You mean this paragraph?
[quote] If the US goes to war against the clear resolve of the rest of the world, it will mean the end of Bush's career (and a possible impeachment), the end of Powell's, Blair's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's careers, a significant increase in terrorism, further devastation of the US and world economies, many, many deaths of Americans in terrorist attacks on US and foreign soil, a strengthening of North Korea's argument for nuclear development, ejection of the US from Afghanistan leaving that country to revert to a system of oppressive governance and/or anarchic civil war, perhaps even a nuclear or biological attack against Israel and a precedent for raising Israel's genocide of Palestinians to an entirely new level. <hr></blockquote>
In summary, he says we should not go to war because:
1. It will be the end of Bush's career...possible impeachement.
---What? The end to Bush's career will only happen if the economy is still bad in 2004. Impeachement? Not quite. He has a clear cut congressional resolution on his side. It authorizes the President to use all means at his disposal, including military force to deal with Iraq....as he deems necessary.
2. It might end Blair's career, but not the others. The whole reason the most recent vote was delayed was to help Mr. Blair.
3. Terrorism increase.
---There is no evidence that this is true. We were targeted before, and we will be targeted again. 9/11 was unprovoked. If Al-Qaeda is willing to murder without provocation anyway, attacking Iraq will not change anything.
4. "Further devastation to US and world economy".
---First, we are in the middle of a global economic slowdown, this much is true. But the US economy is still growing by about 2% per year. That's not great, but it isn't "devastated" as you say. Second, there is no evidence you are correct. I for one believe a quick and successful war will help the economy tremendously. There is one hell of a lot of cash in money market funds and savings out there right now that is begging to be invested in the markets. The price of oil will drop...it has already started as a matter of fact. War jitters will disappear and the natural business cycle will take over. Mark my words.
5. "a strengthening of North Korea's argument for nuclear development"
---WHAT? Why? That doesn't even make sense. It is not connected to the Iraq situation.
6. "ejection of the US from Afghanistan leaving that country to revert to a system of oppressive governance and/or anarchic civil war,"
---HUH? Who is going to eject us? Are you even aware of how much that country has changed in the last year? there is no basis for that statement whatsoever.
7. "perhaps even a nuclear or biological attack against Israel"
---A possibility. But whose fault will that be? And, I assume you mean that Iraq in particular will be the aggressor? Oh wait, I thought Saddam didn't have any of those WMD, because inspections are "working"? Does he have them or not? Will he use them or not? Are you actually saying that if he uses his illegal weapons then WE will be responsible for it? Ok...I see....no, wait. I thought he wasn;t really a threat? It seems you are arguing to just let him be. After all, that way he won't be a threat. Please. HE IS A THREAT, he will CONTINUE to be a threat unless stopped.
8. "...a precedent for raising Israel's genocide of Palestinians to an entirely new level".
---Wow. Talk about showing your true colors. Now, I am not the biggest Sharon supporter, but Israel is surrounded by people that literally want to push it into the sea. They have people walking into shopping malls, bus stops and open markets that blow themselves up in the name of Allah. These attacks come from within their sovereign territory. They do not target civilians. Yes, civilians die. But "genocide"??. The group trying to practice genocide is the PLO and company. They just don't have enough resources to do it. While I am no fan of the "in again, out again" military policy they have developed under Sharon, they are not comitting genocide.
In summary, his statments are wholly unsupportable. There will be nothing unilateral about this. I challenge even ONE person here to show me how we will be acting unilaterally. We will have the support of quite few nations. That means it is not unilateral. Go look up the definition.
To save time, assume I know everything.
To save time, assume I know everything.