Opinions on the War...

[Economos]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I've been following the whole scene rather closely since it started. I've got quite a few friends who are currently waiting for orders, so I feel compelled to watch and listen. I'm in total support with this campaign and, most of all, our troops. I guess I'm just curious as to how you guys feel about the whole scene?

One thing I just don't really understand is all the protesting that is going on, mainly in the U.S. I can totally understand why some oppose the conflict, but it's not going to stop what's going on. And I know that it hurts those who are serving and their families. It almost seems like the country is becomming more and more divided as the conflict escalates. It's fine to oppose the War, but please support the vets.

Another thing that gets under my skin envolving the protesting is the violence that sometimes escalates. I've seen many reports from around the globe of protesters marching in the streets, burning the American Flag, chanting anti-American slogans and often rioting over what's going on in Iraq. To me, this is the ultimate contradiction - peace protesters who [sometimes] start riots, burn the American Flag, and chant death to America. How is that a protest for peace?:confused: :mad:

And as the War escalates, so does the political propaganda. The Iraqi forces are pushing civilians infront of their lines so they can use the casualties and collateral damage as propaganda against us. Then the news reporters go to the hopsitals and film all the casualties and blame it on the Coalition. Why doesn't the majority world see that the Iraqi forces will do anything and emplore any tactic nescessary to keep the U.S. at bay outside Baghdad? It's very clear to me that there has to be a cache of chemical and biological warfare agents somewhere in the country - why else would the Iraqi infatry and Paramilitary forces have access to the bio-suits and gas masks. The U.S. does not use these types of weapons and the rest of the world knows that, but yet what we're doing here is a bad thing?:rolleyes:

I hope the right thing is done here for the Iraqi people; I hope this time around, the job is finished instead of leaving the Kurds and the other "friendly" Iraqi forces [who were asked to rise up against Saddam in the first Gulf War] hung out to dry. This is why there hasn't been a popular uprising so far; the people of Iraq are skeptical that Bush Jr. will do the right thing and follow through.

I hope you guys feel free to post up your opinions because I'm interested.

:us:

[Phil]

I can understand that some people oppose the war, whatever their reasons are.Maybe they don't care about the Iraqis that Saddam executes, whatever. But the war has started, troops are over there, and they're not coming back until the end of the war. So protesting is pointless and can only lower morale. Protesting to help prevent it is one thing, that's their right, and it's what our soldiers are fighting for. But now they should be supported. My opinion, at least.

[5-90]

I oppose the war on the grounds of "unfinished business" - this is unnecessary, as Hussein and his entire command structure could and should have been eliminated in 1991. I know it was possible, as I was in one team that was waiting for a "go" order (there were several.)

I will always support the line-animal who puts himself in harm's way for our sake, as I once did. Believe me, it is not the soldier that makes the decision to go to war!

But, once war is begun, politics should be cast aside for the duration and a war prosecuted as rapidly and as thoroughly as possible. You do not halt your progress until all objectives have been met, and the enemy has been reduced to nothing, one way or another. The worst thing you can do to a mortal enemy is ALMOST kill him!

Therefore, I view prosecution of this war as unnecessary, as it is something that realistically should have been finished twelve years ago. Why we waited this long, I don't know. The problem is that we have given Hussein an idea what we are like when in contact, and he has already tried to use that against us (witness the false white flag engagment...)

5-90

[Ghost]

Why it took 12 years! Because 8 of them were under Clinton!

[dmillion]

Partisan politics. I have yet to meet even one person who is opposed to this war, who hasn't been anti-Bush since before he was elected. Most of them can't get over the fact that Gore lost the election. They're mad about how that went down, so anything Bush is for, they are against.

I suppose there are probably some exceptions, but I haven't met any yet.

As for why we didn't do this 12 years ago... it's because that was NOT the objective of the mission 12 years ago. SHOULD it have been done then? Well, maybe, but that's a different discussion. The fact of the matter is that the objective of the Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait. That was done. Period. End of war.

[Economos]

Originally posted by dmillion
Partisan politics. I have yet to meet even one person who is opposed to this war, who hasn't been anti-Bush since before he was elected. Most of them can't get over the fact that Gore lost the election. They're mad about how that went down, so anything Bush is for, they are against.


I fully agree here; people need to f'king get over the election and concentrate on what's going on. I didn't vote for Bush, nor did I vote for Gore... or any other candidate. In a time of crisis and conflict, Americans need to be united to stand for one cause; if you disagree, make your argument BEFOR the starting line. War isn't going to cease over protests.

[5-90]

The simple fact of liberating Kuwait necessitated the elimination of Hussein and possibly his NCA as well - leaving someone like that in a position of power paves the way for history to repeat itself. We pushed in WWII for the capture and/or elimination of Hitler, and the submission of Hirohito. Hitler eventually took care of himself, and Hirohito &c committed suppuku shortly after the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (which resulted in massive civilian casualties, but were selected due to the fact that they were major Japanese industrial centres and responsible for a large section of production of Japanese war materiel.)

As far as I am concerned, we 'liberated' Kuwait, but did not compleat the job. Kuwait would only have been fully liberated by the elimination or capture of its oppressor, removing his ability to continue unchecked. Kuwait was, therefore, not fully liberated with the removal of Iraqi forces.

Trying Hussein under the Nuremburg or Hague conventions would have resulted in his removal (by incarceration or execution,) and his future inability to repeat his actions. The removal or liquidation of Hussein would also have served to send a message to the rest of the world (in general) and the Middle East (in particular) about our refusal to tolerate the activities of schmucks. Therefore, we are now doing the job again, but it will be more difficult this time because Hussein has more working knowledge of American and Allied field practices...

I tell ya - if there's one thing I hate it's doing a job TWICE!

5-90

[Scott Mac.]

Just because we didn't get him 12 years ago for whatever reason is no reason not to be infavor of the war.

[Ed A. Stevens]

Originally posted by dmillion
Partisan politics. I have yet to meet even one person who is opposed to this war, who hasn't been anti-Bush since before he was elected. Most of them can't get over the fact that Gore lost the election. They're mad about how that went down, so anything Bush is for, they are against.

I suppose there are probably some exceptions, but I haven't met any yet.


I havn't met any pro-Bush and anti-war advocates either. As the demonstrations become strained, more than one or two people recognize the conflicting issues of human rights (and other abuses) that this war may resolve.

A Fox news view on demonstrator's motivation (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82258,00.html)

"As I have watched more and more of these
events, I have become convinced that the
majority of these folks are not really
anti-war, but, in fact, anti-Bush."

Then, there are those who should be demanding a change to better protect the world, but they have other agendas. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82391,00.html)

Just some interesting perspective to add to the discussion. I wonder if the radical organizers realize they are exposing the false promise of thier ideology (or if the public will even remember on election day years from now)?

I find it interesting that a person cannot be a peace advocate with an understanding that sometimes the conflict resolution provided by war is the mose effective answer (I have yet to see one interviewed, and they are not asking me)?

[Jes]

I'm not for the war and I'm not against the war, I simply do not have all the facts on the situation at hand. All I know is I support our troops 100%, they're putting their lives at risk so that people here in the U.S.A. can enjoy the freedoms we've all come accustom to. It's a shame this job wasn't done right in the first place, it now will cost more lives than it would have taken origionally and that's a shame. God bless the families of our fallen soldiers.
A lot of anti war protests have happenend here in S.F.(as a lot of you probably know) and I for one am not against people wanting to protest something, it's their right as a citizen of the United States of America.
However, I am against hipocritical morons that use the excuse of protest to halt other people's daily rutines(like going to work) or cause the destruction of public and private property. Get a f#&$!*% job, get a life losers! :mad:
If they block me from getting to work or home I will be hard pressed not to put an MT/R print on someones head!!!

Jes

[TC]

dmillion is right, the objective was to get Iraq out of kuwait, thats all. Now matter how people "feel" that we should have gotten Saddam doesn't matter, we didn't have coalition support to do so...exactly what we ran into this time. We weren't allowed to go after him, we didn't have the approval of the UN members.
People who claim they care about innocent victims are simply not thinking things through, Saddam has killed thousands more innocents than will die as a result of this War.
I believe any normal human being gets a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach when they realize that war is necessary, we know it means suffering, death and sorrow. It doesn't mean we don't care, on the contrary, it means that sometimes the only way to deal with a violent lunatic is by using violence... this guy just doesn't play nice.
Some people just can't get it through their thick heads that there are actually some people in the world who are truly evil with no compassion whatsoever. Talking, reasoning, and group hugs don't work with these types, the only thing to do is take them out of the picture either by imprisonment or death. Anyone can make easy decisions, thankfully we have a President who can make the hard ones and stick to his guns instead of letting polls guide him. TC

[Eagle]

Originally posted by Jes
However, I am against hipocritical morons that use the excuse of protest to halt other people's daily rutines(like going to work) or cause the destruction of public and private property. Get a f#&$!*% job, get a life losers! :mad:
If they block me from getting to work or home I will be hard pressed not to put an MT/R print on someones head!!!

Jes

See, this may be part of the problem. You have already decided that anyone who is against the war is hypocritical, and if they demonstrate -- you're going to run them over. This is how anti-war protests become violent, NOT because (as someone stated in an earlier post in this thread) the anti-war protesters are violent hypocrites.

Most of you haven't "met" me, so you can stand by your statements. But I am against this war. I am for our troops -- I WAS one of our troops in Vietnam -- but I cannot support a war that is being conducted on fraudulent bases, for purely economic and political reasons, without the backing of the United Nations. I keep reading about our government promising that various Iraqis will be prosecuted as "war criminals," yet we are the aggressors. We are the ones who invaded a sovereign nation without UN sanction. War crimes are tried by an international tribunal. I seriously doubt that body is going to convict any Iraqi of war crimes when their actions were taken in defense of their country against an illegal aggression.

In the words of the late Ann Landers, it's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee. And, no, I did not vote for Dubya -- but I didn't vote for Gore, either. I won't bother to state who I did vote for, but it was someone I considered better qualified than either (than both, in fact).

JMHO

[5-90]

Eagle -
I don't know if it made the news on your coast, but the demonstrators in SF weren't just out picketing, but were actually blocking intersections in the SF Financial District, and were even chaining themselved together across the streets. I never heard a final count, but SFPD had arrested something like 1,000 in the first hour of police activity!

I will respect people's right to protest, and to express themselves, but this right to expression does not include any semblance of a right to create impediments to traffic, business, or the economy. If they want to stand on the corners, hold signs, and chant, that is just fine. If they are going to block streets, they are taking a grave risk. Last time I checked, creating a traffic impediment is illegal, and I know my mother taught me to not play in the street...

As I've been known to say (and I think you've said this as well,) "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."

I do not support the war as an effort I realistically view as redundant (see my comments above.) There is no way you will be able to catch me not supporting the line-animals in harm's way!

Regarding the United Nations, I have a hard time taking them seriously anymore. I'd like to know how they intend to collect and apply the "World Income Tax" they're on about now, and how it is we have to provide nearly everything they 'need' for their operations worldwide. It seems that we pay dues, additional "contributions" above and beyond regular dues, and supply the line troops for (nearly) all military missions - after seconding them to foreign command in direct contravention of their Oath of Enlistment. If the UN is demanding US troops, they can be assigned under US commanders and the operational orders can and should be reviewed and approved by National Command Authority.

I think a review of the UN and its practices is soon to be in order, if it is to continue attempting to operate as a "legitimate" organisation. Of course, that's just my own opinion - that of a knuckle-dragging line-animal...

5-90

[Jes]

Originally posted by Eagle
See, this may be part of the problem. You have already decided that anyone who is against the war is hypocritical, and if they demonstrate -- you're going to run them over. This is how anti-war protests become violent, NOT because (as someone stated in an earlier post in this thread) the anti-war protesters are violent hypocrites.


Gee, did you actually read my post?!?

Jes

[Ed A. Stevens]

Originally posted by Eagle
I cannot support a war that is being conducted on fraudulent bases, for purely economic and political reasons, without the backing of the United Nations.
JMHO


Eagle,

I respect your objection to the war; based on your experience and beliefs, although I believe the above statement obscures the reason we are involved (let me try to clear it up).

I read lots of theories, and many good (and bad) reasons for the conflict. They try to explain the conflict with Iraq's leadership as a perceived isolated USA problem, not the documented UN problem with Iraq. These explanations may make segments of the world's population feel good (or bad) but they fail to address the topic of why the conflict escalated to armed battle. They fail to acknowledge the UN has been leading the opposition to Iraq until the last few weeks.

What do we know?

The war is engaged because the Iraq violated UN Resolution 1441 (the last of many Iraq failures to comply with the UN). We know the UN failed at enforcement (and is still resisting).

Did Iraq's Leadership violate the intent of the resolution? Yes.

Did Iraq (or the UN) act in good faith and fully comply with the UN resolution? No.

UN Security Council members have tried to talk around the fact the Iraq government failed to honor this contract with the UN (with the world), to openly disclose all potential weapons (not just WMD). The UN inspectors (lead by Mr. Blix) reported weapons were found that were not disclosed, and had been modified beyond that allowed by prior UN agreements (inspectors coached their statements that "inspectors were not assigned to judge what is a material breach of the resolution, only to report on what is observed"). There were/are documented violations (even before the undocumented missiles and aircraft were exposed in the conflict) that provide a valid basis for the violation, leading to the current conflict. Iraq failed (and the UN diplomatic process failed as well).

IMO, the fact that the UN Security Council failed to agree on enforcement of the UN's own resolution is a failure of the UN committee process. A failure of a process demanding not only majority agreement, but agreement of nations with veto rights as well (so much for a true diplomatic democracy). I would have liked to read a vote of the UN General Assembly on the issue of enforcement (but then R1441 was voted and passed making the need for a "new" contract moot).

Why did the UN political process (and diplomatic process) fail to achieve enforcement of a contract? Why did Iraq and the UN resist a diplomatic resolution? The USA requested an audience in the UN many times demanding compliance with the UN Resolution (and is still working with the UN), and yet the UN failed to apply enforcement.

Where is the economic reason behind the diplomatic resistance problem with Iraq?

Was Iraq withholding its true weapons capability, and valid accounting documentation demanded by R1441, to barter for more economic aid? No, none documented.

Was an offer given by Iraq, to comply fully, in trade for economic advancement (an offer that failed)? No, none documented.

Is the USA, or the UN Security Council, the political reason for the conflict: that the difficult politics of achieving UN enforcement (even of their own resolution) with the current structure failed?

I would like to know any "economic reasons" for the conflict (not speculation, but documented reasons we can read and study)?

I can read about the poor economics of Iraq under the enforcement of standing UN Resolutions (oil for food, etc.: the UN's siege method of enforcement, one that failed).

I can read speculation about reasons for French and Russian resistance to enforce actions that may well reduce their economic stability (US$8 billion owned to Russia and similar debt to France).

I can also read speculation that the war is a way for the USA to advance itself out of an economic recession (and with leading economic indicators falling as the population resists spending into a potentially expanded terror driven conflict, any economic advancement theory fails to recognize that US economy is no longer isolated from non-domestic threats). Any conspiracy theory that advances the thought that this is a war for oil, (or profits for Bush buddies) fails to recognize the devaluation problem with a terror driven recession (I made a billion, but it ain't worth a billion no more).

Lots of speculation to read, but little facts.

I would also like to know any political reasons for the conflict (again, not speculation but something I can read that is not opinion)?

I have read speculation the war goal is a mission to avoid recognition that the USA and UK are in an economic recession? Is this a perceived political problem or a documented problem (BTW, let me know what is the problem, I know about the recession)?

I read the war is a political rating game steered by spending billions in weaponry and recovery relief. Maybe the political reason is pure ego (leaving a huge economic risk if it fails)?

I also read the war is a conflict to address "failures of the father?" I read nothing to indicate this is the motivation (even if I really don't care who failed, as long as someone addresses a solution to the UN's problem).

Are these political positions speculation or something substantial?


I have to ask myself questions.

Is Iraq a threat (to the World or USA)? YES

Should the USA be involved with enforcing a UN Resolution, that was designed to eliminate the threat, and failed? No, (IMO) we should not.

The threat of UN failure is a question (what should be done with Iraq, with the UN)? Should we trust the UN with our (the World and USA's) protection from the threat Iraq presents?

I should be able to trust the UN with World peace, but I cannot (can you)?

IMO the USA should not be involved with this conflict, but we also cannot allow the dysfunctional UN to continue to fail. We may not have a good reason to be involved (why I ask for the reasons you refer to without identification), but do we have compelling reasons to remain isolated from the conflict?

What are the alternatives to USA involvement, and what are the advantages to the USA not being involved? What can the USA gain by staying out of the conflict?

What are the risks if we fail to be involved? What are the risks if we stay out of the conflict?

The unstated question is would those who hate the USA leave us alone if we backed out of the UN completely and isolated our influence to only issues within our borders? Is the World large enough for the USA to remain safely isolated?

What are the options?

[Eagle]

Originally posted by Jes
If they block me from getting to work or home I will be hard pressed not to put an MT/R print on someones head!!!

Jes

Yes. Seemed pretty clear to me. My way or (you become) the highway.

To 5-90. Non-violent civil disobedience has been a fact of life and protest for nearly 50 years. It was first used by Ghandi in India, and was adopted by protesters against the Vietnam "conflict" and has been used in many, many other protests against many other things and policies. Yes, the protesters know they are breaking the law. They expect to be arrested for doing so, as a way of drawing attention to their position. What they do not expect -- and should not expect -- is when they submit peacefully to arrest, that by-standers and the cops will beat the crap out of them. Your mother may have taught you not to play in traffic (my mother taught me the same thing), but you have a right to do so -- if you are willing to accept the logical consequences.

[SyCo]

I asked my father about his thoughts on the war (long time veteran, served both Vietnam and Korean, special forces green beret, 82nd airborne, yes I'm bragging because I'm proud of him and I love him) and he said the first thing they should've done was knocked out Iraq's communications so they couldn't broadcast their propanganda bs. He just recented came back from China and he said everyone views us as the bad guy, because we're "killing innocent civilians". There was NEVER a war were innocent civilians weren't killed, so why has this become a big deal all of a sudden? Civilian casualties are awful, but with Saddam in power, they are a guarantee whether or not we intrude.

I agree about the "violent-peace protestors" so to speak, what an oxymoron. I don't understand how you can promote peace by destroying property and rioting. Believe me, I respect protestors to an extent because even though I don't agree with them that's what makes this country great, is the fact we can disagree with one another and not be shunned/killed/exiled/whatever for it. But when property is destroyed and signs such as "I'll support the troops when they start shooting their officers" are displayed, I can't help but get pissed off and want to crack a skull. Here in Richmond the protestors went past their allowed boundaries for protesting, and broke the windows of the National Guard Recruiter's Office....and they wonder why the cops are out with riot gear. So now our tax dollars go to the police who have to work overtime and enforce these protestors who can't follow the damn rules, and they'll probably bitch when we suffer another terrorist attack because the police were too busy enforcing them....some people just have to live for some cause or to be heard, no matter how ridiculous it may be (BTW I cloned the first child, and no you're not allowed to see it).

I just hope the war is over soon and the people of Iraqi finally get to live in some peace. Before you know it people will be saying "Saddam who?" and have forgotten about this whole conflict.

BTW Economos, the latest poll I saw said 78% of Americans (who participated in the poll mind you) supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. You know the media, only wanting to portray the negative aspects of life (because optimism doesn't sell). Also a funny website you may want to check out: www.protestwarrior.com

As for the U.N., the Human Rights committee is run by Libya, and the Global Disarmament committee is run by Iraq........'nuff said.

[Kejtar]

I Think that a lot of hte people protesting out ther are protesting for the fact hat they have nothing better to do....I Think that if they were given the opportunity they would have protested for the other side just as strongly.....

ALso I think that some of the activity is plain criminal!!!! I agree that a person might have a differnt opinion about the war... but if that person's protest interferes with my daily life or alters it in a negative manner (Damaged vehicle for displaying a pro war sticker or something like that) my wrath would be unleashed on that person!!!!!

Btw... this kind of illustrates the confusion amongst people protesting :) http://home.socal.rr.com/remi/pics/protest.jpg

[Eagle]

To Ed Stevens:

It's difficult to justify a claim that the UN failed, when the UN was circumvented mid-process by the fact that the US and England needed to get their little war going or lose the season. The UN had inspectors in place who were asking for more time to do their work.

And let us not forget that before the UN inspection teams went in, the US said "Iraq has the weapons. We know they have them and we know where they are." Fast forward to when the inspectors got into Iraq. They made a perfectly reasonable request: "Since you (the US) know where these weapons are, tell us so we can go find them."

Our response to this perfectly logical request was to stall, stonewall, and finally respond with a bunch of eyewash, portions of which were quickly proven to be pure speculation and others pure fabrication.

I do not for a moment believe or claim that Saddam is a nice guy. I fully agree that the UN f***ed up in '91 by not authorizing his neutralization then. However, that's history, and they did not. The key point is that they did not authorize his neutralization in 2003, which makes the United States and its allies effectively international outlaws. Like it or not, gents and ladies, what we are practicing here is a simple doctrine of "Might makes right." We are acting exactly like the global bully most other countries perceive us as. We may succeed (probably will succeed) in removing Saddam -- the problem I have with the way we've chosen to do it is that the follow-up question has to be "At what cost?" And I am not talking about the cost in dollars, I am talking about the cost in international relations and credibility.

If we had UN sanction, I would be 110% behind the war. Under the current circumstances, I feel our government has made a grave error and that in various ways which nobody can predict we will be paying for it in many ways for many, many years to come.

Yes, you can argue that the UN resolution gave us the authorization, but the fact is that the majority of the Security Council doesn't happen to agree. We managed to get the resolution written in language ambiguous enough that we feel we can claim justification, but anyone with half a brain saw that coming months ago. Our position would appear a lot stronger if we hadn't pushed so hard for a further resolution, and abandoned that initiative only at the 11th hour when it became obvious that we couldn't win the vote. The signal we sent to the world with that ridiculous display of "statesmanship" is that "We'll play by your rules when it's convenient for us, and when it isn't -- f**k off."

Hey, Economos asked for opinions. I didn't know he only wanted confirming opinions.

[Eagle]

FYI:

http://www.iht.com/articles/91593.htm

[Eagle]

Originally posted by Glenn Baker
personally, I am against the UN as a concept.... in that their actions have become meaningless. Lybia as the chair for human rights? haha.
Glenn

I don't completely disagree with that view. But if you want to talk about being hypocritical, that's just what the US is doing by participating in (i.e. "using") the UN. We're only too happy to weild our veto on the Security Council, but God help any country that uses their veto against something we want. We're happy to "support" the UN when they're doing something we want done, but when we want to do something the UN opposes -- we just do it anyway.

If we really don't like/want/trust the UN, we should do the honorable thing -- withdraw, and pack 'em off to build a new headquarters in Geneva or some other neutral/non-aligned country. Just think how many potential and actual spies and terrorists we'd get rid of if we tossed out the entire UN.

But we won't do that, because then we'd have to give up our permanent seat on the Security Council and we wouldn't have that nifty little veto. Yepp -- Hypocrisy-R-US

[SyCo]

Originally posted by Eagle

But we won't do that, because then we'd have to give up our permanent seat on the Security Council and we wouldn't have that nifty little veto. Yepp -- Hypocrisy-R-US

Think so Eagle? It really wouldn't surprise me if we did withdrawal ourselves from the U.N. at this point, but I trust your judgement more than my own.

[Glenn B]

Yup, I would suspect that once this is all said and done.... some heavy thought will go in to this very subject. Which way will it go? I dunno. I do not see us leaving the UN, but I wish we would.
Glenn

[5-90]

I understand the idea of civil disobedience, but is it reasonable to shut down the centre of a major city in an act of "civil disobedience?" Is it reasonable to keep people from going about their business indiscriminately?

Ghandi used it, King used it, and the concept is alive and well. However, my argument resides with the methods used - this isn't a simple "sit-in" in State or Federal offices, this is preventing people who have nothing to do with what is being protested from going about their business.

I guess I'm just trying to understand how shutting down downtown San Francisco is a useful protest - it's just being asinine and stupid, when one distils it down.

I am not against the idea of protest - I do it often. I prefer, instead, to pick my battles and go directly to the people who are able to do something. It does no good to picket my next-door neighbour when I wish to protest a bad law, or a useless regulation. If I want to protest the war, I would organise a campaign to go against NCA, not against townspeople...

5-90

[Eagle]

Originally posted by 5-90
I understand the idea of civil disobedience, but is it reasonable to shut down the centre of a major city in an act of "civil disobedience?" Is it reasonable to keep people from going about their business indiscriminately? ...

I guess I'm just trying to understand how shutting down downtown San Francisco is a useful protest - it's just being asinine and stupid, when one distils it down.

I don't disagree with you. It doesn't make sense. Whoever said it had to make sense?

I generally make it a point to not look at the mainstream media because their views are so biased, and I haven't encountered any protest rallies or marches in my little burg so I don't know what form the protests are taking in the big cities. The only thought I can offer in understanding (not "justifying") where the protesters are coming from is that they feel the war is senseless. There's an old axiom that "Like begets like." My assumption is that they perceive the war as senseless and unjustified violence, and for some of them at least that allows them to feel justified to respond in kind.

That attitude is not in keeping with Ghandi's view of non-violent civil disobedience. It's a venting of frustration because they don't feel their voices are being heard by the powers that be. They are correct in that assesment, although they are wrong in their response to it.

[jml1911a1]

Their voices are heard, loud and clear. It's just that no one cares what they think. These folks have nothing to do but clog up the streets in a giant, toddler-style, screaming temper tantrum, and the louder they whine, the sicker we get of them.

The UN has proven it's irrelevance, time and again. To fashion a world governing body where each county has equal say toward the issues at hand, is ridiculous, and likens itself to allowing the janitor to vote at the board of directors meeting at Exxon. We, the United States of America, got where we are for a reason. Ghana, Portugal, France, Germany, Turkey, etc, are where they are for a reason as well--we know what we're doing, they don't. We are a superpower, and the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. Our system works, for the most part. These others are, well, just other countries. Maybe they should try to emulate us instead of yipping at our ankles all the time.

[Slip Kid]

I don't support anybody dying.

I think the best way to support our soldiers is to bring them home.

peace

[Kejtar]

Peace is good.... but then again war is sometimes needed... if it wasn't for war, would US even exist? Can we turn onto the past and say that future will have nothing to do with it? I know it's kind of philosophical, but I think that if one is for peace and protests against the war, he should also not get into any fights.... so what about the peace protests then? PEople get hurt... isn't such protest like a small war in a way?

Sometimes peace can only be achieved through war....... it is sad that loss of life might be necessary but what it one life saves 10 other lives????? Can you still say that that one life should have not been sacrificed?

In regards to getting soldiers back home, they knew what they were getting into. I have seen a lot of interviews and know some that have enlisted before 9/11 that are always wondering will they be deployed...... All of them so far have said that they fear war but they knew what they were getting into when they joined up...... And for all those who think otehrwise... well come on.... wake up.... Army, Navy, Air Force, National Guard..... those are no Boy Scouts!

Kejtar

[Eagle]

Originally posted by Slip Kid
I don't support anybody dying.

I think the best way to support our soldiers is to bring them home.

peace

Amen. I couldn't have said it better. (In fact, I obviously didn't say it as well.)

[JTBOSCO]

I am not for going to war just for the hell of ot however I do believe givin the opportunity Sadam would do everythhing in his power to get and develop wepons to do great harm to the American people. Sometimes wars have to be fought to protect the fredoms we enjoy.I was over there in the first Gulf war with the First Marine Division and wish we could have finished it then instead of a new generation of kids growing up with war. Just my 2-cents.

[Matthew Currie]

I'm basically with Eagle on this one. I think there are many good arguments against Saddam, and perhaps thus for war, but more against it, and am basically opposed to war as a solution here. I happen to think that it's a very big mistake, and that we'll be paying the price of this mistake for a very long time. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong. I would be very happy to eat crow on this.

I also think that many of the protesters have made a very big mistake by casting their lot with the radical left, and allowing organizations such as ANSWER to organize protests and turn them into anti-American, anti Israeli and anti-globalism shows.

Whatever your opinion of the war and the demonstrators, though, I hope you don't fall into the trap of many who mouth the words "freedom" and "rights," as long as nobody actually uses them, but cannot understand that they only really have meaning when they can be practiced by people you disapprove of. There's more to freedom than words. Fidel Castro uses the same vocabulary.

The war puts loyal Americans in a difficult bind, because however much we wish it hadn't started, we cannot wish it lost. The administration knows this and uses it to advantage. But opposing the policy, or demonstrating against it, really has nothing to do with "supporting the troops." Although I'm sure the great majority of our troops are glad to do their duty, and proud of doing it well and effectively, I doubt very much if many would object to being brought home alive (without defeat) and going back to their peacetime functions.

This administration, like others before, would like very much to simlify everything into a good versus evil, pro- versus anti-American argument, and make opposition seem like disloyalty, just as the radicals of the other side would like to make us out as the demons. Don't fall into the trap.

Many of the arguments I hear against demonstrations are ostensibly based on issues of practicality or counter-productivity, but really depend on an assumption that the position of the demonstrators is wrong. It may be, but if you wish to understand how the rights of opinion and the obligations of witness really work, it helps to imagine for a moment "what if they are right?" I had a little debate yesterday with someone who brought up the standard arguments of effectiveness but had no trouble, however, supporting the local vigils of remembrance for POW's and MIA's that have taken place (without demonstrable diplomatic effect) in our local park each weekend for the last 15+ years. The people who do this are not idiots. They do not believe that a dozen people holding candles in the Fair Haven square on a Friday night will bring back the missing. Yet they believe that their witness has some meaning, and has some effect on the world around them. Are they wrong? I don't think so.

There's also the argument of counter-productivity - that opposition will prolong the war by making the administration more stubborn and angry. This was a favorite during the Viet Nam years. It's the wife-beater's argument : "it's your fault I hit you because you made me angry." It's the stuff of just about any freshman "ethics 101" course. Don't fall for it. If the war is right, then the demonstrators can do no harm by strengthening the administration's resolve, but if it is wrong, then the moral responsibility is on those who wage it, not those who oppose it.

[jml1911a1]

Originally posted by Slip Kid
I don't support anybody dying.

I think the best way to support our soldiers is to bring them home.

peace

No one "supports" people dying--except those vermin who made possible the violent killing of thousands of people in the World Trade Center, and that includes Saddam and his posse. What do you think we should do about it? Curl up in a ball?

Obviously, peace is the ultimate end goal, but peace cannot be obtained by allowing madmen to possess the tools to kill, especially when the madmen have proven their willingness to use those tools.

Do we prevent crime by allowing criminals to go unpunished? Do we teach discipline to children by letting them do whatever they want? (A trip to your local Wal-Mart or McDonald's will prove that this is indeed the case with many parents, with predictable results. These are the parents that threaten their kids with punisment, and never follow through.)

We have sent our men and women to Iraq to stop a madman. We all know that it's the right thing to do. The inspections were doing nothing except giving Saddam more time, on top of the 12 years he already had. The UN snivelled, whined, wrung it's hands, and displayed it's idiocy, and we lost patience.

This is the quickest, easiest, safest way to peace. We're squashing the vermin now, before they grow big enough to eat us.

[Economos]

I'll also say that I'm glad to see the Kurdish Forces fighting with the Special Forces in N. Iraq. It seems to be going very well with the Northern Campaign and hopefully the Iraqi people will take this into account - that we don't plan to ditch them 10 miles outside of Baghdad. Hopefully the Shia-Muslims from S. Iraq in cities such as Basra, Nasiriya, Najaf, Umm Qasr and Karbala will also make a stand against the The Republican Guard and the Paramilitary forces.

It's not going to be an easy task - convincing the people that we are there to help them, but I believe that we're starting to prevail in that area. We're getting Hum. Aid and water and electricity to Basra and Umm Qasr and hopefully to Nasiriya soon.

[jml1911a1]

The crappy thing is...those who are fighting with us, are not much better than Saddam and his ilk: it's just that Saddam has the power/money to do what he does. Most of the Middle Eastern Moslem sects are pretty much the same when it comes to hatred of the "infidels."

That being said, do we kill them all and let God sort them out? Good question. It's a pretty good bet that whoever gets put in power over there will eventually be just as bad, even though it may take many years. It will be mighty difficult to set up a government that won't be run by religous zealotry. I guess we're going to give it a shot, though...

[The Bastard]

Originally posted by jml1911a1
It will be mighty difficult to set up a government that won't be run by religous zealotry. I guess we're going to give it a shot, though...

Us democrats say that everytime a republican gets elected.

[GSequoia]

Originally posted by jml1911a1
No one "supports" people dying--except those vermin who made possible the violent killing of thousands of people in the World Trade Center, and that includes Saddam and his posse.

As far as I know there isn't any solid evidence that Saddam funded, planned, or took part in the WTC attacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Saddam isn't an evil little bastard, I just really don't like the way it's been spun with Saddam and terrorism, now, don't flame me here, but the word that comes to mind is Doublespeak.

I'll tell you outright, I'm not for the war, that doesn't mean I'm anti-American nor pro-Saddam, I just don't think this is a safe idea at all. Much of the world hates the United States becuase they see us as bullies, going into a country and having our way with them, this is not making those feelings any weaker. The outcome I see the most out of this war is an increase in terrorist acts.

But, of course, I do support our troops fully, since they are there I think we should make the best of it for them, and, well, that means fighting well, people are going to die on both sides, I know this, my biggest concern is to keep our side down as much as we can (I'd like to see their losses down as well).

As for the protesters, I do find it completely moronic when they get violent, it's against the whole idea of it, but in no way do I want their right to peacefully protest denied for any reason at all. The moment the right for a peaceful protest are denied is the moment I become an avid protester. I'm a freedom buff, I've already seen too many freedoms denied in the name of "security."

Sequoia

[Slip Kid]

The war was our idea, and really has little to do with Saddam. We forced the war onto them as well. think about this: we told iraq to report all it's illegal weapons. this is a lose-lose situation for iraq. if they didn't report, we'd attack them. if they reported that they've been hiding WMDs, we'd attack them. if they lied, we'd attack them.

and Bush tried to call it their last chance, as if they could have avoided it. we're the aggressor here.

If Iraq attacked us, it would be different. just for some reason "anticipitory self defence" sounds pretty damn ridiculous to me.

JMHO

[mikal]

Originally posted by Slip Kid
if they didn't report, we'd attack them. if they reported that they've been hiding WMDs, we'd attack them. if they lied, we'd attack them

and if they didn't have any, we'd leave them alone.

[Matthew Currie]

Originally posted by mikal
and if they didn't have any, we'd leave them alone.

This remains to be seen. It seems as if the only way Bush would have been satisfied would have been to find something for the Iraquis to destroy, but if they had nothing to show, they're screwed, aren't they? So far we don't seem to have found much, and the administration refused to tell the inspectors what evidence it had. some experts, including former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, believe they really don't have any. In a way, I hope that we do find great piles of illegal stuff, but I'm not counting on it, and I suspect we would have attacked no matter what.

[Kejtar]

OK....
1. If I was an Iraqi leader... I'd made sure that there was nothing to find when allied forces came in, just to cause such discord between people as we're seeing now.
2. Are you guys saying that we should have been waiting for an attack on us??? I don't know about you, but I think that's a bad idea...

Kejtar

[WyoXJ]

I want to know what everyone thinks about Russia, France, & Germanys strong anti war stance?. The more I watch the more I think that they are all hiding hidden trade relations they have had with Iraq knowing that it will be found when the U.S. and Brits are active in the country.

[mikal]

I saw a clip of a russian news program a couple days ago. the main news story was the civilian casualties we are causing. if that is all the info they get it's no wonder the russian people are against the war. the questions i have are who runs the russian media and what's their reasoning for such biased reporting?

[Kejtar]

I can tell you one thing: Poland supports it :) :) and has sent out a contingent already to support the US troops..... also for those that haven't known it, it was Polish intelligence that has pulled out some US guys that got stuck in Iraq last time!

Germany I think that people are more for the war then against it, but the leader wanted to "firm up" his political standing which he misread and primarily he commited a political suicide. France... well... they loose money on the war: they have a lot of interests tied up in there: I think they got their finger in the "oil field" pot and war is going to damage it...

Now Russia... well.... where do you think Iraq is getting their weapons from? And funny thing is that they are so opposed this war while they have all that internal fighting that they went through and will go through: Look at Chechnya.... all the civilian casualties that happened there!! I think also that they are using this conflict to turn people's minds away from some other internal problems... and well wasn't US their official enemy for over half of a century?

Kejtar

[JnJ]

My thoughts;
First I support the war. Sadam and his regime are evil and must go. No one can argue about him torturing his own people to include using chemical agents on them. No one can claim he has disarmed. They have fired Scuds and Silkworm missiles already and these are both banned weapons of mass distruction. Do you think just ignoring it would be safe for America? Hell no, because what Sadam has, terriorist get.
They have had 12 years to disarm. The UN failed. The resolutions were passed by the UN but because of a couple countrys self interest, they wouldn't back up their own resolutions.
Just because we didn't take him out in 90/91, doesn't mean this mission isn't justified. The first time the mission was to remove his forces from Kuwait and that's it. Do I think we should have done it the first time? Yes, but we didn't, now we are making it right.
Why are the French, Germans, and Rusians against it? Because they each have illegal dealings with Iraq and they don't want the world to know. We have already seen some of the Russians involvement, Germany too, and France. When this is over, I believe we will find a LOT more evil dealings between these countries and Sadam.
Prosecuting war criminals, I heard someone say becuase we started the war, we can't. BS, using human shields, abusing POWs, soldiers using civilian clothing, faking surrender, hiding in/using hospitals/religous buildings are all prosecutable war crimes. Remember the winner prosecutes the war criminals. Yes we can use an international tribune, we have over 40 countrys with us. We do not have to use the UN.
Are our goverments intentions as they state? Maybe, but even if not, the end result will mean the removal of Sadam and his regime and this, is a good thing. Sometimes to preserve peace, war is necessary, I feel this is one of those time.

[Ed A. Stevens]

I agree with much of what many fear (including Eagle, why I respect his views), but I also have to read the history. The history does not reflect the USA as evil and unresponsive to the UN.

The USA failed at statesmanship? What would have been required to achieve the USA a victory in statesmanship? I read about this position of failed statesmanship, and ask who failed, and why?

Is it the fault of the USA Diplomats that Iraq ignored the UN for eight years? Is it the fault of the USA Diplomats that Iraq resisted unencumbered UN inspections?

I believe the UN is more at fault in a failure of statesmanship. The UN could have called for more stringent inspection and enforcement sanctions something other than status quo, and not armed conflict, the day after the Inspectors report that revealed failures in the Iraq documentation was released. The UN did nothing other than listen to the USA Diplomats flail at Iraq (and rattle sabers), and then demand more of the same flawed inspection procedures ("more time" we were told) with no teeth to the enforcement provisions of the inspection process. The UN enjoyed swinging the "big stick" of the USA hard line position on enforcement, and encouraged it with praise of the policy (publicly granting the USA threat of armed conflict as the reason for the limited inspection progress, including Iraq's agreement to proceed with resumed inspections).

Where was the proactive statesmanship by the UN, where was the compromise where Iraq agreed to be more honest and less resistive to UN demands? Where did the UN discourage the USA threat policy, by proposing effective and enforceable alternatives to armed conflict (or even assemble their own threat, independent of the USA)? The UN exploited the USA armed threat position, as the big stick, but where was the new carrot for Iraq if they truly complied fully?

Can you concede the UN position with the USA as the lead enforcer was exploited, with no reasonable independent and enforcable UN alternative if Iraq failed to comply? I believe this was the position promoted by the UN.

When unrestricted UN enforcement of the inspection process could not be won by diplomacy (entrenched members of the Council with veto power resisting any enforcement) the USA could have waited out another year, but what would have been the achievement? Would this have been perceived as a victory in statesmanship (for the USA Diplomats, or the Iraq Diplomats)?

I agree the UN made a grave mistake in 1991 (or should I believe it was Bush the father)? Should I conclude the political reasons for this conflict is not a failure of USA statesmanship, but failures of an obsolete diplomatic body: a failed UN? The UN failed a decade ago, and we are to believe without question they did not fail now (and would not, if they had allowed more delay)?

Unfortunately, I hold no more trust in UN success, now, as experienced in the past (ten years ago or three months ago).

The USA is perceived as a bully, yes.

We were perceived as a bully before the Iraq conflict of 1991, and before 9/11/01, and before the current Iraq conflict. Who would have altered this bully perception, to consider the USA a masterful nation of patience and goodwill, if we had waited out another year of UN diplomacy with Iraq?

The UN Resolution 1441 was vague and worded to leave many options open to the UN (open to anyone who chooses to enforce the resolution, the USA or other nations). Diplomacy is a game of vague agreements and veiled courtesy. When the wording of a contract is vague, does it reduce the need to enforce the agreement? The USA could have walked away and waited another year for enforcement, as they had before (since 1995), but what would it have gained (did we gain good will for walking away before)?

I read all the talk of "the cost in international relations and credibility" and fail to read where the past eight years of "restraint" gained the USA any purchase to achieve beneficial relations or diplomatic credibility?

I read history where no other country has gained so much territory in warfare (and even lost on a few occasions), and conceded the contested ground to the opponent, unchallenged and without conditions on self-government? Is the USA governing Kuwait? Is the USA governing Afghanistan? Grenada? Panama? Nicaragua? Korea? Japan, Germany, Italy, France, or Belgium (should I continue)? The USA waged warfare over these territories and claimed no lasting Imperialist influence and tribute. What nation can claim similar goodwill to the "occupied" or "opposed?"

What more should the USA do to gain advancement "in international relations and credibility?"

I ask the question because I believe the UN exploited the USA position as enforcer, and the USA's leadership complied (in good faith), and we must now seek a long-term solution to the failures of the UN.

I read once that the time to plan for war is during peacetime, and to plan for peace is during wartime. I ask, what are the UN's peace plan options?

Is there any reason the UN cannot forward a peace plan, even as the USA & UK develop their own proposals and resist UN input (just as the UN made plans for enforcement of Iraq sanctions while Iraq resisted inspections, for eight years.) Where is the UN leadership?

[Eagle]

An interesting counterpoint, Ed -- thank you.

Perhaps the question to be answered by "history" is: Who is the user, and who is the usee? :D

[MBXJ]

I would just like to say this is a great discussion with both sides being represented.

Personally I'm for the current military conflict and I wish my government was sending some troops. I view the majority of the anti-war protesting crowd seems either politically motivated or uneducated about the real costs of oppressive dictators. Those who have a well thought out reason for objection I can respect and will listen to what they have to say.

My biggest fear is that we are reliving the 1930s and that a major war is about to erupt due to the removal of a stable (albeit evil) regime in Iraq. The resulting power vacuum has me concerned. I simply hope that the Coalition forces and/or the UN do a proper job helping the Iraqi people get solidly back on their feet after the current military action is completed.

The more I think about this conflict the more I think about how and what I am responsible for in this world. I think that everyone who enjoys the freedoms we do has a duty to help others who are enslaved.

[JnJ]

Thanks Ed, again you make the point so well I just sit back and say "ya, what he said". :D

[xjndmud]

As a member of the Army National Guard, I personally find it disrepcetful to your troops that our defending our country, for people so openely to protest the war. What are the people thinking? Sure this may be a free country, but we didn't our freedom for free, or by backing down. So i salute our soliders who defend this great nation that we so happily live in, and anxiously wait for my deployment so that I may have a chance to do something for my country, "Its not what your country can do for you, Its what you can do for your country"!!!

[Eagle]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is disrespectful of the troops to protest against a war someone doesn't believe in? One of the freedoms our "troops" are supposedly defending is our right to freedom of speech.

Whatever happened to "I do not agree with your opinion but I will defend to the death your right to express it"?

[Hunter-Lynchburg,Va]

Originally posted by xjndmud
As a member of the Army National Guard, I personally find it disrepcetful to your troops that our defending our country, for people so openely to protest the war. What are the people thinking? Sure this may be a free country, but we didn't our freedom for free, or by backing down. So i salute our soliders who defend this great nation that we so happily live in, and anxiously wait for my deployment so that I may have a chance to do something for my country, "Its not what your country can do for you, Its what you can do for your country"!!!


you can be anti-war and still be pro troops. personally i am pro war and pro troops.


Hunter

[woody]

The fact that the public dissent with our nation's 'policy' is so openly allowed in our society (in all it's forms) points to the positive aspects of the freedoms we all hold dear. I always appreciate hearing the 'b' side of an issue even if I don't agree with it. That sets us apart from many of our neighbors IMHO

I think our troops are smart enough that they can sort the wheat from the chaff...and realize that the vast majority of folks in the USA are behind them. Whether for or opposed to this Iraq campaign, supporting our troops is the only proper thing to do. When the Iraqi folks can actualy step out in free streets and elect a leader w/o coercion or hanging chads...I think our work will be done.

Lots of places have proved unworthy of upholding the opportunity for freedom & self governance ( Vietnam, California and Massachussets?) but do we give up now? And at what cost later.

I can comprehend the standpoint of folks against this war, but I feel anyone against the troops themselves are against their neighbor's (children) Glad they identify themselves, so publicly now while the war is on foreign shores. Plenty of vets got "their" back when war comes back here again...Vets keep score.

Consider that there are folks who have been at "war" with us for a bunch of years...it took the blow of 9-11 for us to overtly strike back. The glass of restraint only holds so much water, and as a (the most?) powerful nation, the rest of the world ought to count their blessings we use our might with dignity and restraint...

If elected President, I'd nuke Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India and No Korea in a TOT just because them damn things go stale sitting around. Send in the mighty US Cavalry afterwards.

[woody]

Originally posted by woody
If elected President, I'd nuke Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India and No Korea in a TOT just because them damn things go stale sitting around. Send in the mighty US Cavalry afterwards.

Probably ought to nuke the Columbians and bolivians too since they are part of the problem & not part of the solution

[Pat]

i dont know if any of you have read this, but my mom sent this to me and i thought some of you might find some interest in it...


Pat
NAXJA member

--sorry for the length, i dont have a link--


A LESSON TO MY SON
By A PROUD AMERICAN
Irma S. Chambers
The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him:
"Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbors houses." he replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country." my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son....what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you don son?!"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help.
What do you do then son?!"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says. "Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?"
Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"
"What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?!!!"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?!!!"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him...
"Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who need it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself...Daddy.....I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him....
"Son"
"Yes, Daddy."
"Open the blinds because that man....he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?!!!!"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up this tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes,without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries...
"It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.
THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all.
Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove this evil man from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window and see crimes on humanity. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him.
Today the second day of "WAR on IRAQ" I felt compelled to write this and pass it along. Hopefully, you will understand the lesson my husband tried to teach our son.
"YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA!! SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."

[Ed A. Stevens]

Great story Pat, thanks for sharing.

I don't know much about how other people learn to separate support for your nation's Troops and opposition to a specific war, but I'll offer a little history.

Before WWII few American people understood the threat from Japan, except some of the folks on the West Coast. The Chinese who settled (some say enslaved) in California to work on the railroads learned from family what was happening to the Chinese in Manchuria (wholesale slaughter & genocide) and urged the USA to enter this war. This demand for war with Japan was well before the Pearl Harbor attack. This is where some of the support for the Flying Tigers and the unofficial USA assistance in the defense of Nationalist China began. Many of these "Chinese-Americans" (I added the quotes because they demanded to be called Americans, without the hyphen) opposed war with Germany and Italy, but fully supported war with Japan. These folks were very unpopular for their anti-European position before the USA entry into WWII.

Some of these Americans joined the USA military without supporting war against Germany and Italy, with an attitude of "why fight for those who will not fight for themselves (the French)", even as it was the only Theatre of Operations they were allow to fight. They joined to fight Japan, were not allowed to fight Japan, and only learned to support the war with Germany and Italy when they lost friends in the European Theatre.

Sometimes the threat needs to be close to home and family to make it real enough to support. Support for one war (or opposition to one war) may not equate support (or opposition) to all wars.

Opposition to a specific war does not equal opposition to national unity (a motive that people need to recognize when observing the protesters). Are the protestors against the Iraq war or against the USA as a nation (or against the residing President)?

I can ignore those against the Iraq war (or war on principle), but I cannot excuse those who exploit the opportunity of wartime opposition to demonstrate against the USA as a nation (or the President). I would feel different if these anti-USA (and anti-Bush) demonstrators choose to separate their protests from the anti-war protests. I believe if the protest permits demanded this separation it would make the distinction easier between an anti-war stance, and the anti-USA stance so many exhibit (including an easier ideological distinction between the anti-Iraq-war position of folks like Eagle, and the unyielding anti-Bush clans.)

The act of protest against war is not disrespectful (IMO) to military, but to exploit the ongoing anti-war protests, to falsely add the appearance of numbers to a selfish cry against the nation's government or President is dishonest (to all citizens).

Observe the protestors and identify the motivation, before engaging in battle with the imposters.

[5-90]

Pat -
I like the story, and it illustrates what is going on here, as well as my own argument against the Iraqi conflict NOW - it should have been done 12 years ago when we were already there. I guess Hussein's on his third neighbour by now? He should have been dealt with when he first got out of line.

The threat then - to the Middle East, if nowhere else - was just as real as a punch in the nose. If we cared enough to have gotten involved, we should have cared enough to have finished the job. The political dimension should be cast aside when it comes to war - war is what happens when negotiations fail. If Hussein could have been stopped without removal, that time is now long past. He's gotten away with too much.

5-90