Monday, November 28, 2005

A War Reply


I re-read my post below just to be sure. And yes, I do believe that which you so casually dismiss as “crap”.

I do believe that donning the uniform is dangerous in peace time having watched buddies die.

I do believe that modern warfare is incredibly destructive, and, as painful as it is, we are still amazingly fortunate to have suffered as few losses as we have thus far.

I do believe that protesting what our troops are doing devalues their service. Having 6 currently deployed service members in the 13 or so houses on my cul-de-sac, and having spoken with several of them and their families, I assure you that those troops feel similarly.

Apparently you are not quite sure whether you believe protesting would devalue their service or not. But my point is moot because it is also apparent you really don’t care. Even if you believed it would you’d still go forward and just be “sorry.”

Likewise with the whole enemy propaganda thing, I believe what I wrote because I’ve checked out Al-Jazeera’s web site, looked at the facts. However again it appears you don’t really care how it affects the troops in the field as long as your protesting damages the sitting administration.

Oh, yes. And I do believe the bit about the Islamists too because I’ve looked into what the Koran has to say about it. And I also happen to believe what they actually say day in day out about wanting to kill us. Call me a sucker, but when people say they want to kill me (over and over again) I tend to believe they are not speaking metaphorically, especially when they are sending mad bombers to blow them selves up nearby while they keep saying it.

Now you can dismiss all that simply as crap. Don’t let facts get in the way of your protesting.

Speaking of facts, let’s talk about “illegality” of the war, as you termed it. You do realize that Congress voted to authorize the President to use force of arms “to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” And that was well prior to the invasion of 19 March 2003. How then is the war illegal?

When you refer to the “lies” that the war is based on, do you mean statements like this?

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.”

Of course that wasn’t President Bush on the eve of war who said that. No, it was Senator Rockefeller, D-WV, back in October 2002.

Do you really believe that Saddam had no WMD’s? HE GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE!!! Have you forgotten the pictures of whole villages, including women and children, lying bloated after his gas attacks? You can’t actually use something (like the WMD poison gas) unless you have it!!

Do you doubt he was seeking nuclear weapons? Senator Rockefeller didn’t.

I could go on but this has gotten too long already. Sorry to clutter it up with all these inconvenient facts. (Crap, I know.)

However I do want to ask you one other question. You seem to claim that our military’s use of WP is just as bad as Saddam’s. I am assuming you know that Saddam intentionally targeted civilians who were incapable of shooting back including women and children when he used the stuff. When our guys shoot it, we shoot at combatants with guns who are shooting back. Our guys (and gals) risk death and do in fact actually die because they are so hesitant to kill innocents.

Are you saying you see no moral difference between these two scenarios?

If so, please allow me a little ethics primer: Intentionally targeting civilians is wrong and evil. Intentionally targeting combatants shooting at you is unpleasant and unfortunate, but not wrong or evil.

But then if you don’t really care that your protesting would harm our troops and strengthen our enemies, why would you draw a difference between our troop’s actions and Saddam’s? Besides, if you were to draw a distinction, it might cause you to think about what the implications of your protest actually are. Wouldn't want crap like difficult implications to get in the way of a good protest, would we?

You claim it is our fault that they want to kill us, “we give them plenty of reasons.” Even if that were true (and it’s a viewpoint I see little actual factual evidence to support) cutting and running will not make them like us more. No, history shows that appeasing emboldens the aggressors. Just ask Chamberlain.




Do you really believe that crap?

I protest this illegal war in Iraq because it is based on lies smeared together by our corrupt dysfunctional government. Let’s see, was it weapons of mass destruction, or was it freeing the Iraqi people, oh wait, was it the spreading of democracy, oops, it was the creation of an Islamic Theocratic Republic. Are we proud of ourselves yet?

If my protesting this war devalues the service of our troops, I am sorry. Somehow, I cannot believe my protesting can devalue the service of our troops as much as the bush administration sending them off to a war based on lies.

If protesting this was provides juicy propaganda to the folks that want to kill us, well I am sorry for that too. Our military actions provide plenty of juicy propaganda for this. Our government backs this up with their ill-chosen words (Crusade), and actions. Somehow, when Saddam used white phosphorus, we called it a chemical weapon. When we use it, we call it a tool of war. Are we proud of ourselves yet?

If we wonder why these people want to kill us, we give them plenty of reasons. Would you take well to occupation?


No comments: