Wednesday, June 29, 2005

I oppose the war

Listening to President Bush's speech last night, it occurred to me that I have been lying to myself. I have been saying I support the war in Iraq, but I don't. I oppose it. Vehemently. I oppose the war in Iraq. I also oppose the war in Afghanistan. And the war on terror worldwide. In fact, I oppose all war. War is never the preferred option. It is a last resort.

I'm not saying that I don't support President Bush and his decision to go to war. Unfortunately, war is a necessary evil that has to be waged in order to free enslaved, oppressed people when negotiation fails.

There are those who say that Bush fabricated a reason to go to war. I would hesitate to believe that of even the most reprehensible of politicians. How depraved must one be to "make up" a reason to go to war? I don't think anyone would intentionally send young men into a foreign land to die without a reason, unless that person is a madman. Do the Libs think Bush is a madman?

I suppose, in the Liberal's utopia, there is never a reason to go to war, and negotiation always solves all differences. Yes, and in this wonderful, fantasy world, men like Dennis Rader, otherwise known, back in my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, as BTK, would not have murdered ten people. And nobody would ever get sick and die horrible painful deaths. And health care would be free to all, although, in this world no one gets sick. And steak and gas prices would be affordable. And Saddam and Bin Laden would be nice reasonable men that would be willing to compromise in the interest of peace. I dearly wish that were true in the real world. But this is not Utopia.

I no longer care why we are fighting in Iraq. Does it make a difference that Saddam possibly had nothing to do with the attack on the World trade Center? Does it matter that Saddam refused to allow inspectors into Iraq in direct violation of the UN resolutions? Does it matter that his refusal was the real reason we invaded his country? Does it really matter?

The only thing I want to know now is, when can we get out? The President and Donald Rumsfeld says we will leave Iraq when we accomplish the task. What is the task now? I know it was originally to oust Saddam Hussein and to help set up a democratic form of government, governed by the Iraqis themselves. We have accomplished those tasks. Now we are training Iraqi soldiers and policemen to defend their own country. We need to do that, also, I suppose.

The Democrats are asking Bush to set a timeline for when we can get out of Iraq. I think that is a good idea. Bush says that is not a good thing for it undermines our efforts to rid Iraq of insurgents. But that is predicated on a timeline that is made public. Why can't he have a timeline in mind that will go unannounced to the world? I think maybe he does. He just isn't tipping off our enemies.

But what do I know? I'm just a simple, uneducated blogger that see's a wrong, and is powerless to right it. I am just sick of the political in-fighting and the insinuations that my President is a liar and a murderer. I just want closure. Or answers.

17 comments:

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Mark, I don't feel lied to nor misled. Hindsight is being used as political ammunition by those who are doing nothing constructive to help us win this war. Some of those who like to holler about "no wmds" were not using that as an argument before the war. These people believed in the danger of wmds every bit as much as we all believed it was a real danger; yet they were against the war anyway. The irresponsible thing would have been, based upon the available intelligence we had at the time, to have not acted decisively upon that information. To have sat on our hands, and done nothing. Saddam has no one to blame but himself for making Iraq the frontline on the war on terror.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

and to add an analogy, what if someone threatened your family (and Saddam has threatened American lives countless times)and acted evasively on whether or not he had a loaded firearm in his jacket pocket? At what point do you act to neutralize the danger? When he makes a menacing reach into his pocket? When he finally pulls the gun out and in a split second, is already aiming it at you? President Bush never said Saddam posed an imminent danger but that we must respond before the threat becomes imminent. There are many stories of law enforcement agents who have fired upon suspects who they gave plenty of warning to; yet the suspect still makes a threatening motion- a bluff-, and is shot wounded or dead....later revealed to be armed only with a toy gun. In the case of wmds...can you really afford to take the gamble? Once the threat is imminent, it is too late and now the stakes are too high when you are both pointing loaded guns at each other.

On legal grounds, I believe we had every right to remove Saddam. He was not only a danger festering (you think his sons would not continue his reign of terror should he have died from health rasons?)but he spent years in violation of cease-fire agreements. The UN did nothing but waste time making one resolution after another. And they say we didn't give enough time to peace negotions? 12 years of ineffectual sanctions and resolutions? And if we hadn't gone to war, what would the status quo be? Those benefiting from the UN food for oil scandal would continue to bleed us out of our generosity, all the while seeking to aid Saddam by getting the sanctions lifted.

Mark said...

Wordsmith, I don't feel lied to or misled either. I just want all this to go away, and our soldoers to come home. I am just tired of politicians using our noble efforts to free Iraq as a political platform to advance their own selfish agendas. I feel for the President, who I feel is a good man, but has gotten into a seemingly lose/lose situation. In the words of that great American philosopher, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

Daffy76 said...

It would be nice to say that if the war were over, all the controversy would be too. However, that's not how the world works anymore. Sometimes, I feel like there's more of a war going on at home than in Iraq.

On a sidenote: Please pray for my husband's cousin who has just learned that he will be going BACK to Iraq within 30 days.

Garza said...

No one likes war, at least I want to have that belief in humanity, but the one thing I agree with is the principle we are trying to offer Iraq. Freedom. If Iraq truly want freedom, they have the opportunity to gain it. I too am tired of the bickering not only by politicians, but also among the American people. I made a feeble attempt to address this today. How can we make a difference? I am willing to do my part to try and build this nation. I am really tired of those that want to destroy it. All of you have a great day.

Poison Pero said...

I know it sounds nice to hear "bring the troops home".....We all want the best for our troops and those of you who know me, know I'm their biggest defender.

That said, I was in the military for 14 years (6 active, 8 reserve), and knew fully well - as does every soldier - that joining the military was an act of intentionally putting myself in harm's way. --> I joined for a reason: TO HELP PROTECT MY COUNTRY!!

The military isn't a social program, and it isn't a welfare program for the poor (even though I was as poor as could be when I joined).......Many mistakenly join the military for the "benefits", but most who do never make it out of Basic Training (they are sorted out). --> Those who make it to their first duty station know exactly what they are in for, and have chosen to do so.

The job of the military is not to defend Fort Collins, or Luke Air Force Base, or Coronado Naval Station.........Their job is to protect America!!!!!

The best way to protect America at this time is to have an agressive, overwhelming presence in the Middle East.

I could care less about the Iraqi people........I want our troops on the ground, and our Navy in the Gulf and Mediterranean. --> This region is the world's flashpoint, and we must have a strong force there for any events which WILL (not might) occur.

I love our troops, pray for them every day, send care packages, email correspondences, and run a blog in their name......I WANT NO HARM TO ANY AMERICAN SOLDIER --> But their duty is to protect us. It isn't easy and isn't pretty, but most of them do it with pride in their heart and do it better than any in the history of the world.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

"The job of the military is not to defend Fort Collins, or Luke Air Force Base, or Coronado Naval Station.........Their job is to protect America!!!!!"


Well put, Pero.

Erudite Redneck said...

One word: Tonkin.
OK. Three words: Gulf of Tonkin.
Thou thinkest too highly of thine political leaders, Markman. All are capable of untruths for what they deem a higher cause. Some are more capable than others.

Erudite Redneck said...

From Wikipedia. Search for "Gulf of Tonkin" on Google, and find all sorts of links to LBJ's fabrication:

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was presented to the American public as two purported attacks by North Vietnamese gunboats without provocation against two American destroyers (the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy) in August of 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Pentagon Papers, which were later revealed by Daniel Ellsberg, revealed that the Johnson administration of the United States had virtually fabricated the attacks, as dissident researchers subsequently showed. The US-supported South Vietnamese regime had been attacking oil processing facilities in North Vietnam, with planning and support from the CIA, for the very purpose of providing a pretext to initiate the Vietnam War.

Erudite Redneck said...

Here's another war that started under a cloud of deliberate confusion on the part of the US, if not outright deceit: The Spanish-American War(not my prose, easy to find on-line).

The U.S.S. Maine, a second-class battleship, was sent to Havana to protect American interests. Cubans were revolting against the Spanish government. On February 15, 1898 the U.S.S. Maine sank. Nearly, three quarters of the crew died as a result of the explosion. Although the cause of the sinking has not been discovered, the US blamed the Spanish. The war was soon to come.

Erudite Redneck said...

And, then,m of course, there was the Boland Amendment, which is what, specifically, made the Reaganites actions in Nicaragua illegal. So, there's an outright outlaw war.

Poison Pero said...

You may be right Press.......but in all 3 cases you listed, the war was right.

I wish FDR could have trumped up some excuse to join WWII before 1941........I'd imagine we could have saved 10-20 million people and rid the world of Hitler had we entered in 1939 with the Brits.......Plus we might have ended it before the Ruskies were stong enough to overrun Eastern Europe.

"War is all Hell" (Sherman), but sometimes war is the answer.

Erudite Redneck said...

I agree that sometimes war is the answer. I wish -- and it's probably a wild fantasy -- that our leaders could shoot straight with us about it. On the other hand, I realize that, the fact is, most of We, the people can't be trusted with the defense of this country.

Mark said...

Thanks for the history lesson, ER, I could have researched it myself, but I was at work. I just now got home.

rich bachelor said...

Actually Press, it sounds like FDR knew quite well that the attack on Pearl was coming. The conventional wisdom had been that the first strike was going to be at the Phillipines, but intercepted cables seemed to strongly suggest that it was Hawaii, and so we parked a bunch of mothballed battleships halfway across the Pacific because...
FDR wanted a war. The New Deal helped, but had not really dragged us out of the depression. He, like lots of leaders since, felt that war is a rising tide that raises all boats. This is only sometimes true, but in that case it worked. Unfortunately, we've been on, roughly speaking, a wartime footing ever since 1947, and the recessions (and depressions that we're careful not to call that) have come and gone all the same.
He had both a constituency and a congress that was isolationist, and there never would have been an American presence in the war without a tragedy that killed Americans. Just like someone else I know.
Funny thing is, I was making your same exact point over on my blog, just a couple days ago.

tugboatcapn said...

Bachelor, just so I'm clear on the point that you are trying to make...
Are you saying that FDR, the hero of the democratic party, the author of all of the socialism within the American system, PLANNED the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Rosemary said...

Dear Mark,
Do not take the righteous frustration out on the soldiers. They believe in their mission.

BTW, are you that we took 500 TONS of enriched uranium out of Iraq? How about the mustard gas we found in the river? Do you remember the threat to Jordan of biological or chemical weapons? They found 80 pounds, I believe it was. Well, that was Zarqawi's doing. Where did it come from, if not Iraq?

Let us not forget that Syria now has missles that go 500 miles and are fitted with chemical/bio weapons. Where did they come from? What about Iran?

My suggestion? Turn off the TV!!! lol. They are moonbats. We are in WWIII. Accept it or not, but we must fight it. I know it is hard to accept. War always is. But if not us, who? Try to have a good night.

Oh yeah, don't forget about Iran. I write about all these things at My Newz 'n Ideas and Love America First. I get a little info myself from inside. Also, I have some pretty good links that would scare the pants off ya! lol. Come on, Dad. Buck up.