colin wrote:
>
> I just realised I was being a hypocrite, I wanted nothing to be done
> because of my own fear. That shames me. I have always stood and been
> counted and exhorted others to do so when it comes to children. Now when
> the chips are down, i do not keep my money where my mouth is.
It just shows that it's a complex situation, Colin. Your fear for
yourself and John, who spends time traveling or in London, doesn't mean
you can't also think that mass bombings of Iraqis is unjustified. War
advocates want you to believe it's one or the other; if you don't want
war you don't want to help the Iraqis, and they use that argument to
intimidate and shame people who do not agree with their solution. And to
make their black/white thinking even more offensive, then claim the war
will be bloodless. My advice, for whatever it's worth to you, is to
resist such simplification, recognize this is a complex situation that
will evoke many different feelings, and accept that your conflicting
feelings are realistic. Rigid, either/or thinking in this situation (as
in most situations in my opinion) is not helpful. It keeps other
solutions from being found.
I was at the peace rally in NYC yesterday and one of my simple thoughts
as I looked at all the different signs ("empty warheads found in White
House", with pictures of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld) and different types
of people, all ages, all backgrounds, from places throughout the country
as well as NYC, and feeling grateful that such a demonstration is
allowed in this country, was that everyone in the world ought to have
the same right, and the Iraqis (and many others!) do not have that
right. What can be done about that? Bombing Iraq still does not seem
like an appropriate solution to me.
I wonder about the world court in The Hague. Is it necessary that a
leader be out of power before the world community can try someone for
crimes against humanity? I'd say Saddam's mass murder of the Kurds is
clearly such a crime. And if that had been dealt with in 1988 instead of
ignored, perhaps the Iraqis would have had a new leader all this time.
The world community knows how to deal with a country that invades
another country. Somehow the world community has to find a way to stop
leaders who kill their own people, a way that doesn't involve wars and
bombs and killing those people who are already suffering. Sanctions
aren't always the answer since, like bombs, they often end up hurting
most the people already suffering, and the despotic leader goes free.
How is it that a citizen of any country can be tried for murder, and a
leader who's killed thousands never be brought to justice? I don't have
any answers. I'm just wondering about possible ways for people in the
world eventually to resolve conflicts rather than rely on bombing. And I
don't know much about the world court except that the US doesn't back it
up or think it's of any value, which isn't the final word for me.
As far as immediately removing Saddam, I still think some type of covert
action is the way to go, something that pinpoints him specifically,
either removing him and his family and henchmen from the country and
putting them on trial, or aiding Iraqis in the country in overturning
him. War advocates say such aid has already been given. I'm not so sure
about that. I think after all the bombing Saddam will still be alive,
and a lot of Iraqis will be dead (and NOT shown on American tv). If he
is killed by the US, he'll be another martyr for the terrorists.
> I also pray that we in the west stop interfering in the ME, which is the
> cause of all this in first place.
Oh, no, Iraq is just the beginning...
Debra Shea
