Thursday, November 30, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
I am writing in reply to something you wrote – a response to one of your students, Tyler W-. I’ve been meaning to put my thoughts down on some of these issues for a long time, and this provided the stimulus.
My goal here is not to change your mind or attack your beliefs in any way. My goal is simply to present my side (and the side of those like me) in hopes of bridging a better understanding. I admire your convictions and, honestly, wish that I could share them. While I don’t agree with you on many things, I don’t see the harm in that. You obviously love America, and your beliefs reflect that. I hope that, after you read this, you’ll see that I too love America and that my beliefs reflect that love as well.
First, let me agree with you on a few things. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator (not too many people rise to dictatorship by being fair and impartial). It is good that he has been removed from power. Also, I do agree that the US is in a no-win situation, that if we go in to someplace, people get angry, and if we sit back and do nothing, people get angry. We do a lot of good that often goes unrecognized (for example, Israel - I laud our leaders for sticking by the Israelites).
However…
I’ve stood against the war in Iraq since its inception more than three years ago. There are a few things you should know about my stance before I give my reasons.
First, I’m not one to jump on the bandwagon – when the war started, it was unpopular to be against it, and I was.
Secondly, I’m not one to bash the President just because he is a Republican. I’ve rooted for the man several times (and even find myself liking him – as a person – on many occasions). I have been disappointed by his policies – greatly so – but I feel that I did give him a chance. I rooted for him after September 11th, but became disillusioned when he gave his, “You’re either with us or against us,” speech. This associated people who were for peace (me) with people who sympathized with terrorists, and divided the country at a time when we were at out most united. And secondly, after Hurricane Katrina, I actually said, “Show me something, George. Be a leader.” And I hoped. His response to this was (in my opinion) almost wholly inept – to the point that even his staunchest supporters had trouble putting a positive spin on it. But – I did try. I think he is a decent person at heart, but (IMO) this does not a good president make.
Thirdly, I think that there have been necessary wars – not good wars but necessary ones. World War II, for instance, had to be fought. Whether we got into it too late is a debate for another time (and one I’m not knowledgeable enough for), but from what I’ve learned, it needed to happen. And the strike against Afghanistan in October 2001 (removing the Taliban from power) was something that I saw the need for.
So, that being said…here’s why I am against the war. I’m no genius, and I know that there is always more to the picture than meets the eye, but here is where I stand.
The Iraq War is not a war that I have ever seen the need for. I am definitely in support of protecting this country and encouraging peace around the world, but I’ve honestly been unable to see how this war will accomplish these things. It seems to me to be working at cross-purposes with the stated agenda behind it.
The proponents of the war (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield) presented their arguments in a very forceful way, appealing mostly to fear and emotion. I’ve learned that, if someone is trying to persuade me appealing to fear or emotion predominantly, that his or her arguments are most likely unsound. George Bush’s speeches (in my mind) were very short on logic and filled with loaded words (freedom, justice, tyranny, murder, heroism, terrorism etc) and irrational sentiment (“We must drag these killers of innocent Americans into the light and bring them to justice”) …I feel there is no place for newspeak and emotive language such as this in a logical line of reasoning.
Here’s a quote that I think illuminates my point of view very well:
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."- Herman Goering, speaking at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII
George Bush claimed only three months before the war started that Saddam was no longer a threat, that he was in complete accord with UN and CIA inspections, and that he “constituted no risk to America or our allies.” At that time, Iraq was under such heavy sanctions that even medicine could not get through.
George Bush has claimed that Saddam was connected to Osama bin Laden. This has been proven untrue. This reasoning never convinced me, and now it is no longer cited as a reason for the war. Genghis Kahn used to avoid the Middle East on his forays, because the culture was such that wars lasted for thousands of years – it’s a culture that, love it or loathe it, you don’t want to stir up needlessly.
George Bush claimed that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction – this has also been proven untrue. Whether you believe the President that the CIA was at fault, or believe the CIA who have claimed that the entire regime was told of the lack of WMD’s as far back as March of 2003 (before the war), it’s still a tough situation. (And the world worked for fifty years to get the UN to where it is – it was not perfect but it was functioning. And by ignoring the UN and invading Iraq, we have enfeebled and rendered it irrelevant.)
I agree with you about America being in a no-win situation (as I said before), but much of this seems to be our doing. If you believe the estimates, Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds. But this was in 1988 – it was international news and we still did business with him for three years after this. Only in 2003 did this become an issue with the American people. And we claimed that we were taking action, among other things, to bring aid the people of Iraq; why, then, did we secure the oil fields surrounding Baghdad so quickly (April of 2003) and leave pressing human rights issues unanswered (I’ve read that 75% of Baghdad is still without power, water, police, and hospitals.) Much of this is not in our control, but it does make me wonder as to the motivations of the preemptive strike.
And if we indeed did this to liberate Iraq and oil was not an issue, our actions make little sense in the global scheme. Our principal trading partner and foremost ally (China) is unparalleled in its inhumane treatment of its citizens. And in the Sudan, where no one is doing anything, more that 400,000 people have died in the past two years (at least 390,000 more than have died in Iraq under Hussein). If our actions are altruistic, it makes no sense that we haven’t taken at least some action in the latter two places. We’re the richest and most powerful country in the world, and to whom much is given, much is expected.
In conclusion, I just can’t support the war – I have not been convinced that it was the right thing to do. This doesn’t mean that I don’t support the troops (I feel truly heartbroken that they’ve gone through what they’ve gone through), or that I think we should pull out of Iraq (that is not an option). I just hope that this kind of decision-making is not repeated. Our country is as fiercely divided as its been in years, our allies in Europe see George Bush’s presidency as the single greatest threat to world peace, our national debt is an imaginary number (nine trillion dollars), and there is no end in sight to the war, which some estimate will cost American taxpayers over 1 trillion dollars. If I am paying for something, I want to believe in it…Sadly, I do not. And despite what some people will say, it’s not Un-American, or weak, or kooky, to point out errors in logic, or to have questions, or to disagree with the government – in fact, it’s very American to do these things.
(Note: I was no big fan of Bill Clinton, but I find it ironic that the people who disagreed with him most vehemently are the ones who label people with my opinions Un-American for not supporting and agreeing with the President.)
To quote Neil Young, “I fold my hands and pray for peace.” I agree with you that “you either believe in, totally support, love and be willing to die for this great country, or get the hell out.” I totally support and love this country – that’s exactly why I am so against this war. I think America is a beautiful place with a great spirit – it’s just (IMO) not being run very well. My hope is for someone who can bring us back together. As much as I think it’d be cool to have a woman in the White House, I just don’t think Hillary is the answer right now (she’s just too divisive). We need a leader who is not in the position solely for love or want of power, who will look beyond the private investors to the greater good, who will speak to us not with propaganda and loaded words (and thus appeal only to fear and emotion as motivators) but will speak to us calmly, logically, and intelligently.
My goal here is not to change your mind or attack your beliefs in any way. My goal is simply to present my side (and the side of those like me) in hopes of bridging a better understanding. I admire your convictions and, honestly, wish that I could share them. While I don’t agree with you on many things, I don’t see the harm in that. You obviously love America, and your beliefs reflect that. I hope that, after you read this, you’ll see that I too love America and that my beliefs reflect that love as well.
First, let me agree with you on a few things. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator (not too many people rise to dictatorship by being fair and impartial). It is good that he has been removed from power. Also, I do agree that the US is in a no-win situation, that if we go in to someplace, people get angry, and if we sit back and do nothing, people get angry. We do a lot of good that often goes unrecognized (for example, Israel - I laud our leaders for sticking by the Israelites).
However…
I’ve stood against the war in Iraq since its inception more than three years ago. There are a few things you should know about my stance before I give my reasons.
First, I’m not one to jump on the bandwagon – when the war started, it was unpopular to be against it, and I was.
Secondly, I’m not one to bash the President just because he is a Republican. I’ve rooted for the man several times (and even find myself liking him – as a person – on many occasions). I have been disappointed by his policies – greatly so – but I feel that I did give him a chance. I rooted for him after September 11th, but became disillusioned when he gave his, “You’re either with us or against us,” speech. This associated people who were for peace (me) with people who sympathized with terrorists, and divided the country at a time when we were at out most united. And secondly, after Hurricane Katrina, I actually said, “Show me something, George. Be a leader.” And I hoped. His response to this was (in my opinion) almost wholly inept – to the point that even his staunchest supporters had trouble putting a positive spin on it. But – I did try. I think he is a decent person at heart, but (IMO) this does not a good president make.
Thirdly, I think that there have been necessary wars – not good wars but necessary ones. World War II, for instance, had to be fought. Whether we got into it too late is a debate for another time (and one I’m not knowledgeable enough for), but from what I’ve learned, it needed to happen. And the strike against Afghanistan in October 2001 (removing the Taliban from power) was something that I saw the need for.
So, that being said…here’s why I am against the war. I’m no genius, and I know that there is always more to the picture than meets the eye, but here is where I stand.
The Iraq War is not a war that I have ever seen the need for. I am definitely in support of protecting this country and encouraging peace around the world, but I’ve honestly been unable to see how this war will accomplish these things. It seems to me to be working at cross-purposes with the stated agenda behind it.
The proponents of the war (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield) presented their arguments in a very forceful way, appealing mostly to fear and emotion. I’ve learned that, if someone is trying to persuade me appealing to fear or emotion predominantly, that his or her arguments are most likely unsound. George Bush’s speeches (in my mind) were very short on logic and filled with loaded words (freedom, justice, tyranny, murder, heroism, terrorism etc) and irrational sentiment (“We must drag these killers of innocent Americans into the light and bring them to justice”) …I feel there is no place for newspeak and emotive language such as this in a logical line of reasoning.
Here’s a quote that I think illuminates my point of view very well:
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."- Herman Goering, speaking at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII
George Bush claimed only three months before the war started that Saddam was no longer a threat, that he was in complete accord with UN and CIA inspections, and that he “constituted no risk to America or our allies.” At that time, Iraq was under such heavy sanctions that even medicine could not get through.
George Bush has claimed that Saddam was connected to Osama bin Laden. This has been proven untrue. This reasoning never convinced me, and now it is no longer cited as a reason for the war. Genghis Kahn used to avoid the Middle East on his forays, because the culture was such that wars lasted for thousands of years – it’s a culture that, love it or loathe it, you don’t want to stir up needlessly.
George Bush claimed that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction – this has also been proven untrue. Whether you believe the President that the CIA was at fault, or believe the CIA who have claimed that the entire regime was told of the lack of WMD’s as far back as March of 2003 (before the war), it’s still a tough situation. (And the world worked for fifty years to get the UN to where it is – it was not perfect but it was functioning. And by ignoring the UN and invading Iraq, we have enfeebled and rendered it irrelevant.)
I agree with you about America being in a no-win situation (as I said before), but much of this seems to be our doing. If you believe the estimates, Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds. But this was in 1988 – it was international news and we still did business with him for three years after this. Only in 2003 did this become an issue with the American people. And we claimed that we were taking action, among other things, to bring aid the people of Iraq; why, then, did we secure the oil fields surrounding Baghdad so quickly (April of 2003) and leave pressing human rights issues unanswered (I’ve read that 75% of Baghdad is still without power, water, police, and hospitals.) Much of this is not in our control, but it does make me wonder as to the motivations of the preemptive strike.
And if we indeed did this to liberate Iraq and oil was not an issue, our actions make little sense in the global scheme. Our principal trading partner and foremost ally (China) is unparalleled in its inhumane treatment of its citizens. And in the Sudan, where no one is doing anything, more that 400,000 people have died in the past two years (at least 390,000 more than have died in Iraq under Hussein). If our actions are altruistic, it makes no sense that we haven’t taken at least some action in the latter two places. We’re the richest and most powerful country in the world, and to whom much is given, much is expected.
In conclusion, I just can’t support the war – I have not been convinced that it was the right thing to do. This doesn’t mean that I don’t support the troops (I feel truly heartbroken that they’ve gone through what they’ve gone through), or that I think we should pull out of Iraq (that is not an option). I just hope that this kind of decision-making is not repeated. Our country is as fiercely divided as its been in years, our allies in Europe see George Bush’s presidency as the single greatest threat to world peace, our national debt is an imaginary number (nine trillion dollars), and there is no end in sight to the war, which some estimate will cost American taxpayers over 1 trillion dollars. If I am paying for something, I want to believe in it…Sadly, I do not. And despite what some people will say, it’s not Un-American, or weak, or kooky, to point out errors in logic, or to have questions, or to disagree with the government – in fact, it’s very American to do these things.
(Note: I was no big fan of Bill Clinton, but I find it ironic that the people who disagreed with him most vehemently are the ones who label people with my opinions Un-American for not supporting and agreeing with the President.)
To quote Neil Young, “I fold my hands and pray for peace.” I agree with you that “you either believe in, totally support, love and be willing to die for this great country, or get the hell out.” I totally support and love this country – that’s exactly why I am so against this war. I think America is a beautiful place with a great spirit – it’s just (IMO) not being run very well. My hope is for someone who can bring us back together. As much as I think it’d be cool to have a woman in the White House, I just don’t think Hillary is the answer right now (she’s just too divisive). We need a leader who is not in the position solely for love or want of power, who will look beyond the private investors to the greater good, who will speak to us not with propaganda and loaded words (and thus appeal only to fear and emotion as motivators) but will speak to us calmly, logically, and intelligently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
