Subject:
|
My over-simplification of the anti-war movement
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:54:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
202 times
|
| |
|
|
I don’t have the chance to respond with the same level of frequency here on
OTD as many of the regulars, so this may sound like a hit and run, as I will
voice my opinion and probably not respond to rebuttals in a timely fashion.
I, however, desired to lay out my position in as simple a way as possible.
First off, I dislike the name “Iraqi Freedom” because I believe it gives the
wrong impression of the reason for this war. This war was started not simply
because there was an oppressed nation. Were we to take the role of world
liberator, we would never stop fighting, a good portion of the continent of
Africa could use liberation.
In very simplified terms, after we were attacked on 9-11, the United States
declared war on terrorism, wherever it exists. This started in Afghanistan
where the Taliban was aiding and abetting top terrorist Osama Bin Laden. We
did that and successfully drove the vicious Taliban from power, and made a
fugitive of Bin Laden. I, like most people, would love to have Bin Laden in
custody, and that may yet happen, but his ability to carry out evil over the
globe has all but neutralized.
Terrorism, however, does not end with Al-Qaida, or the Taliban, we had to
look at all sources of danger to the United States and her citizens. Saddam
Hussein has been a threat to our safety since the 1991 Desert Storm war. He
never fully complied with the cease fire he signed at the conclusion of that
war, and he regularly makes payments to the family of Palestinian suicide
bombers. There is also evidence that several top Al-Qaida operatives put
previous differences aside and found safe harbor in northern Iraq. Perhaps
the “enemies of my enemies” philosophy prevails here. Finally, do not forget
that Hussein tried to assassinate President George H. W. Bush.
Bottom line here is that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair believe
that Hussein poses a clear and present danger to the safety of our nations
and our citizens. Simply waiting for another attack on this nation from an
Iraqi supported terrorist would be suicide. At this point the only reasons I
have seen to disagree with military actions are as follows.
1. You are a pacifist who disagrees with military action for any reason,
even the defense of your country.
2. You believe that Bush, Blair, and their respective administrations are
disingenuous with their analysis that Iraq and her deadly weapons pose a
threat to our respective nations.
If you fall into category 1, then I will always disagree with the belief
that evil men, and yes Saddam falls into that category, cannot be trusted to
forgo their aggressive tendencies simply by imposing political pressure, or
economic sanctions. However, if you find yourself in camp 2, you have to ask
yourself could 45 nations with leaders of varying ideologies join the
conspiracy? Or perhaps you believe that the “strong arm” tactics of the
United States and Great Britain have put undo pressure on these nations.
True other nations oppose us, most notably France, who really hasn’t agreed
with us on much since 1945. Or maybe you believe that you have more reliable
intelligence that these administrations.
Wherever you find yourself, I welcome opposing voices disagreeing with my
categorization of the opposition.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
18 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
