Japan and Kuwait.
Of course now, with constant media attention and imbedded reporters the
public is getting a first hand look at what goes on in war. Because we are
trying to be kindler and gentler we are not doing what it take to pacify
these people.
We didn't do it in Vietnam either.
The army has to worry about the stomach of the people back home when
thinking about how to plan a war. If we treated Iraq the same way we treated
Germany after WWII, I imagine there would be much fewer attacks and other
things happening in that country.
Our actions worked in the past, because the people in charge were able to do
what needed to be done without Gallup, CNN, ABC and everybody else taking a
poll on the subject. They could make a choice on how to win the fight.
In today's environment, everything is televised, people can see what war
really is, and when you see what your child, husband, wife or friend may
have to go through, you begin to forget about the goal and more about the
individual. You worry about their death, and think that because you know
them, it is more important that they live, regardless of what happens in 10
years in the country, and what they may do.
In war, civilians die, soldiers die, and bad stuff happens; but because
5,000 people may die because they were in the wrong place, or because we
made a mistake doesn't change the fact that something still ought to be
done.
I'm sure thousands of civilians were killed by allied bombing in WWII, that
doesn't change the fact that something had to be done.
How else could you bring about change in Iraq? Do you feel there could have
been any other way to remove Saddam Hussein and bring about a democratic
government in Iraq without a war?
_____
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 2:04 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: 9/11 Commission to Cheney - You're still wrong.
I don't think you're evil. I just think we differ philisophically on
how to achieve peace. If you look at the track record of our
involvement in the political situations of foreign nations, it's not
all that great. We've overthrown many repressive governments only to
have others spring up in their place.
As someone brought up in the American culture who does appreciate what
I have, I want to think that our vision of liberty and freedom is a
good one and I do wish for the people who, by our standards, are
oppressed to be able to enjoy the same freedoms. But when our actions
and the results of our actions result in the deaths of those we are
trying to save and historically create less peace and freedom, I have
to wonder if our methods are sound.
I fear that even our "liberating" the people won't achieve that
because liberation is a state of mind that is translated to action and
they have to choose that for themselves. Perhaps they
will actually take this opportunity to do that. I honestly hope they do.
But I think the liberation argument is another red-herring just like
WMD was. I think the real reason we are there is, as a Secretary of
State once described our entire foreign policy, as a struggle to
secure foreign resources by peacful means if possible but by force if
necessary. If we were to spend all the money spent on the war in Iraq
and develop renewable energy sources, do you honestly think we would
be as concerned about the state of things in the Middle East? If we
were really concerned with liberating people, there are plenty of
other oppressive nations out there which we conveniently ignore or
even support.
-Kevin
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
