5 years ago
With luck, my kids will grow up with no memory of this war. I hope, hope, hope that is true. And my heart is breaking for the kids in Iraq for whom that isn't true.I pity those Iraqi children too, but I find it more heartbreaking to think of them spending the first years of their lives living under that monster Hussein's rule, and more heartbreaking yet to imagine them spending many more years -- if the anti-war/pro-saddam "peace" protestors had their way -- under his heel. And unlike my friend, I won't hide this war from my son, because I want him to learn that good people must resist evil and that resistance, not hand-wringing and spouting platitudes about "peace," is the moral course of action. I hope and pray that my children -- and Iraqi children -- won't have to fight wars of their own because good people now, led by President Bush who the "peace" protestors so revile, will eliminate the threat of outlaw states armed with WMD. But if we fail, or if this war can't be won in years, but in decades, then the next generation will have to carry on the fight and children like my son will have to learn the necessity of moral action over self-righteous preening. Besides, children aren't that fragile. In fact, it's almost unseemly the way we try to shelter them. Iraqi children have to live in a world of rape rooms and poison gas. Is it really too much to ask that our children know -- not experience, just know -- that evil men do evil deeds that threaten our way of life? My husband remembers his parents explaining the Cold War to him at age four ("The bad people have bombs and want to drop them on us, so we have to have bombs so that they won't.") and finding that explanation comforting. And why not? Parents teach their children that cars can squish them and strangers can hurt them; is it really just too traumatic to teach the little blighters the basic geopolitical facts of life? Of course, I couldn't hide this war from my son if I wanted to. What with the omnipresence of NPR in our household (we have a love-hate relationship) and his habit of coloring the pictures in the newspaper, he is quite familiar with President Bush and Saddam Hussein. In fact, just this morning he looked up from coloring President Bush green and asked me whether Saddam Hussein would ever learn to be good (he's a big believer in the basic goodness of people and possibility of redemption). So I told him the truth, that he's a wicked man who is unlikely to reform and that our country was fighting his country to take away his power. And my son said, "OK," and colored Hussein purple.
I would support the war 100% if it was backed by a UN resolution and if somebody with two brain cells to rub together were in charge.First of all, since when is the UN the final arbiter of morality? Either something is moral or it is not -- a UN sanction does not make something moral. And I always wonder if people who say this would have supported the war if we'd garnered the necessary nine votes, but had been vetoed by France. That would mean that really France would be the final arbiter of morality. Now there is a scary thought! And as for people who think a war is justified morally but oppose it because they don't like who is leading it, that is completely morally incoherent. Whether you like the President or hate him, think he's smart or dumb as a rock, should have no bearing on whether a war or any policy decision is worth making.
If a fascist is a threat, take him out. If he’s training jerks who hate us, take him out. He’s proved that he’s aggressive, his weapons too impressive, Inspection’s ineffective, take him out. If the UN can’t control him, take him out. Twelve years he’s been stalling, take him out. He not only hates the West, but kills his people as a test, Let’s protect ourselves and help them, take him out. --by Fran of Northwest Notes
Does it not occur to you that people are protesting our going to war against Iraq because the administration has done such a horrible job selling it?Though I've heard this before, it really doesn't occur to me, because the Administration hasn't done a terrible job. In fact, it's done a good enough job to persuade between 60-70% of Americans, maybe even more depending on the poll, that war against Iraq is justified. In a big, diverse democracy like ours, persuading fifty percent plus one is good enough, and President Bush, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld have done better than that. Some people will never be persuaded obviously, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the arguments aren't good ones.
War is a very drastic action, not something that should be taken lightly, nor used loosely. If I am going to support a war, I want a good reason. and I don't see it. I don't seen WMD. I don't see Iraq not cooperating with weapon's inspectors. I don't see Iraq not destroying missles that the weapons inspectors say are unacceptable.I don't pretend to have the ability to persuade you. I can't even persuade my lefty friends. If you (like my friends) see Saddam Hussein's cat-and-mouse games as compliance, and see unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats as the guarantors of our freedom and security, I don't think there's much point in arguing about it. I could go on about the government minders who sit in on interviews with scientists, the fact that Hussein secretly built the illegal missiles he's now destroying in violation of Security Council resolutions, the many things completely unaccounted for in the Iraqi's report to the UN, the intelligence Powell presented to the UN or the fact that we would never have seen any cooperation whatsoever out of Iraq without our military parked on its doorstep, but really we're just too far apart to achieve anything like a consensus. Thankfully, my side won the vote.
And if you're going to tell me next something about Sadaam being a horrible dictator, or a menace to humanity, I'll agree. But he is not alone. So do would advise Bush to start a war with every menace to humanity?Why do people think this is a strong argument? "We can't get rid of every genocidal dictator all at once, so we shouldn't ever try to get rid of any of them." If I put that into practice is my own life, I would be paralyzed. I would advise the President to do what most people do to survive: prioritize. Maybe you disagree with his priorities. Fine. But that's a different and actually debatable point, unlike the argument that we should do nothing.
Is that why you support this war? Do you, first and foremost, want to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people? If that's true, why don't you just say that? Instead of petty name calling.It is one of many reasons why I support this war, but no, my main reason for supporting war is not to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people. First and foremost, I want my government to begin eliminating state sponsors of terrorism, so that my country will be safer. I just believe that liberation for oppressed Iraqis is a nice long-term benefit, and dare to dream that with Saddam toppled Iraq might become the first Arab democracy, perhaps even bringing to the Arab world what people like you and me enjoy: freedom and security. Most people don't think it's wrong to do things for self-interested and altruistic reasons. In fact, most people figure it's even good when people do the right things for the wrong reasons, although here I think our reasons for going to war are good too. As for "petty name calling," when the pro-Saddam goons I saw in my own city and see on TV put away their "Bush is an International Terrorist," "Amerikkka," "Bush is Dumb," and "America: the Real Rogue State" posters and t-shirts, I'll be happy to respectfully disagree with them. When they will acknowledge that President Bush is acting in good faith, I'll acknowledge that they're opposing him in good faith. Until then, they have my contempt.
The Pacifist Pale Ebenezer thought it was wrong to fight, But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right. --Hilaire Belloc
Click Here to Join