i'll just kick back and watch
Him: would you be willing to go inspect?
Me: and taking the life of a human being trying to kill you is different than just willingly killing someone
Me: i would inspect
Him: so why isn;'t there presssure on saddam for an "army" of inspectors to come in?
Me: with inspectors?, because war is the solution to the failure of inspections
Him: right now, iraq is not trying to kills us. and in relative time frames, i think n. korea will probably try to kill us first
Me: an army of inspectors, hmm, sounds like counselors in another war
Him: so if a small number of inspectors can't do it, send in tons of soldiers right?
Him: obviously a few soldiers wouldn't be able to take on iraq, but we expect a small number of inspectors to?
Me: that is the solution brought forth by people we elected to know a hell of a lot more than we do, so that we can affect how they run the country while being able to continue with our lives and be prosperous
Me: the inspectors don't take on iraq, they look around
Him: but the point being if iraq is hiding weapons, then some actual people are hiding them. so why don't we send in smarter inspectors, and more of them?
Him: a few of soldiers can't take on iraq's soldiers, just like a few inspectors can't take on their "hiders""
Me: because that has already happened, and an extraneous number of inspectors would look like aggression
Me: hiders, lol
Him: not as agressive as soldiers though
Him: the inspector's goal isn't to kill
Him: sorry, method
Me: the UN said continue inspections, not continue inspections with great vigor
Him: well, then why didn't bush try to make a case for more vigorous inspections?
Him: why did he jump to war?
Me: you obviously aren't aware of the rules of engagement in iraq
Him: they've had the war planned since last august
Me: because it is the most obvious effective answer
Him: it's the quickest, easiest answer
Him: and yes, it may be effective
Me: and was part of 1441, 678, 687
Him: but do the benefits outweigh the costs/
Him: bush told his key officials on 9/12 to prepare with a war on iraq
Me: 2002
Him: they estimated feb 2003 as the earliest to get the troops ready to go
Him: no, 2001
Me: well, they've known for that long what needed to happen
Him: no, they were waiting for an excuse to go to war with iraq
Me: or gathering evidence, either way
Him: the point is that bush gave up on diplomacy before it even really started
Him: his plan has always been war
Me: because he knew saddam would not give
Him: so why the attempt at diplomacy? just to make even more demands on iraq that he knew wouldn't happen to make iraq look worse?
EDIT: Tat is whay you don't talk politics with a friend, especially when you know he was conservative less that 8 months ago and has changed due to an environment of fierce liberals that are unbending in their issues.
