I found a new link concerning the war our esteemed president has chosen to involve us in. What affects me the most is the cost comparisons to other ways the money could have been used... at this writing, almost twenty million children educated for a year, over ninety million children insured for a year, and over seven million college scholarships. I guess health and intelligence are not valued in a society where cannon fodder is needed.
Don't get me wrong... there was a great evil in Iraq and no one was willing to address it in any meaningful way. But how is it possible to justify over a thousand of our young soldiers deaths, over 100,000 civilian deaths, including children? Aggression is not the answer... it is the problem.
Ultimately, the lies put forth by this administration have destroyed our standing in the world, and, even though I find far too many countries just as culpable in this matter, I also feel the only way for a powerful nation such as ours to make any kind of difference is to be respected, not feared. Any thoughts?
Gitmo
15 years ago
Posts
15 comments:
I've been posting from the outset of my blog that the Return on Investment (ROI) is simply not worth it. If the Iraq conflict were traded on the NYNEX or NASDAQ, no doubt, shares would be substantially underwater and people would be dumping them at a blood sucking loss.
I've been blogging since the outset of mine that the Return on Investment is not worth it (ROI). If the Iraq war was traded on the stock market, it would be sold for a blood sucking loss.
And the horror of it all is, we haven't even spoken of the thousand plus American lives lost, the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost, and the impact of what each one of those lives could have had if they had lived.
When defending the actions taken in Iraq, supporters of the president talk of the extremist factions killing their own people. They do not mention that the extremist factions are killing their own people BECAUSE we are in Iraq. They do not mention the extremist views held by our "allies", the Saudis (http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources/19SAUD.html), the children in slavery in the United Arab Emerites (http://www.camelraces.com/), kidnapped from their families, then forced to ride camels in races, and once attaining the ripe old age of eight, killed or just dumped as so much trash. That would weaken any arguements they have.
It has always been a blame game, a "tit for tat", a defense of actions AFTER the attrocities have already been committed. Has anyone asked why we went to Iraq in the first place? Was it because they were involved in the 9/11 attacks? Were the terrorists from Iraq? Guess what... NONE of them were! One was from Egypt, one from Lebanon, two from the UAE, and FIFTEEN from Saudi Arabia... you know... our SUPPOSED ALLIES! Did we ever involve ourselves in THEIR dictatorships, in their attrocities? NO! We go and attack IRAQ!
Go figure...
It's very easy to critisize the war after things have not gone as expected. The reality is that the idea of striking Iraq and overthrowing Saddam passed through Congress with much less problem than people want to remember. Sometimes a pre-emptive strike is necessary to preserve your values and peace. In this world of ours, force, power and military might are facts of life that will (and must) be used to preserve our standards of existance. In a perfect world, maybe we could all "play nice" and have no such thing as violence, war or death. Unfortunately, most of us are more realistic than that. You might want to ask the victims of 911.
Rosie
Rosie... although I understand exactly where you are coming from, I feel you missed my point entirely. When you say "ask the victims of 9/11", you imply IRAQ had something to do with that... where on earth did you get that idea? NO TERRORIST WAS FROM IRAQ. That is published fact. Those terrible September events have nothing to do with the war we are in now. Whether or not Bush and his administration wish to revise history, as did those in George Orwell's "1984", the true facts are plain... Iraq's government, however evil they were, had no part in 9/11. And even though we cannot ask the victims, why not do a little research and ask their families how they feel:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040914-012242-7691r.htm
In regards to criticizing after the fact, as you imply I do, I would like to send you an e-mail I sent to many of my friends BEFORE THE WAR that outlined much of what I have started to put in this blog. Let me know if you are interested in facts.
Regarding your statement "Sometimes a pre-emptive strike is necessary to preserve your values and peace". This is a chilling statement. When is it necessary, who decides this, and what have we gained by such a strike? Hundreds of thousands dead, children, mothers, family. Death is all this does. Period. Long ago there was a leader that proposed peace through arms... "It must be thoroughly understood that the lost land will never be won back by solemn appeals to the God, nor by hopes in any League of Nations, but only by the force of arms." --Adolf Hilter.
Then you go on to say "In this world of ours, force, power and military might are facts of life that will (and must) be used to preserve our standards of existance." Really? And what standards are those that maim innocent children, kill mothers to be, destroy an entire generation of soldiers and civilians? --none that I want to preserve.
You have fallen into that most awful of traps... that of fear. You have, as Hitler once put it, made "different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category." The terrorists are not Iraqi's, Muslims, "camel jockeys", or any other epithet you or others wish to label them. They are human beings on the worst path they could have chosen, and to follow in their path with war and hate will only create more terrorists, more death, and unending suffering. You are right when you say in a perfect world "we could all play nice"... so why not try to make one instead of encouraging those things you say you fear?
I'm sorry if I offended you with my viewpoint - it appears you are putting lots of words into my mouth with your reactionary reply. When I speak of the victims of 911, I'm speaking about threats to our nation. You are incredibly naive if you think we don't need to do anything about potential threats. If our country and its people face immenent danger, we as country need to do something about it before the actual damage occurs. Thus, the pre-emptive strike. I'm not saying Iraq was responsible for 911. I'm saying that threats exist, and in order to survive (or at least assure you are not the target of attack) you've got to do something about the threats before they come to fruition. Its pretty obvious you can't effectivly negotiate or be diplomatic with terrorists. Thus, you must eliminate them before they get a chance to eliminate you. Whether Iraq was a threat is another debate to which I can certainly see both sides, and I think reasonable minds could differ on that subject. However, your position that we sit idly by and do nothing about terrorism is a dangerous and ill conceived one.
I am not necessarily a war monger and I too have problems with whats going on in Iraq and the justification behind the war. You liken me to Hitler on several occasions simply because I believe we need to protect ourselves from REAL threats. Are you suggesting there are no real threats and that we should abandon the military advantage we hold over the world? That concept is as noble as it is ridiculous. You have to deal in reality, not some never-neverland Rodney King dreamworld where everyone just "gets along." It just doesn't happen that way. Unfortunately, the world can be a dangerous, violent arena. When your national security is threatened, one reasonable alternative is to pick up your guns and do something about it. To suggest otherwise ignores the harsh realities of life. Passing out smiles, cookies, flowers and pamphlets on peace just doesn't do the trick.
Rosie
I'm sorry if I offended YOU with MY viewpoint! I apologize for anything I might have said!
In NO WAY do I feel offended... on the contrary, I appreciate your views, even if I don't agree with them.
When you used 9/11 as an example, it immediately brought up many mistaken views I have heard that Iraq was behind the attack and that is why we were there. I have tried to show numerous examples of why this is just not so. I assumed (wrongly I now see) that you felt the same. On the other hand, I don't think it would be irresponsible to say that 9/11 is being used as one of the major excuses for the war. I would be interested in your views on this, good or bad.
When you say we need to do something about potential threats, I agree. My view is that going to war is far beyond anything we need to do. Can you truly say killing over 100,000 innocent civilians will somehow make us SAFER? All this will do is increase the potential threats, not decrease them.
And when you say immenent danger, what is that? Do you have some kind of information the rest of us don't? And what exactly do we do about it? Go to war? There is danger in everything we do, from crossing a street to dealing with terrorists. Are you implying that we destroy all cars so streets are safer? Going to war with a COUNTRY seems to be the same thing. What of the Saudi's and Egyptians? They are both dictatorships. Why did we not attack them first? The terrorists were mostly Saudi's after all. It seems similar to trying to kill a fly in your home with a sledgehammer... all you do is destroy your own house. Couldn't we find other ways to fight terrorism? How about funding schools in developing nations, nations that seem to breed terrorists? How about finding out WHY small children grow up to become terrorists? Just a thought...
Ultimately my problem with this war were the excuses from our government from its inception. A strike on Iraq is not a pre-emptive strike on terrorism. Neither Al-Quaida nor weapons of mass destruction were there. So why attack? Those responsible for 9/11 died in the attack. Those that are accused of helping to plan it are in custody. Others that have some kind of connection with the attack are not in Iraq. So again, WHY IRAQ? That is the issue. That is the lie held by our government.
Killing innocents will only increase the number of terrorists. Just look at Israel and all of the years of death and destruction there. There are no limits to terrorists there, and more are created every day. Blindly killing everyone and everything in your path will not stop terrorist attacks. It will only increase their numbers. Both Israel/the Palestinians and Britain /Northern Ireland are prime examples.
Instead of jumping to war, why not try to find out why the terrorists have become terrorists, and fight that instead? Or is that just too difficult to do? It would seem far more reasonable to at least try that first.
Regarding the Hitler quotes, I did not intend to liken YOU to Hitler at all, and I apologize for that. I was thinking more of a certain president and his views. But again, I need to ask, what do you mean by REAL threats? I see none from any single country or government.
The problem is not something we can easily label, like a country or a system of government. The problem is FAR FAR deeper and develops when we try to simplify the issues at hand. I find nothing whatsoever "reasonable" about picking up guns and doing something about it, as you put it. And I would suggest you are wrong when you say passing out smiles, cookies, flowers and pamphlets on peace doesn't do the trick. A very loud population did that once and ended a sorry chapter in our own history... Vietnam. You may of course disagree with that statement and say Nixon did all that, but as far as I have been able to gather, no end to the war was in sight until those smiles were passed along. Until Nixon, every president involved in that war INCREASED the military units and spending on that war, and he didn't start to decrease that until his second term. And once the war was over, none of the predictions stating that that entire side of the world would fall to communism came true. The fallacies of the "domino effect" were just as skewed as "mutually assured destruction" and the "terrorist under the table".
I hope I have smoothed out some of the bad feelings I have obviously created by some of the statements I have made here. Please keep commenting... if we and others like us stop talking we will only play right into the hands of terrorists and their skewed views of the world.
I just think at some point you have to use force if you want to be realistic about maintaining your place in the world. Maybe Iraq was not the place. America wouldn't hold the place we hold in the world without being a military might. Unfortunately, our ideals of peace, love and democracy are not shared by many of our rivals/enemies. If we put down our guns and said "can't we all just try to love one another" they'd come in here with their guns a blazin and overtake the country.
A pre-emptive strike is a judgment call that is required to be made by our nation's leaders. You may not like the leader, but no matter how much you disagree with whomever is in office, you must admit that sitting around waiting to be attacked is not always the best route to take. For example, had the government known the 911 terrorists were launching an immenent attack, would we not be justified in killing them before they killed us? What if the government had information that Mexico was about to allow terrorists to set up a WMD plant near our border. Would we be justified in using force to stop such an action? On some level, you have to be able to defend yourself, and sometimes that means striking first.
Rosie
I'm also guessing you are 100% against everything President Bush plans for the next 4 years? The problem with your kind is that there is no room for open discussion.
Rosie
I am sorry if you have felt we weren't having an open discussion... I'm not sure how much more open one can be in a blog! And I also wonder what you mean by "your kind"? That's a scary statement! Do you imply we should all be "the same kind"?
Or is it possible you are now falling into the trap of "conservative" vs. "liberal"? If you have decided to label people with such derogatory names, I feel very sorry for you. Maybe you feel there is no room for a decenting opinion? Would it surprise you to know I am a fiscal conservative, vote mostly for Republicans, and live a rather conservative homelife? Or maybe you already decided conservatives aren't allowed to disagree with a war monger?
It appears that you are the one labeling people - I never said anything about conservatives vs. liberals. By "your kind" I mean to group you with all of the other people who fail to see that there is a national security interest as stake here. Although I do not generally favor war, I understand that it is necessary in certain circumstances and I am willing to rationally evaluate when those circumstances arise. There are immeasurable costs to war, but sometimes the price must be paid - this is what I feel you are failing to realize.
Rosie
Rosie... actually, you did label... the second you wrote "The problem with your kind" and didn't explain that statement. I was asking what you meant by that statement, not labeling you.
When we use terms such as "your kind", we immediately separate "us" from "them". This always gives rise to the question... "WHO is us", and more importantly, "WHAT is them"? Invariably, the answer seems to be "us" is always in the right, "them" is the enemy and always wrong, somehow inferior, ignorant, or evil. It is that kind of attitude that causes conflict, not resolution.
When you say "there is a national security interest as stake here", what interest is that? Do you have any actual evidence that national security was at stake, coming somewhere from Iraq? Did that government attack us directly? Did it have weapons of mass destruction? Were ANY terrorists that died during 9/11 from Iraq? The answer to all of these questions is... no. There was NO attack on the US, its people, or its government led by any administration in Iraq. There were no WMD's, and NO EVIDENCE was EVER put forth showing there was. As a matter of fact, various agents have come forth stating they informed the administration of this, but their statements were ignored. Furthermore, the attack on Iraq was not planned after Bush was elected to office, but long before. As stated on an ABC news report: "Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power". The group, known as the Project for the New American Century, was formed by many who are now in power, namely Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. The group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam".
And, as I have stated in previous posts, NO TERRORIST WAS FROM IRAQ. So once again, WHY IRAQ?
Then you go on to say that you are "willing to rationally evaluate" when it is necessary to go to war. In all of your posts, you have given not one piece of factual evidence supporting the war, simply stating uninformed opinion. I have attempted to link to sites, explain situation, and support my views with FACTS. When will you do the same? I have yet to have ANYONE post actual evidence contradicting my statements. All I ever hear is "war is necessary", "the price must be paid", "national security is at risk". Give me a break! Empty rhetoric is just that... empty.
Sounds like you've got all the answers, and according to you, all the facts. Not much else I can say except that you must be right and I must be wrong. You can now officially proclaim yourself the winner of your own blog discussion because apparently there is no room for dissent. I guess I'll have to wait for the next subject you post about on the main page to see if there could POSSIBLY be a different (yet reasonable) viewpoint. How about capital punishment?
Unfortunately, I don't have the answers, and it seems you don't either. I was hoping someone would at least take the time to defend their views with SOME kind of facts, but I guess that is too much to ask of a blog.
One thing I do note, it seems too often you thought I was attacking you when I wasn't. The problem is that all of this is written out, and it can be read in many different ways. Reviewing the commentary, I noticed it was easy for me to see it in both our posts.
You speak of leaving room for dissent. What is the point of that? Dissent is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. It contains little or no value. I wish you could have given me the origins of your views, other than just opinion. If you had said leaving room for a critique, it would have been different. A serious examination and judgment of something, especially difficult situations as we have been discussing, would have allowed for an incredible dynamic, and who knows, maybe a resolution to the issue.
Maybe in future it would be nice to find room for a serious examination of points of view... or maybe I'm just asking too much of a public blog.
And how about capital punishment as a topic? An interesting thought...
Post a Comment