Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
 |
More on Iraq
Politics of War
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
2003-03-28
21 KB |
|
|
 |
 y last article has definitely earned some responses, both kinds. Many agree, a few disagree, a few more disagree in part, and still others don't seem to get parts of what I was saying; either because they don't want to, are incapable, or I wasn't clear enough. So what the heck, how about a few clarifications.
      
I not only want to know what people are doing, but why. Sometimes we sum up and over simplify the response; but there's still a grain a truth.
Why is France against the war? Because they've been selling arms to Iraq, and they resent the U.S. and want to push their beliefs on us and the world (and be significant again, like they once were). They've also tied up huge oil contracts with Iraq, and were making money. It is about money and power. That's why they are so shrill against the U.S., and why they accuse us of wanting to do what they've been doing. That's fine; live with the consequences.
Why is Russia against the war? Because they've been selling arms to Iraq, and Iraq owes them money and oil, and the current regime likes them, and they don't want this to change.
Why is China against the war? Because they have done much worse than Saddam, and on a larger scale, and they don't want to set a precedent where morals have anything to do with governance, because it might come back to haunt them.
Why is Germany or many Arab countries against the war? Because it is popular to be against it, or would be unpopular to support it; which isn't the same as being correct or righteous. So it is self-interests and popularity. There's also the whole "vogue" thing about resenting the rich and powerful, which is the U.S. Since when has clique's and mobs been the paragon of human morality or righteousness?
Why is the U.S.'s for the war? Because we feel the costs of war is less than the costs of NOT going to war. Saddam's said he wants to do us harm, and is developing the tools to do so. So mostly it is about safety and human rights. We don't like this despots actions (towards his people and others), we don't like the destabilizing effect he's had on the region (and believe that even going through a war can only help), and we're tired of being attacked or told that we don't do anything for Arabs/Muslims. Most of all, we don't like watching tyrants fragrantly disregarding international law, and our own code of ethics, while others sit around rationalizing it for profit. Eventually our sense of justice kicks in, especially when they threaten us.
Sometimes it takes something like 9/11 gets our attention for a while - and you're really better off without that. Leave us alone, and we'll mostly leave you alone. We meddle too much; but it's mostly minor stuff. Yes, a little money and oil has something to do with it; but we're fine and mostly minding our own business. And we have enough oil and money, and we're spending more money to save Arab lives than we are ever likely to get out of them. Just ask the French who've never paid a nickel towards their war debt to us, and were instead forgiven those debts. So this obviously isn't about just money. Morons that claim it is, just make themselves look stupid (in my book).
Now given those motives, I honestly believe that the U.S. motives are more pure and just than all the alternatives combined. So it isn't just about what's popular, but about whose right. You can read more on that in my article Who is right?
        
I'm in a particularly bad mood towards actors, but the peaceniks in general. Just what we need is another generation of traitorous Jane Fonda's (or Sean Penn's) running around, giving comfort to the enemy, prolonging the war, and harming the morale of the country.
I think when you compare the President, his education, his staff, their education, the intelligence and foreign policy staffs, and all the information on the governments side, to a few semi-educated actors and arm-chair Presidents, then the President is more likely to be better informed, and better able to make good foreign policy decisions.
Some people think they know more, and are all too willing to tell the world about it; but they have a special vehemence and intolerance towards republicans (while claiming to be tolerant and open minded).
I feel that since a lot of people follow actors based on popularity, that they have a bigger responsibility for what they say than the average person, so they should research what they say, and have a responsibility in how they say it. I don't feel they've done that particularly well.
Yes, I feel that actors are entitled to their opinions. I just feel that I should be as entitled to mine, and to call whiney little attention starved liberal know-it-all's just what I think they are, and why.
 
Look, once war starts, you have to convince one side to stop fighting for it to end. You don't do that by trying to get the stronger side (morally and physically) to stop. You don't do it by rooting on the weaker side to all throw themselves in front of tanks or die fighting for an unjust cause. Both only get more people killed.
The way to end war, once it starts, is to go through it; and win it as quickly and humanely as is possible. Sometimes it isn't quick or humane; so don't start wars. But don't drag them on longer than they have to.
The way to shorten a war is to convince the other side that we have the conviction and power to win, so they might as well give up and end it, and save as many lives as they can. No mercy, win first. Then once the war is over, you can afford compassion and you go back to giving and helping and trying to prolong the peace (or guarantee it in the future). Warriors get this. Morons don't.
The actors and peaceniks are encouraging more unneeded deaths, and a prolonged war. That's good for no one. I realize they probably mean well, but that doesn't change that they are being idiots, and only hurting more people than they are helping. Their stupid hatred of war, is making them ignore why the war is happening, and how to end it quicker, how to save more lives, and how to avoid it in the future. They think that by making it more costly to us, that it won't happen again; but history has proven them wrong. Making it more costly to the enemy, or un-winnable to fight (for the enemy), that will help guarantee the peace (for longer).
Face it. If the Iraqi's, and Arabs in general, hadn't been convinced that we would run at the first sign of blood, or never fight in the first place, then they might have been more wise and accommodating, and this whole thing could have been avoided. Instead, they need to learn that they are not the only ones with hubris, pride and moral perpetude (and self-righteousness); but that we also have the power to get our way. Might doesn't make right; but it does end wars quicker. When the sides are evenly balanced, they last longer.
You want to see what the peaceniks are doing? They are causing more deaths. This war may not have happened if it wasn't for the fact that the other side believed that we would not go to war, or that we would not fight to win. The peace protests over Vietnam, and our loss of conviction, is what directly caused the killing fields of Cambodia. The CIA knew what would happened, and told us; but the peaceniks didn't care about a bunch of slanty-eyed south Asians, any more than they care about the towel headed Arabs getting slaughtered by their own people. They hate the U.S., and it's policies, and use peace as a ruse. They care about their own beliefs, and screw the rest of the world. They'll spin it differently, but I buy actions not words.
The problem is, in a war, you have a choice; which side do you support. Peace protests and comfort to the enemy will be used in the propaganda war to demoralize the other side, and to prolong the war or get more people killed. Things get pushed to the extremes in war; choose a side. I'm for ending the war quicker, thus I'm for supporting our troops and our country.
  
War isn't only about the current conflict, but the future. What does this say to the world about dealing with us. I think that's one of the most important things about a war.
Some are under the illusion that because of Vietnam, or some actions like Mogadishu or Lebanon (Beruit) that at the first sign of blood, we'll go hide under a rock. For that reason alone, I think the world needs to learn a lesson about American resolve.
Our warriors are some of the best in the world. We haven't been fighting because we are afraid to fight, or because it is unpopular politically. (OK, that may be the reason for why a few selfish politicians avoided responsibility, but I'm not sure it always matched the will of the people). But in the end, there hasn't been a cause that we cared enough about to fight. It's just been apathy. Lord help those who give us a cause; and killing too many of us gave us a cause.
So if you kill too many of us, or do it in the wrong way, you aren't going to get apathy any more; you're going to get retribution. It will take a lot more than what most countries have in them to ever get past that again and break our resolve; best not to try.
While I would never wish for this fight, I think it is demonstrating to the world, that you can kill American troops, but our will is strong. We are far stronger than most have given us credit for. Ask those who underestimated us in the past; most of them have been replaced or dominated. Ask Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, England or others. So watch that you don't wake the sleeping giant; and consider yourself lucky that most of your little taunts aren't even worth responding to.
Those that say that we are imperialist tyrants are ignorant of history. We have no interests in dominating other countries; we do like our own self-interests, but that's not the same thing. So those that say we are out to conquer Iraq are fools; ask Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, England or others.
All those countries that have been saying we are meddling brutes throwing around our weight to get what we want, need a real example of what that looks like just so they can contrast that with our casual oafish political clumsiness; so that in the future they can tell the difference. This will allow us to live in peace (in the future) much more than in the recent past, because they will learn respect or fear; either works far better for world peace than their own foolish arrogance or delusions that we are a bunch of rich wimps.
International politics is like the rules of the playground; for you to have any respect, you have to have a bit of a reputation. I hated earning one, but sometimes that was better than the injustices required to live without one.
Look, there is no such thing as peace at any cost. You can't buy peace without sacrifice, and often the cost of peace is war.
The way to peace is to convince people that they don't want to fight. For some that's done by talking. Others it can be done by guilt. For a few, it is to convince them that to fight you is too expensive. Others it is too ignore them. Still others will leave you with no choice. Sometimes they make a choice where it is kill them or they will kill you. There are some not so nice people in this world. That's life.
This isn't Ghandi, Jesus Christ, or MLK, where just having sit-ins will convince Saddam to stop gassing his people or making chemical and biological weapons; and in case you forget, things didn't end that well for any of those examples. I don't want to live in a country that will allow it's people to get killed and not fight back. I want a country that is "live and let live", but if you hurt them, they'll remind you and everyone else what the costs are. Let us live in peace, or else.
I respect what those peaceful leaders did, and others like them. And they have a right to throw away their own lives for their cause. The don't have the right to throw away mine, or my families. I feel I have a responsibility to my friends, allies and family to not just roll over and play dead when I see something wrong. You don't like it, don't threaten me or convince me that it is a choice between me and you; you won't be happy with my choice.
So when choice is over, you are no longer choosing about fighting or not (the other side is making that choice for you), but choosing which wrong is more intolerable; allowing the status quo, or the costs of changing it. If we have to make that choice, then you might not like the choices we make. Tough. Don't make us make that choice, and things will be fine.
If we had left Saddam in power, he was going to continue to sponsor terrorists, continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, continue to torture his people, continue to threaten his neighbors, continue to sponsor our enemies, continue to lie and spit vehemence at us, and continue to be a threat. He'd already promised to do what he could to destroy or harm us. So if I'm given the choice between me or you dying, I'm probably going to choose you.
Some silly people think we should just put daisies in our gun barrels and then they wouldn't hate us. That shows incredible ignorant naivete; usually that stupidity is terminal - fortunately not all of us are that stupid. I don't think war is good, or always right. But sometimes the cost of peace is too high. Other times the cost of peace is war. If you don't like that, then don't make me make a choice that you won't like the answer to.
  
Look, I realize why the Arabs hate us. I realize that many do, and are blind spitting irrational about it. So what? They hate us for being. They hate us for being rich and powerful, for not allowing them to wipe all Jews from "their continent" (or the world). They hate us for not doing more for them. They hate us for doing more for them, than they do for themselves. For us not tolerating more of the intolerable. They hate us for action, and inaction. They resent our size, power and money. They resent our arrogance. This isn't unique to Arabs, and seems fairly universal in the 3rd world and some of the 1st world as well. So what? This is their problem and not ours (unless they make it ours).
There is no amount of platitudes that are going to appease many (most) of them. I think most are hypocrites. Put most cultures in our position of power, and they would have been far, far, FAR more corrupted by that power than we have been. I don't think we are pure, or haven't been corrupted; just better than they are. The present and history prove it. Look at history, and we are lambs. That doesn't mean I think we have not abused that power, or that we can do no wrong; just that we are 1,000 times better than most of them, so I give most of their hypocritical ramblings the value and respect that they deserve.
We are doing more to save the lives of Arabs and Muslims, and improve the lives of Arabs and Muslims than most of them are. Saddam is far more willing to kill or hurt his people than we are. We are risking American lives to save them, and costing far more lives and money to do as little harm as possible. That's far better than any of the other Arab countries would do. So they can babble their little hate speeches about the U.S., and I'll continue to treat them like the ranting impotent hypocritical teenagers that they are behaving like.
When a teen says "you never give me what I want", do you just give in? Or do you act like the parent and sometimes do things they don't like, no matter how bad they bitch and moan? The Arabs are behaving like teens with guns. Obviously Hollywood and some others want to give them whatever they want in the moment, damn the long term consequences. I'm not so sure that's always the correct path.
Now on the other hand, if they come back with rational arguments, and act like rational humans. And stop trying to tie every conflict back to Israel, and stop trying to glorify the death of Americans as a good thing, and they step up to their responsibilities with helping us and themselves, and so on; then I will go back to treating them with the respect that their behavior deserves.
When they are calling us evil Zionists, I'll laugh at them and mock them in ways that their own actions are begging for; and walk away shaking my head at the silly, ignorant, irrational fools. They are still in the 12th century culturally, because they refuse to mature and grow. That's fine; leave us out of it, and things are fine. Make us get involved, and you won't like the results.
I understand that other cultures may not see human rights the same as we do, and that perceptions vary. Mostly I agree with live and let live. But I don't agree that all things are morally equal either. When the Indian or Arab men are killing women over some issue about honor or chastity or clothing, I think that goes beyond just cultural differences.
And just to remind you, they are being as ethnocentric (and hypocritical) to assume that my views are any less valid than theirs too. So the little cultural bigotry thing cuts both ways. They've proven in their own countries, that if they had the power they would be completely intolerant to anyone that disagrees with their beliefs; then they whine when we are 1,000 times more tolerant to those that disagree with ours. They can be hypocrites, but I don't have to put much weight on their hypocrisy; and I don't put much weight on fools opinions that do.
We will help you and give you money and support, if you do things that don't offend our morality too much. If you do, then we might stop helping you as much. You can whine and bitch, but it is hypocritical because we all know that you would do the same. And if you do too much what we disagree with in front of us, we might get involved. What about a culture that believes that fathers should be their daughters first sexual experience; would you watch a rape of a child and say, "oh well, just cultural differences", or would you try to stop it. Again, you aren't choosing what is always right, but sometimes about what is the least wrong; and if you make me choose that, you might not like the choice I make.
In the end, we'll both be who we are. We'll try to protect human rights (the ones we value), especially our own, and they'll do the same. They'll not like our ethnocentric views, and we'll not like theirs. And we will both try to influence the world. The difference is that we aren't naively or ignorantly running around spewing these hypocritical things, like that it is OK for them to abuse other Arabs (or Muslims) because they are Arabs, but it is wrong for us to stop some Arabs from torturing other Arabs, because we're not as much Arab as they are? I'll see that for the two faced ignorant ramblings that it is; whether it comes from the Black, Asian, Arab or Latino communities, and whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or Taoists.
Yes, I realize the U.S. is ethnocentric and pushes their morals on other cultures. Yes, I realize they don't like that much. Yes, I realize all the other things why people don't like us, here, there, or over yonder. So what? This isn't about what we did in Panama, or to the Native Americans, or sponsoring Israel, and so on. Ignorant fools trying to rationalize their hatred and bigotries are the ones arguing that. But trying to tie one thing to another, is just a rationalize for hate or foolishness; again, I'll give that the respect it deserves.
This war is about THIS war. It is about this tyrant and his actions. It is about the threats to our nation. He's convinced us that he is a threat. 9/11 and WWII convinced many Americans that we can't just live in peace and isolation, or ignore tyrants indefinitely. Now Saddam lives with the consequences.
Others are against this because if we have the conviction to go after him, then we might do it to them. So they aren't against Saddam, they are against anything that would force them to be judged. And don't get me wrong; I realize the U.S. is sometimes hypocritical. But only the morons of the world are making some of these silly arguments.
Honestly, if you can't tell the difference between the U.S. slightly spinning the wars progress in their favor through many independent news agencies, and a state controlled media spewing propeganda and misinformation, that's your problem. The same with the difference between showing a few POW's that have surrendered, and showing beaten or murdered POW's and glorifying their deaths, then that too is your problem. The same with trying to tie stupid and unrelated things; like the U.S. doing it's best to save Arab lives and shoot around civilians, and a corrupt regime hiding amongst their civilians to maximize collateral damage. Or between the U.S. following the rules of war, and the Arabs glorifying breaking them. There are differences here; and if you can't understand them, then your IQ is beneath contempt and pushing outright pity. And the countries that institutionalize this are also beneath contempt as well.
Not all morals are equal, nor are all views. I hardly care about yours, I do care about mine. You don't want to deal with my world view (and the consequences), then stay out of my world. Fly below my radar and stay out of my face, and maybe I won't notice. This is tolerance. I'll ignore the stupid and those who I think deserve contempt. Right up until their stupidity risks my lives or the lives of those I care about. At some point, they can raise the risks for all of us, to the point where I need to take them out, before they take all of us out. And in the end, the average intelligence of humanity will only go up by some small amount when they are all eliminated. Don't thank me (or attack me) for this truth - thank Darwin. Such is life.
 Restore Navigation  Mail
|
|
|
|
