Subject - Erinleonard- Part I
Author name - Bob
Date - 9-3-2003
I was in NYC on 9/11. My wife and I, pregnant with twins who are now 15 months old, fled the city that day. As we drove across the George Washington Bridge, we both gasped and sobbed at the absence of the Twin Towers. "Why are we bringing children into this world?" she asked me.
You see, I am a father, husband, son, and brother. While my style of communication may be cynical and off-beat, I am as serious about my point of view as the next person.
I believe that most of the anti-Bush protesting we see today is politically driven, and finds its roots in the chaotic presidential election of 2000. There are many in this country who believe we have a sitting President who was not truly elected, and they are taking it personally. They had planned to make his first term a living hell, but were dealt a big setback when 9/11 happened. It would have been anathema for anyone to question the president. So, the liberal intellectuals were forced to wait...through flag-waving, chest-thumping tributes and maudlin memorials. Then, after carefully checking the political temperature, the ball started to roll. First, it was the university professors, unable to keep their mouths shut any longer, wondering aloud if perhaps the U.S. "deserved" 9/11. Then, the very left-leaning politicians. Then, Sean Penn. And it got worse, if it can get worse after listening to Sean Penn.
I believe there is a critically important group of liberal thought-leaders in this country who force us to question and consider. Then, there are the rest. Anti-Bush, anti-religion, anti-conservative, anti-country and anti-tradition, they would protest water in the dessert if they felt it would raise someone's hackles. These opportunists, no better than a group of high schoolers crashing a party they weren't invited to, represent to me everything that is wrong with this anti-Bush movement. They detest Bush's simplicity, because it runs counter to their need for complication to justify their intellect. The world must be more complicated, they cry. Otherwise, why would we have such big brains? Continued....
Subject - Erinleonard-Part II
Author name - Bob
Date - 9-3-2003
Last century, there were two world wars. The first was avoidable. Too many big armies, too many bad grudges, a properly placed spark, and viola. I believe the French endured as much suffering as any people ever. In the first six months of that war, they lost about 600,000 men. 2 million were dead at the end. The horrifying nature of the loss has been the subject of many books-- the generation of French women who never found a husband (there just weren't any), the almost even mixture of soil and flesh at Verdun. The French were deeply scarred, and I don't believe they ever recovered. The United States does not know this depth of hell, plain and simple.
World War II was not avoidable. Horrible events conspired to produce a monster unlike any the world had seen. He sensed weakness in the resolve of the countries who defeated Germany in WWI, and the French and British confirmed that weakness by giving him countries in an effort to make him go away. Appeasement to a dictator, however, is merely blood in the water. Hitler attacked, and the French waved him on. Sometimes, even a whole country can be too tired from all the burying. I wonder, if I were a 20 year old French conscript headed to the front in 1939, thinking of the father I never knew and my legless uncle, if I too would have handed my rifle to the nearest German soldier.
If not for three factors, the world might be very different today. First, the British held. I like to think that God, having seen the diabolical man leading Germany, gave us Churchill. I don't believe God decides these races, but I think he wants to make sure the fight is a fair one. Second, Hitler's appetite got the best of him. He wanted too much. Third, the U.S. entered the war, and tilted the balance dramatically. But, without Churchill, a man who saw the true, simple essence of everything, and rose to it, things end differently.
I find history to be critical to understanding what's in front of us. Do we agree that Saddam Hussein wishes bad things on the United States? That, if he could, he would kill thousands or millions of Americans? The answer is "yes," and it's been "yes" since 1991. But, you might argue, if the criteria for attacking is simply a country that wishes ill on us, we have a long list. True, but not a long list of countries who invaded another country, was repelled by an international coalition, and told to disarm or else. There aren't a lot of countries who said, "I don't have any weapons," and then said, "Oh, you meant those weapons." Countries led by paranoid schitzophrenics who plotted to assasinate a U.S. President. No, there aren't alot of those. Just Iraq. And, no, I don't need to believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 to be convinced that he needs to be deposed. He's done quite enough already, thank you.
So here's my passion and anger: I think anyone that would undermine this country's ability to protect me and my family is dangerous to me and my family. If a bomb explodes in Manhattan next week, and hundreds are killed, and we can trace it to Saddam Hussein, what will the anti-Bush lobby say? That fear of the U.S. drove Saddam to do it? That we deserved it?
War does create problems, but not nearly as many as appeasement. It's time to step up, Erin. This is an important time for the world.
Subject - Bob: What happened to your evil twin?
Author name - despondent
Date - 9-3-2003
As you may be aware I've resigned from participation this forum, especially in the Iraq: War or Not section. I gave my reasons and won't repeat them here. Except to add that your previous sneering, cocksure contributions added to a feeling of despair on my part. What was the point in continuing to debate with people who were not only jerks but who thought that being a jerk was the best thing they could be?
AND YET... here you are with two serious, heartfelt, well-reasoned responses to Erinleonard (who deserves to be treated with the respect with which she treats all others). I don't agree with all the points you made, principally I think that the US has bullshitted the world and its own people, that it has tried to buy or bully other nations into supporting it &c.;, but I think that honest debate such as you offer here is better than unthinking agreement.
Subject - Bob: Sincere thanks
Author name - erinleonard
Date - 9-3-2003
Reading your two posts really made my day. Finally, to be able to "hear" you and why you hold the position you do. Understanding each other and allowing each other to speak and explain themselves is the first step I think to finding common ground.
And look you were able to bring despondent back to the table!
Subject - Despondent and Erinleonard
Author name - Bob
Date - 10-3-2003
Thank you for your posts. It was nice to find some common ground with you both. I will try and keep my posts positive and less acerbic.
In your view, is war ever necessary? I particularly take issue with the letter from the 9/11 families (despondent), that refers to war as "a first rather than a last option." War in the case of Iraq is clearly the last option-- every other option has been tried, some several times. The U.S. has been patiently waiting for the rest of the world to remember the vow they made to disarm Iraq.
To me, it begs the question, would war ever be justifiable in your eyes? Please paint for me a scenario where you felt it was in the interest of the greater good that we invade Iraq. If it exists, which it may not.
Also, no one has answered my question about Bosnia and Clinton. Were you protesting then? One might argue that was even more of a unilateral action. And there were well-documented civilian casualties. Were you marching then? And if not, do you not concede that there is a political element to your current protest?
Subject - Bob: moral ambiguities
Author name - despondent
Date - 10-3-2003
Thanks for your response. Yes, I do believe that war is sometimes desirable (I don't know at the moment how to answer your choice of "necessary"). It was highly desirable, in my view, in 1939 - I feel that in particular as a Jew. It was desirable against the Serbs vis a vis Bosnia. Today my position in essence is that it's the right war for the wrong reasons conducted by the wrong adversary.
THE RIGHT WAR: read Jon Lee Anderson's piece, "Dreaming of Baghdad" in the Feb. 10/03 issue of The New Yorker for instances of torture as horrific as anything done in Nazi Germany.
THE WRONG REASONS:
The US administration has provided a bewildering kaleidoscope of reasons, few if any of them backed up by fact. Worst of all in my view is that Saddam must "completely disarm," leaving it to Bush & co. to judge what "complete" means. In this respect one can well imagine a headline: BUSH DECLARES IRAQ TO HAVE 99.9% DISARMED. US TROOPS ENTER IRAQ
THE WRONG ADVERSARY:
The US behaves as if it were not only the one Super Power but the only power of any consequence on the earth. Victory over Iraq will very likely strengthen the position of the hawks in the administration & heighten US economic imperialism.
Subject - Bob: In response, the best I can short of writing a book
Author name - erinleonard
Date - 11-3-2003
Bob, I hope if you have a few minutes you will follow the link for Jimmy Carters piece on what makes a just war. I believe it to be well outlined and the reasons stated why this is not a just war is right on the money.
And I dont know when you started reading my posts, but let me just say I was raised in a military family, with my Irish immigrant father who was well educated and loved to talk us about political theory and ideology that shaped our western worldlets put it this way, I knew who Plato was before I knew about Mickey Mouse. Truly.
But, also in my family history, his direct experiences in combat and other roles in conflict, taught me that the ideology that I was taught to believe, and he fiercely believed, did not exactly mesh as complete truths when placed in realm of realitywhy we, the United States say we are doing something for such and such reasons vs. why we really are.
To directly respond to your question about Bosnia, no I did not march, in fact I felt shame that we did not respond sooner. As I did with the genocide in Rwanda, and the now what is DRC, where there we did nothing about the killing of now over a million dead. There is a long list of this type of horror in the world. Much of it never is reported in the Western press or if it is, it is pages back, small headlines and not noticed. No, I dont believe that the United States should nor could they intervene with any and all. But, the American ideology that I was weaned on, I feel that we should. And how is this different from what we are being feed now as why we need to attack Iraq?
I wish there was a map of recent history or maybe this should be like a family tree, with names of despots, we, the United States put into power, what we gave them, politicians involved, arms dealers, businesses involved in those countries, different points in history, like the Iran-Contra Affaira connecting of the dots of everybody involved if you will. An astrological map if you will, to predict why the past is now the present.
Why I march now Bob is I am no longer willing to play the game, I am no longer willing to blindly buy into anyones ideology. For me to accept that war is just and the only means for resolution, you better give me all the facts and why this is the only solution. War is not the only solution for this conflict, and that is the problem Bush is having convincing the rest of the world.
Subject - Erin--but....
Author name - Bob
Date - 11-3-2003
While I appreciate your personal history and its apparent effect on your point of view, I'm not sure I understand how it relates here. I think your over-arching theme is inconsistent policy on the part of the U.S. At the risk of being flip, so what? The world is a constantly evolving place. 57 years ago, we were engaged in mortal combat with the Germans, and now they are (allegedly) an ally. That said, I'm sure we propped up Iraq for a while, and I know everyone is horrified by the footage of Rumsfeld with Hussein from the 70s. That was then, this is now. We didn't sign any alliances with Iraq-- they were the better of two evils (the other being Iran) in the Middle East.
There's no story here. Our history is replete with uncomfortable alliances and apparent inconsistencies in standards. The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfection from my country-- just an attempt to maintain some sort of moral footing.
Finally, I reject the notion that the UN should sanctify what amounts to U.S. foreign policy. I view the Security Council approval as a "nice to have," but not critical. Let's get the vote out on the table and have the French veto it, so we can point to it later.
On a more angry note, if it can be proven that France is selling military parts to Iraq, I think we should revisit Normandy.
Subject - Bob: In regards to your last post
Author name - erinleonard
Date - 12-3-2003
Of course my perspective is influence by personal experience. What is difficult in life to do is to try and separate away from that filter and consider other points of view and fact, or at the very least make an attempt to get to the truth.
In my talking about my upbringing with American Ideology and instances where that ideology is used to rally support, such is being done now, I found that what is said is why, is very different than the actual why in political history.
Your comment: I think your over-arching theme is inconsistent policy on the part of the U.S. At the risk of being flip, so what? Perhaps there are many Arab people who feel the same about Husseins inconsistent policy. Lets face is it; much has been done with the money flowing from this regime to rebuild villages, schools, and hospitals, inside and outside of Iraq.
But what is so interesting about this administration aside from being a whos who in oil and gas, is how rooted it is in those inconsistent policies of the past. I gave you Iran-Contra to consider. Not only was the United States helping Hussein, midway, 1984-86, the Regan Administrationas the Independent Counsel concluded, in full knowledge of President Reagan, VP Bushsold arms to Iran in violation of the Arms Export Control Act, with some of the money from the sale of those arms going to aid the Contras in Nicaragua violated the Boland Amendment.
Members of this administration go back to the Ford Administration, through Reagan, through Bush.
Cheney in 1991 receives the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his role in the Gulf War, then quickly moves on to be the CEO of Halliburton, who in 2000 made the news in the Financial Times of London with the news that two subsidiaries of Halliburton, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump had over $23 million dollar contracts with Iraq to help rebuild their petroleum industry. Halliburton helped many a despot government: Burma, Angola, Rwanda, Somalia, Iran and Libya.
Nor is it any secret, during the Presidential campaign of 2000, George W. Bush, was the Oil & Gas industries number on recipient for campaign funds, with every 78 cent out of every dollar the industry donated, went to George Bush.
Soon after George W. went into office, his Administrations Energy department team of 63which, Cheney has made it perfectly clear is none of our business what was discussed50 represented energy supply, 1 was an energy efficiency expert, 0 representation for renewable energy, 8 of these were direct contributors who raised more than $100,000 for the Bush campaign.
All I am saying is, it is important to look behind the curtain. Take all information into consideration.
