|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Hola (Reply to this comment)
by Tigerlily137
Very interesting. So what do you think now, 7 years later?
|
Sep 08 '10
10:48 pm PDT
|
|
Re: As a conservative democrat (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
Although I (mildly) agree with the war (I think they should have waited about another month, or until it became clear to everyone in the world except Blix that the UN Inspectors were being lead on a wild goose chase -- while the tame geese were being hidden elsewhere -- but I digress.
The American Revolution was the first time democracy came out of a revolution, but very nearly the last. Israel (although that was a war, rather than a revolution), and India (a military coup overturned a dictator and reinstalled the parliamentary government) come to mind, but there are few other examples.
|
Apr 28 '03
5:21 am PDT
|
|
As a conservative democrat (Reply to this comment)
by jalamala
I certainly hope you are right. Even if we are
proliferating democracy around the world, that is not all bad. In fact, freedom is better than having military dictatorships everywhere. I needed your reassurance that this Iraqi was is(hopefully 'was') right. Ironically, since the American Revolution, free governments have been started by military take-overs. Thanks for your viewpoint.
|
Apr 27 '03
4:09 am PDT
|
|
yup (Reply to this comment)
by garym
Hey Rich,
The review was outstanding and the comments by both you and Aaron were enlightening.
You put out an argument that I definitely agree with. I feel that 9-11 speaks volumes to the reality of imminent danger. Saddam and al-queda link is know a given. WMDs will be discovered in due time. Hell, just this week 21 MIGS were discovered in the desert camouflaged or buried. MIGS for Christ´s sake! Is it a surprise that to anyone that locating much smaller and less obvious items may take awhile.
Today, Cuba brags because the UN didn´t condemn the prison sentences given to the dissidents. Why¿
Because political games overrule human rights in that over-rated assembly. Screw the poor bastards. The US wants condemnation, therefore we´re against it because we don´t like what the US did in Iraq.
It is just that kind of crap that Saddam took advantage of for 12 years.
Aaron, I may be wrong, but my understanding is that North Korea has the ability to send a missile to Japan. I don´t think they have the ability yet to reach Hawaii, much less LA.
Anyway, kudos for an outstanding review.
Gary
|
Apr 18 '03
10:29 pm PDT
|
|
For what it's worth... (Reply to this comment)
by themoviechick
If you haven't already seen this, you might want to take a look at it. I found it enlightening.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
|
Apr 05 '03
1:19 pm PST
|
|
Thanks for a well written piece. (Reply to this comment)
by popsrocks
I do agree with the great majority of your statements and rebuttals.
Thank you for standing tall even when out of uniform.
Phil
|
Mar 25 '03
6:15 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Difficult Issues (Reply to this comment)
by chaospump
Rich,
I appreciate the response.
My first concern is for American soldiers. I was one, my brother is one, an officer in the Pentagon. The front line, as far as I'm concerned. My next concern is for the British soldiers serving with them, and the Iraqui civilians.
My deepest concern is for the future; what will America be? What price will we pay for security? Have you read the leaked draft proposal of the Patriot II, or Domestic Security Enhancement Act? Check out voxpoptart's review:
http://www.epinions.com/content_3164643460
And what of the world we will continue to live in and with? How will this action, and other actions motivated by the same way of thinking affect the stability and security of the world at large?
I agree that there is a time for war, although I don't believe that this was it.
I see that you did go through a process to discard the alternate motives. Some of it I agree with, but some is pretty sketchy. The notion that we might cut a quiet deal with Saddam after the events of the past 12 years struck me as a real stretch.
It did remind me of good reasons to be concerned about the long term effects of the choices we make about foreign policy. Especially those decisions that look so appealing in the short term. We made Saddam, and the Shah, and Marcos, and how many more?
I think this quick and easy fix, this "splendid little war," will also bear a bitter harvest.
But propping up evil autocrats aside, when did America become the country that launches a war, and invasion because we suspect that there's some chance that at some time, quite possibly this country might do something to hurt us, and well, because we're just fed up with their leader's damned stalling?
A preemptive strike is justified when, and I keep using this word, there is an imminent threat. That's the America I thought I remembered.
We might have pulled some dirty tricks, but since we stole the country from the people that were living here, we have never been a full-scale military aggressor without some clear and obvious provocation, or a least some specific pretext.
That's changed now, and I'm not at all comfortable with that.
-Aaron
|
Mar 21 '03
12:44 am PST
|
|
Re: Difficult Issues (Reply to this comment)
by rich2003dm
Aaron,
Here goes. Please forgive the length, but it’s impossible to respond briefly. The entire issue is so complex and there are so many facets to it that a one or two sentence response would be inadequate.
In my essay, I stated:
“Or is it really about oil and greed? Or revenge for the attempted assassination of George Bush, Sr.? Or the son attempting to finish what the father started? Is this administration interested in empire building and forcing our will upon the world? Or are our current leaders simply evil war-mongers who need to satisfy an obscene blood lust?”
You responded:
“Many people are skeptical about the real causes and motives here. You lump all their arguments together. Then you say, ‘upon inspection they have little real merit.’ But you have not shown us this inspection process. You merely dismiss them out of hand.
I'd argue that to propose that oil and greed do not play any role in these events reveals a selective naïveté on your part.”
Let me address these issues one by one.
Oil and greed?
Much has been made of the “big oil” connection with the Bush administration, so it’s easy for anyone to assume that this entire thing is about oil and oil contracts. But if oil really is the issue, wouldn’t it be a far easier and more popular course for this administration to simply cut a quiet deal with Saddam, end the sanctions, and enlist American oil companies to assist in developing and modernizing Iraq’s oil producing facilities? At best, this is the full extent of the “oil benefit” that we will reap from this war. Why go to war, and in the process spend many billions of dollars and American lives to achieve a goal that we can get for nothing? I’m sure that Saddam would be quite amenable to such an arrangement.
Oh, and those protesting that first Persian Gulf War were quick to characterize it as a war for oil. You saw how much oil we got out of that one.
Revenge for the attempted assassination of Bush, Sr.?
No one can possibly see what is in another person’s heart, and I’m sure that, at minimum, George, Jr. has no love for Saddam Hussein, but I don’t believe that this is driving him to war. Beginning with his presidential campaign and up to his early days as president, Bush focussed primarily on his domestic agenda and Iraq and Saddam didn’t seem to appear as a significant blip on his radar screen. Definitely not a sign of a man with an obsession to get Saddam. In fact I, and many others, began to think of him as somewhat of an isolationist. But 9/11 changed things. It forced this administration to focus on the external threats that face this country.
The son attempting to finish what the father started?
This assumes that the father did not accomplish his goal, and there is something for the son to finish to make up for the father’s deficiencies. On the contrary, George Bush, Sr. did achieve his goal. Conveniently forgotten in this whole debate is the fact that the mandate that George Bush, Sr. received from both the United Nations and our own Congress was limited to the expulsion of the Iraqi military from Kuwait. And getting that limited mandate, especially from a reluctant Congress, was a difficult enough feat at the time.
Empire building and forcing our will upon the world?
To consider this administration’s actions to date, in Afghanistan and potentially Iraq, as empire building is a bit of a stretch at this point. I don’t think we had any great designs on Afghanistan. In fact, had the Taliban acceded to our demands to give up Al Qaeda, they’d still be running the place today. Looks like we’re trying to set up a stable democratic government there and get out as quickly as possible.
Now some folks can and will make the argument that we are setting up “puppet” regimes. These are the same folks who would call any country that agrees with United States policy a “puppet” (Great Britain, for example). The administration has stated numerous times that we will attempt to set up a stable democratic government in Iraq. I tend to believe it. I believe it will be done under the auspices of the United Nations. And I feel confident that they wouldn’t bend over backwards to set up an American “puppet” regime for us.
Are we intent on forcing our will upon the world?
Again, I don’t believe we are. But I do believe that this administration is intent on protecting this nation’s interests regardless of world opinion. And right now, our nation is concerned with its safety and security, and rightfully so. We have been chosen as the primary target for global terrorism.
I guess many people interpret our acting unilaterally in our own interests as “forcing our will upon the world.”
With age comes a certain degree of pragmatism. I don’t believe in fairy tales anymore. As much as we would like it to be, there is no wonderful, selfless united “world” acting in concert for the benefit of all mankind. What we have right now is nothing more than a collection of individual countries, each acting in its own self-interest. Sometimes those interests coincide with ours, and we become at least temporary allies. At other times, those interests diverge and we become at least temporarily estranged.
Without exception, every country in this world makes all of its decisions on the basis of what it thinks is best for itself. As current examples, France now has its military in the Ivory Coast helping to prop up that government. Did they go to the U. N. for approval? Nope. Just sent their soldiers over there, and to hell with what the world thinks. Russia does what it wants to do in Chechnya and asks no one’s permission. And Germany occasionally overruns Europe. The list goes on and on.
Every day, countries sign treaties, refuse to sign treaties, and abrogate existing treaties based solely on their evolving self-interest.
They do not pander to the desires of the “world,” and they do not consciously put themselves at a disadvantage-economically or militarily. There is no reason why this country should do otherwise or be held to a higher standard.
“…are our current leaders simply evil war-mongers who need to satisfy an obscene blood lust?”
I’ve heard this many times from different sources. If you subscribe to this theory (and I’m sure that you really don’t since you have thus far shown yourself to be a sensible and reasonable man), there is nothing I can say that will change your opinion. If you at least agree to the unlikelihood of this “evil cabal” theory, if not its absurdity, I’ll just move on.
I stated:
“These arguments are often put forward by those opposing any military action against Iraq, but, upon inspection, they have little real merit. They are the pat responses of those who are blinded by their own political biases, and those who reject war as a viable option regardless of the severity of any current threat or the likelihood of any dire future consequences. The mean-spirited sniping and irrational rantings of the politically biased and the “peace at any price” groups do a grave disservice to us all in that, in the process of demonizing the loyal political opposition, they tend to trivialize and obscure real issues and, at times, give succor to real demons.”
And you replied:
“Then you go on to add insult by declaring them the ‘pat responses’ of those who are ‘blinded.’"
Now that your (undisclosed) inspection of these claims has revealed them to be false, you move right on to declaring anybody who disagrees with you ‘mean-spirited’ and ‘irrational,’ and hinting darkly that they may be giving ‘succour’ (a highly loaded word) to the enemy.”
Please bear with me on this one, Aaron. I know what I want to say, but I fear that I don’t have the skill with words to express it properly.
This entire paragraph, which is in retrospect inartfully crafted, was not aimed at any individual who, upon careful consideration of the facts and issues, arrived at a different conclusion than I did. Lord knows, my own trip down that path had me veering back and forth…war…no war…war.
Instead, it was directed at two distinct groups.
First, there has been a disturbing trend in American politics that has worsened over the past two or three decades. That trend is the demonization of the opposition and the knee-jerk rejection and criticism of any and all of the policies and programs put forth by the opposition for the sole purpose of gaining political points. Negative spin…on everything. Anything to discredit the opposition. It is a tactic employed by both parties, Democrat and Republican, and it hinders serious debate because it obscures the real issues. The party ultra-loyalists (and there are many on both sides) who spout these “pat” responses and those unthinking party-liners who mechanically adopt them as truth without serious inspection are in this first group. Most Americans are, unfortunately, politically lazy in that they blindly and unthinkingly accept whatever spin their own party puts on any event.
The second group that this paragraph was directed to is the “peace at any price” group. These well-meaning but somewhat naïve folks believe that no matter what the threat, if we close our eyes, keep very quiet, and do nothing, the threat will go away. War, even in self-defense, is always out of the question. These were the same folks who felt it was wrong to aggressively pursue Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11. They grasp at any scenario that supports their position. To them, all is fair to avoid war up to and including characterizing our current administration as blood-thirsty and comparing George Bush to Hitler and Caligula.
Forgive my not making this clearer in my essay.
“The mean-spirited sniping and irrational rantings of the politically biased and the “peace at any price” groups do a grave disservice to us all in that, in the process of demonizing the loyal political opposition, they tend to trivialize and obscure real issues and, at times, give succor to real demons.”
Please re-read this sentence. It does not place all who dissent in the same basket, but focuses on the above, very limited examples.
And my comment about giving “succor to real demons.” I stand by it.
Freedom of dissent and the freedom to protest against what we feel are wrong-headed policies and decisions of our government are cornerstones of our democracy. I am, without reservation, supportive of these rights. In fact, the protests were helpful to me in coming to my own decision, since they presented, in very dramatic form, many issues worthy of serious consideration.
Protest is good, but even good protest can and sometimes does, unintentionally, give succor to the enemy.
I’m sure that Saddam Hussein used news footage of the anti-war protests to show his own people that even Americans were against the war. And I’m sure that the news footage was carefully edited to show the most vehemently anti-Bush signs and banners…those comparing Bush and other administration figures to Hitler and calling Bush the greatest threat to world peace and security. Succor to the enemy? Yes. Intentional or treasonous? No.
Then there is the other kind of protest that definitely crosses the line and gives outright aid and comfort to the enemy.
Those Americans who volunteered to be human shields in Iraq are directly giving aid and comfort to Saddam.
And another group that calls itself “The Military Globalization Project.” This group is planning, at the outbreak of war, to breach the security at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California where military targeting operations will be done for the Iraqi bombing campaign. They do not want to protest peacefully. They want to physically disrupt the military operations and endanger the lives of our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians. They are training under the direction of an ex-G.I. named Peter Lumsdaine and make no secret of their intentions.
Aid and comfort to the enemy? This is outright sabotage and treason.
Now for Korea.
You stated:
“You fail to mention North Korea, which severely undercuts the credibility of your (and the Administration's) stance toward Iraq. North Korea fits all of the criteria you've laid out for justification to attack Iraq, with one exception.
They already have nuclear weapons, and long range delivery systems. Krazy Kim can drop a nuke on Los Angeles today. So how is Saddam a more imminent threat?”
A lot of folks bring up North Korea as if the emergence of a second problem relieves us of the necessity of resolving the first problem. And the assumption is that both problems will necessarily call for the same solution…military action. I don’t think that’s valid.
I think Bush’s now famous “axis of evil” statement was a huge blunder. It frightened North Korea into thinking that it was next on some administration “hit list.” North Korea has been quite vocal about wanting Washington’s assurance that we will not attack it. It also wants and desperately needs a relaxation of economic sanctions and a great deal of economic assistance, especially food. Despite its saber rattling and bellicose statements, I think this crisis can be resolved through negotiation. We’ve tried negotiation for twelve years with Saddam without success.
Different problem. Different solution.
Have faith, Aaron. We’re almost at the end.
In the following, you asked why now:
“Finally, you failed utterly to answer your own question, "why now?"
The mysterious urgency of this operation is the sticking point with most of our allies, though of course France and Russia are motivated by economic concerns -- I'm trying to avoid selective naïveté myself, though we're all susceptible.
But the people of our democratic allies overwhelmingly oppose this war, as well.
Against your Clinton quote, let me present one from Madeleine Albright, from last September:
"There is a valid case for using force against Iraq, but timing matters. At a minimum, the administration still needs to develop a coalition, strengthen Iraqi opposition groups and develop a coherent blueprint for the post-Saddam era. It must also conduct diplomacy aimed at cooling tensions in the Middle East."
How much of this minimum has been accomplished?
You go on to imply that we can just topple Saddam's regime, and then gracefully extricate ourselves, and that this will reduce hatred of America in the Middle East. This notion is nothing short of absurd.
That would create an enormous power vacuum in the country and region, one that is quite likely to be filled by Islamic fundamentalism, a far worse enemy to us than Saddam Hussein, as 9/11 showed.
Hussein is monstrously evil, nobody disputes that. But he is not a religious fanatic. He enjoys his power and privilege and palaces, and has every intent of passing them on to his heirs.
If he wanted to provide biological or chemical weapons to terrorists to use against us, he could have done so already.
Since he hasn't, why should we believe that there is an imminent threat of him doing so? Isn't it far more likely that he would follow such a path only out of the desperation which might arise from our full-scale military "regime-change" operation?”
My only answer is that you either believe in the Clinton quote (“Iraq is a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals."), as this administration believes it, or you don’t. Either you see a threat , or you don’t.
If you do see a threat to the security of this country, you must deal with it now or suffer the horrible consequences. Our unwillingness to seriously address the ever-escalating terror tactics of Al Qaeda in the 1990s resulted in the catastrophe of 9/11.
Maybe Saddam Hussein never has and never will work with Al Qaeda. Perhaps they are, in fact, deadly enemies that will never reconcile. But what of the Palestinians? Only recently a HAMAS leader went on record as calling for jihad against the United States. And we know that Saddam has close ties with the Palestinians, even to the extent of compensating the families of suicide bombers.
Would Saddam be willing to secretly provide HAMAS or some other group with hatred in their hearts with chemical or biological weapons to be used against us? Should we just let the clock tick away and find out the hard way again? Or should we remove that capability? Prior to 9/11, I would probably have opted for the wait and see choice. Now, as a New Yorker and an American, I recognize a new reality.
I know that many people of our democratic allies oppose this war, especially those in Western Europe. I can understand that. They have no dog in this fight. They are not the terrorists’ current target, and they don’t want to be. They remember the scourge of terrorism that plagued Western Europe in the 1970s and 1980s when left-wing and anarchist groups like the Baader Meinhoff (Sp?) Gang and the Red Brigade wreaked random death and destruction on them. They don’t want to see those days return, and they fear that they will if their governments support this war. The possibility of inviting radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorism into their backyards frightens them. And I don’t blame them.
As far as a coalition goes, we have one. What we don’t have is universal consensus and the cooperation of some old partners. As of today, 30 countries have signed on to overtly assist us in toppling Saddam. Another 15 countries have agreed to render some form of assistance, but don’t want it made public. That’s 45 countries who are on our side. Even France (not one of the 45) has agreed to step into the fray with their military if Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons against our forces. It’s a far cry from acting unilaterally. (Although France never did say exactly whose side they’d join in on. Well, let’s just hope for the best.)
I agree that the future of a post-Saddam Iraq is uncertain and fraught with potential danger. But if we only acted when the result was certain and the desired future assured, we would never act at all.
Regards,
Rich
|
Mar 19 '03
4:59 pm PST
|
|
I don't want a war (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
I don't trust this government. Heck, I don't trust most governments. I think they exist to manipulate the will of the people, and this group is doing a commendable job with that. I cannot accept "they have evidence" in the face of so much international opposition.
If Bush could have capitalized on the climate following 9/11, he would have his coalition. Unfortunately, he is a lousy diplomat among other things. I would support what is happening if there was an international consensus. I thought the Gulf War twelve years ago was a necessary evil. I do not accept that this time around.
I would also support the war if Bush and every member of his staff and Congress sent their appropriately-aged children over to fight. It's easy to send someone else's children off to war. I believe they would think twice if it were there own. My children are not of an age where this would affect them - yet. If it turns into another Vietnam (your war from the sound of it), I'd get them out of the country before I'd tell them they had to serve.
Only time will tell. But I honestly believe that this country will be less safe following this war than more safe. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Patti
|
Mar 19 '03
2:27 pm PST
|
|
Dammit Rich! (Reply to this comment)
by Hypotenuse
You make me think too hard.
I sincerely see where you're coming from, and can even understand why you feel as you do. I just can't get past the deaths.
Yes, I know war is sometimes necessary. And I'm not going so far as to say that ALL killing is wrong. I don't think that. But what I do honestly believe is that killing innocent people is wrong.
I simply cannot justify the deaths of civilians, no matter whose civilians they are, on might or has the capability to.
I don't claim to understand the ins and outs of policy. Nor our legal system. But I do know that you cannot convict someone on the possibility that they might commit a crime. Nor even the likelihood.
And I fear that to change that policy would do more than terrorism to hurt the fabric of the US.
Lynne
|
Mar 16 '03
9:34 pm PST
|
|
War....... (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket
Rich,
I believe that this is the most well thought out and reasonable case I've seen on this issue. It's clear that you've come to your conclusions reluctantly, and although I disagree, I respect your stance on the issue. The place where I run into the most difficulty is motive. Why does GW want this? Is it for the stated reasons of imminent threat and global harm? Or is it a matter of greed and revenge and a lust for power? The political fallout from our unilateral stance is likely to be enormous, and will certainly negatively affect stability around the world. I hope, for all of us, that this can be resolved in some way that increases global stability while addressing the very real issues you raise. I know, wishing does not make it so, but I can hope.
Sue
|
Mar 16 '03
3:53 pm PST
|
|
Difficult Issues (Reply to this comment)
by chaospump
Rich, I've been waffling on this too, but lately I've come to the opposite conclusion. I think your presentation is heartfelt and eloquent, but I have some difficulty with your logic.
Many people are skeptical about the real causes and motives here. You lump all their arguments together. Then you say, "upon inspection they have little real merit." But you have not shown us this inspection process. You merely dismiss them out of hand.
Then you go on to add insult by declaring them the "pat responses" of those who are "blinded."
Now that your (undisclosed) inspection of these claims has revealed them to be false, you move right on to declaring anybody who disagrees with you "mean-spirited" and "irrational," and hinting darkly that they may be giving "succour" (a highly loaded word) to the enemy.
I'd argue that to propose that oil and greed do not play any role in these events reveals a selective naïveté on your part.
You fail to mention North Korea, which severely undercuts the credibility of your (and the Administration's) stance toward Iraq. North Korea fits all of the criteria you've laid out for justification to attack Iraq, with one exception.
They already have nuclear weapons, and long range delivery systems. Krazy Kim can drop a nuke on Los Angeles today. So how is Saddam a more imminent threat?
Finally, you failed utterly to answer your own question, "why now?"
The mysterious urgency of this operation is the sticking point with most of our allies, though of course France and Russia are motivated by economic concerns -- I'm trying to avoid selective naïveté myself, though we're all susceptible.
But the people of our democratic allies overwhelmingly oppose this war, as well.
Against your Clinton quote, let me present one from Madeleine Albright, from last September:
"There is a valid case for using force against Iraq, but timing matters. At a minimum, the administration still needs to develop a coalition, strengthen Iraqi opposition groups and develop a coherent blueprint for the post-Saddam era. It must also conduct diplomacy aimed at cooling tensions in the Middle East."
How much of this minimum has been accomplished?
You go on to imply that we can just topple Saddam's regime, and then gracefully extricate ourselves, and that this will reduce hatred of America in the Middle East. This notion is nothing short of absurd.
That would create an enormous power vacuum in the country and region, one that is quite likely to be filled by Islamic fundamentalism, a far worse enemy to us than Saddam Hussein, as 9/11 showed.
Hussein is monstrously evil, nobody disputes that. But he is not a religious fanatic. He enjoys his power and privilege and palaces, and has every intent of passing them on to his heirs.
If he wanted to provide biological or chemical weapons to terrorists to use against us, he could have done so already.
Since he hasn't, why should we believe that there is an imminent threat of him doing so? Isn't it far more likely that he would follow such a path only out of the desperation which might arise from our full-scale military "regime-change" operation?
Though you haven't done so directly, many people compare Saddam to Hitler, and those who object to the rush here to Hitler's appeasers. This does not hold water because Saddam is nothing like the threat that Hitler was, and it was only "appeasement" when people looked the other way as Hitler started "annexing" the territory of other countries. When Saddam did that, we stepped in, with the support of the world community, and stopped it. And if he tries something along those lines again, I'd support military intervention.
But I don't see a clear credible imminent threat here, and even less do I see any meaningful thought or discussion about what the actual long-term results of the action might be.
-Aaron
|
Mar 16 '03
10:13 am PST
|
|
Re: @[xxxx]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> (Reply to this comment)
by rich2003dm
"I just can't help wondering, if they really do have weapons over there, what are they waiting for? I shudder at the thought of the "next" 9/11 but at the same time, I wonder why it hasn't happened already in 18 months if it's going to at all."
Tim,
Thanks for your serious and open-minded consideration of this essay.
I believe that we have averted another 9/11 so far through our aggressive pursuit of Al Qaeda and the resulting disruption of their activities. We have created an environment that makes it more difficult, but sadly not impossible, for them to succeed.
But it's not over.
Rich
|
Mar 16 '03
8:57 am PST
|
|
Re: Sadly, I agree with every word. (Reply to this comment)
by rich2003dm
I do not want this war. I do not want our young people or their young people to be bloodied. I fear for all the innocents on both sides who will be victimized by it.
But I fear the consequences of closing our eyes and walking away even more.
War is a bitter pill to swallow. But sometimes it is the only cure.
Rich
|
Mar 16 '03
8:49 am PST
|
|
Re: hey therre... (Reply to this comment)
by rich2003dm
"It will be interesting to see if the commenters live up to your calm and deliberate statement."
Thanks for the kind words, Tom.
This is a very emotional issue for many, and I expect that some folks will show their emotions in their comments and ratings. They're welcome to vent here if they feel the urge.
I can live with bad ratings, and sticks and stones...
But I wish those same folks will at least take a moment to think about what I wrote here, and seriously consider it.
Rich
|
Mar 16 '03
8:42 am PST
|
|
@[xxxx]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> (Reply to this comment)
by flamepillar
Well, you've definitely got a convincing argument here. I don't have enough knowledge of the situation to know anything myself. Somehow I get the feeling that if we knew what "they" do ("they" being almost anyone who has the power to make the big decisions going on with all this, surely they're not gonna tell us everything; they know better) there wouldn't be as much anti-war sentiment, which is based mostly on the "there's got to be another way" attitude.
This is every bit as much a battle of "good vs. evil" as they said it was going to be back in the last half of Sept. 2001.
I just can't help wondering, if they really do have weapons over there, what are they waiting for? I shudder at the thought of the "next" 9/11 but at the same time, I wonder why it hasn't happened already in 18 months if it's going to at all.
|
Mar 16 '03
6:20 am PST
|
|
Sadly, I agree with every word. (Reply to this comment)
by theeye
I still consider myself politically liberal, but your carefully reasoned case reflects my own reluctantly reached conclusion as well.
|
Mar 15 '03
6:43 pm PST
|
|
hey therre... (Reply to this comment)
by sleeper54
.
Very nicely done, Rich.
The most eloquent, persuasive, and personal summary of this quandary
that I have seen.
It will be interesting to see if the commenters live up to your calm and
deliberate statement.
...tom...
"For a war to be just three conditions are necessary - public authority, just cause, right motive." —Ernest Hemingway
|
Mar 15 '03
3:58 pm PST
|
|
Very well thought out (Reply to this comment)
by jnbmoore
thanks for sharing
|
Mar 15 '03
1:45 pm PST
|
|
|
|
