Wednesday, January 28, 2004

New, easy to follow criteria for invading nations 

Dawkins writes:

Whew! So what if Bush lied about the whole thing? At least we can rest easy tonight knowing there isn’t (and was never) any sarin gas, no mustard canisters, no nuclear weapons pointed at our bedrooms.

Plus, here’s how Scott McClellan puts the newest justification we had for invading Iraq:
But he said that whatever the group's conclusions, Mr. Bush had done the correct thing in deposing Mr. Hussein because Iraq was clearly working on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"We know he had the intention, we know he had the capability," Mr. McClellan said. "And, given his history and given the events of Sept. 11, we could not afford to rely on the good intentions of Saddam Hussein."
Four requirements to have before attacking, with full justification, another country:

1. They had intention
2. They had capability
3. They have a history
4. 9/11 happened

This is a comprehensive, catch-all policy that happily can justify an attack on just about any nation.

Take Switzerland, for example.

I’m sure at some point in that nation’s history, they’ve had an intention to build a weapon. Surely, they have the capability. That country has a history (consult your local library). And 9/11 did, in fact, occur. So…

…let’s take ‘em out!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?