The War - How do ya like it so far?

Blatham--
Now that you have handed me your humility, it will have to be stripped from my cold, dead claws. :wink:

I understand your comment, and receive your careful explanation as a courtesy.

Tartarin and edgarblythe-- I have explained my reasoning for support of this war a gabillion times in other locales, and I'm sure you have heard them ad nauseum from others. I didn't want to ignore your question, but this predictable drama of explaining and refuting and explaining and... I don't want to entertain again.

So, I'll put out the skeleton view, but may not come back and forth over points. Hope you understand.

Its the basic Stablization of the ME, resulting in a decrease of terrorism argument. The door opener was Saddam funding terrorism, but since this couldn't be proven, Bush used the Non-Compliance with Gulf War cease fire agreement Door, with WMD on the side.

I am one who believes the ME has been broiling and raging for decades and 911 wasn't anything compared to what we would soon have to deal with, had we not acted. I would rather our military fight in Iraq, than our citizens die here, helplessly and for the rest of time. And, I believe that is what we would be facing, had we not acted. I am aware that the war could make things worse before they get better. I am aware that things may not have the desired affect. I am aware that some have forwarded this psychological fear thing, and say Bush et al are scaring me into agreement. I am not scared. I looked at the same chessboard you did, and came to a different conclusion. I have considered many of the possible pitfalls, and they don't deter me from believing ultimately that the goal, and the results of inaction, override everything else.
<tired, resigned, small smile>

KRYPTONITE.

(Mean be-haired cowboy.)

my signature Fiat Lux = let there be light

I won't post pictures of children crying for their dead parents, circa 911. Or flaming towers collapsing on firefighters...


I don't think the deaths on either side in Iraq has met the number of deaths Americans suffered in that one single terrorist attack here. And, I have no doubt this war is saving more lives than it is ending. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support it.

Dyslexia. Could you support any war for any reason?

Could you doubt Bush for any reason?

I doubt almost everyone for good reason.

The last time I looked, it was Osama and his goons who were responsible for 9/11.

If you can't find Osama bomb Iraq!

Looks that way! Hey, atleast no one is talking about Enron anymore! Hmmmm....

Sophia

Reference to 9-11 is relevant exactly how, in relationship to Iraq?

What model are you assuming might come to pass in the ME such that you posit 'stability' as a consequence of this war, and reduced terrorism as a consequence of stability? I'll be quite happy to look at this with you in some detail, and I think that's the way we'd have to go about the discussion. I agree such an outcome would be desirable, but I presently don't share your confidence that military threat will do the trick (Israel/Palestine being the obvious example of such a strategy apparently failing).

I do agree with one point - It gets both sickening and frustrating to have to argue your position over and over. Unfortunately, only the most tenacious prevail in politics.

edgar

It's true. One can have nearly the same conversation repeatedly, and it does get tiresome. On the other hand, one does bump into new challenges to ideas and assumptions too. And there is pedagogical value from going over something multiple times. And tenacity is requisite in community activism, it's true.

Wanted also to let Sophia know I loved her little 'cold, hard claws' gag.

Yes. Where I part company with Sophia is over preemption. And the connection with 9/11. The 9/11 matter is incomplete. We don't know what caused it (and don't seem to want to know). We pretty well know Iraq didn't. We evidently want to believe that we can move our fighting machine anywhere and clean things up. I've told you about how I feel about people who want to go to other people houses and clean things up. We are definitely not preventing another 9/11 from happening by going into Iraq. Most agree that we are setting ourselves up for worse trouble. And the bottom line is that we are killing people. Do I think our leaders have other motives which would cause Sophia and other decent pro-invasion folks to toss their cookies if they knew the whole story? Ah shor dew.

Blatham
Yes, I agree. I recall that in the beginning I half-heartedly bought the assumption that "it's all about oil." I knew Bush's plaintive whine that "He tried to kill my daddy" was a ploy to gain sympathy. I had no way of knowing about the men Bush assembled to make his policy for him, although I should have kept better informed. I see now the Military-Industrial Complex consuming everything in its path, working in conjunction with right wingers so extreme as to be in the lunatic fringe, coming on with a plan to pacify the world. Frankly, I don't know how far they will take the world before the wheels come off.

[IMG]file:///C:/My%20Documents/joke.gif[/IMG]

Darn, it didn't work.

edgarblythe said:

I do agree with one point - It gets both sickening and frustrating to have to argue your position over and over. Unfortunately, only the most tenacious prevail in politics.
***********************
...and he is correct. The key insight to my conversation here is I do not attempt to prevail. I shared my view. As Gezzy, snood and possibly someone else I've forgotten proved--the statement of beliefs about the war often devolve into Enron, oil, and blanket partisan shots, which are used to take away from the focal discussion and begin a useless 'gotcha' game. In this frustrating circle of accusations, nothing is learned and hard feelings often result. I wish people could discuss some issues without involving partisan politics.

Basic debate involves links with proof. I don't seek a debate on this subject, because my beliefs have not yet been proven; they are based on strong feeling, and my own observations of history and media. I believe Saddam has WMD, and either has or would have shared these and his considerable financial backing with terrorists to strengthen their attacks on us and others.

I believe as our forces clean out terrorist camps and cells in Iraq, we increase our safety and hurt terrorism as a whole. I also think Bush putting muscle behind his statement, "If a state supports terrorism, we will go after the state" is being viewed very carefully by other states, which currently sponser terrorism. Additionally, I think alot of terrorism is bred due to the lack of truthful information about the US. Many Iraqis greeted US soldiers believing Bush was taking over their country and would be their new President. This is what they had been told by their gov. Adding our news to the nutty one-sided news in the ME will at least give them an option.

Re: the thread topic-- We are in Baghdad, and so far, so good. I want it to be over.


Blatham--

And, I really should have said, re: Israel...

Have you heard the 60's argument that black Americans are more prone to crime because of sincere want and poverty? I think there's something to that, and it translates perfectly to the ME.

A democratically elected Iraqi gov., rich in oil and not being robbed of quality of life by Saddam, will most likely not be so Hell-bent on the destruction of Israel. They will be happily spending their money and finally living as a rich nation should.

They will be less inclined to fall behind the hate rhetoric espoused by their religious leaders, IMO. Shades of Hitler...when things were bad with the German economy, he pointed his finger at the national scapegoat. The Iraqis have lived in misery, and human nature needs an outlet for hate and frustration. Boy, the Jews always fit so neatly...

Bush has the Roadmap to Peace sitting on his desk. He will move on this swiftly, and in concert with the new Iraqi gov., and I do believe this is the recipe for peace in the region. Overnight? Nah. But a strong beginning.

As I said before, the risks are great, but the goal is worthy. IMO.

disputed by some experts ((emphasis mine)LA Times

The italicized portion above should, for accuracy's sake, read:

"despite absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever"

And the headline should read:

"BUSH ATTEMPTS TO CONVINCE MORON-AMERICANS THAT SADDAM WAS BEHIND 9/11 HAVE SUCCEEDED."