Carp of the Day

home | archives
"Indeed, the rage of theorists to make constitutions a vehicle for the conveyance of their own crude, and visionary aphorisms of government, requires to be guarded against with the most unceasing vigilance."
     -- Joseph Story
     Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States
     Book III, § 1857.

Thursday, June 05, 2003

Brad Wardell gives a demonstration why one should not attempt to bind up war within the rules and procedures applicable to a state of civilization. Try this, Brad:

  1. For point #1, substitute the following terms:
    • "scientists" ==> "the Wardell children"
    • "UN inspectors" ==> "Child Protective Services"
    • "Iraq" ==> "the Wardell home"
    • "have WMD" ==> "abuse his children"
  2. For point #2:
    • "Saddam" ==> "Brad"
    • "UN inspectors" ==> "the police"
    • "the agreement ... first gulf war" ==> "his prior conviction"
    • "WMD" ==> "meth lab"
  3. For point #3:
    • "Surveillance flights" ==> "Daily urine drops"
    • "UN inspectors" ==> "the police"
    • "fly the U2s" ==> "collect samples"
    • "had no WMD" ==> "wasn't mainlining heroin"
  4. For point #4:
    • "Taking pot-shots ... no-fly zone" ==> "Sassing the government"
    • "WMD destruction" (huh?) ==> "schismatic tendencies"
    • "sanctions would be lifted" ==> "he could live in peace"
    • "attacking US/British planes" ==> "posting anti-government screeds on his blog"
Four variations on "only the guilty would resist": Do they still look persuasive?

The vindication of a casus belli lies in winning the war, and in nothing else. The correct answer to the "missing WMD" mantra -- assuming, arguendo, that the ones chanting it even deserve an answer -- is, "Hey, we went to war, and we won. Get over it."

-- posted by Clayton 6/05/2003 05:11:00 PM

Comments: 0

Post a Comment

<< Home




For the more forensically inclined