Dear Condi:
Oct. 4th, 2004 06:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiYou said:
My short reply: No, dear, of course you don't.
My longer reply: No, dear, clearly you don't understand the concept of "legitimate reasons", but here's a little crash course in legitimate reasons for invading another country and destroying its infrastructure:
Legitimate reason: A country is gathering a certain type of rod that can only be used in the nuclear weapon creation process.
Not a legitimate reason: A country is gathering a certain type of rod that would have to be sliced down in size by a third, then de-anodized, before said rods could be used in the nuclear weapon creation process, and you are aware thatstaff for your own government intelligence agencies are having a dispute about the actual nature of those rods, but you don't bother to actually know the nature of the dispute.
Legitimate reason: A country has attacked you.
Not a legitimate reason: A country that is entirely or at least significantly unconnected to the country that attacked you is sort of just sitting there.
Legitimate reason: A country's leader has assasinated someone in the top 2 of the current line of succession, or made an actual attempt thereon.
Not a legitimate reason: A country's leader has planned an assasination attempt against your dad, a former head of state. (Note: this may be a reason to Not Discourage assasination of said leader, but not a reason to actually bomb the civillians, or even the army).
Legitimate reason:They have oil. You want it.
I know there are others, but I need to go make dinner.
No love,
Heidi
PS - Hey, flist - feel free to come up with some more legitimate and illegitimate reasons
I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of 'global test' that you ought to be able to pass to support preemption, and I don't understand what that means... I don't understand 'proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons'...
My short reply: No, dear, of course you don't.
My longer reply: No, dear, clearly you don't understand the concept of "legitimate reasons", but here's a little crash course in legitimate reasons for invading another country and destroying its infrastructure:
Legitimate reason: A country is gathering a certain type of rod that can only be used in the nuclear weapon creation process.
Not a legitimate reason: A country is gathering a certain type of rod that would have to be sliced down in size by a third, then de-anodized, before said rods could be used in the nuclear weapon creation process, and you are aware thatstaff for your own government intelligence agencies are having a dispute about the actual nature of those rods, but you don't bother to actually know the nature of the dispute.
Legitimate reason: A country has attacked you.
Not a legitimate reason: A country that is entirely or at least significantly unconnected to the country that attacked you is sort of just sitting there.
Legitimate reason: A country's leader has assasinated someone in the top 2 of the current line of succession, or made an actual attempt thereon.
Not a legitimate reason: A country's leader has planned an assasination attempt against your dad, a former head of state. (Note: this may be a reason to Not Discourage assasination of said leader, but not a reason to actually bomb the civillians, or even the army).
Legitimate reason:
I know there are others, but I need to go make dinner.
No love,
Heidi
PS - Hey, flist - feel free to come up with some more legitimate and illegitimate reasons
