is the reason for opposition to this war. The whole "shock and awe"
campaign was covered in terms of pretty, videogame-like explosions,
and questions about casualties were answered in terms of the precision
of our weapons. And this was accepted until the nth time we very
precisely targeted what appeared to be totally innocent civilians.
Dana
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:40:35 -0600, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not sure. But that was a) not why we said we were invading Iraq
> and b) almost certainly not why we did invade Iraq. If some good came
> of it well, good :) but this does not mean that what did happen should
> have happened. Or else why not invade the Sudan again?
>
> Dana
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:13:14 -0400
> Subject: RE: 9/11 Commission to Cheney - You're still wrong.
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well, I don't know, we seemed to have done a pretty good job with Germany,
> 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]
