From an e-mail I wrote to a friend, who asked "Am I the only person we know who is for the war?":
I think Matt is with you, N. Otherwise, I don't know that there are a lot of people who are for the war. I think we have to keep in mind that Iraq (despite Saddam being a very, very tryannical leader to his own people) is not a threat to the U.S. (or anywhere else, for that matter). North Korea is the one with the nuclear bombs.
Most war protestors, at least here in Columbia, are stupid kids who hate the U.S. and are still mad that Bush won. It's a bunch of dumb kids who think that war is going to be eradicated. These are the kind of people who have signs that say "Fuck Bush" or "Drop Bush, not bombs." I, as a pretty liberal guy, think these signs do more harm than good. It's one thing to say "The war is wrong" or "We shouldn't be in this" but just saying "Bush is dumb" doesn't accomplish anything. These are the same people who carry little paper doves to show they are for peace. Jesus, who is against peace? Everyone wants peace. The only problem is, the world system, right now, does not allow for peace. People have been warring since the beginning of time, they're not about to stop now.
There needs to be more intelligent outcry against Bush. There really does. The only problem is, whenever there is a protest, half of the people are dumb and half the people are not. Half argue thjat war is dumb, the other half say the war is a tool of the evil capitalist system (which is WAY too far reaching. It's one thing to try and stop the war. It's another to try and change the entire global economic system). I just wish more intelligent, moderate, non-extremist people were protesting.
As for the actual war, the fact is, the war seems to be a personal vendetta of Pres. Bush's, and already, plenty of people have died. Even if you don't care about Iraqis (as many pro-war people don't), Americans have already died. Is it worth it for ANY Americans to die simply because of a stupid feud? I don't think so.
Plus the U.S. simply went over the United Nations' head to do this. If the U.N. says no to something, and nations go against that, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the U.N.? The U.S. is not the world government. The U.N. is supposed to be.
Anyway, I think that's your answer. For me, it's a matter of picking your spots. Sometimes, war is necessary. It should be a last resort. But, now is just plain not the time for this.
-r
I think Matt is with you, N. Otherwise, I don't know that there are a lot of people who are for the war. I think we have to keep in mind that Iraq (despite Saddam being a very, very tryannical leader to his own people) is not a threat to the U.S. (or anywhere else, for that matter). North Korea is the one with the nuclear bombs.
Most war protestors, at least here in Columbia, are stupid kids who hate the U.S. and are still mad that Bush won. It's a bunch of dumb kids who think that war is going to be eradicated. These are the kind of people who have signs that say "Fuck Bush" or "Drop Bush, not bombs." I, as a pretty liberal guy, think these signs do more harm than good. It's one thing to say "The war is wrong" or "We shouldn't be in this" but just saying "Bush is dumb" doesn't accomplish anything. These are the same people who carry little paper doves to show they are for peace. Jesus, who is against peace? Everyone wants peace. The only problem is, the world system, right now, does not allow for peace. People have been warring since the beginning of time, they're not about to stop now.
There needs to be more intelligent outcry against Bush. There really does. The only problem is, whenever there is a protest, half of the people are dumb and half the people are not. Half argue thjat war is dumb, the other half say the war is a tool of the evil capitalist system (which is WAY too far reaching. It's one thing to try and stop the war. It's another to try and change the entire global economic system). I just wish more intelligent, moderate, non-extremist people were protesting.
As for the actual war, the fact is, the war seems to be a personal vendetta of Pres. Bush's, and already, plenty of people have died. Even if you don't care about Iraqis (as many pro-war people don't), Americans have already died. Is it worth it for ANY Americans to die simply because of a stupid feud? I don't think so.
Plus the U.S. simply went over the United Nations' head to do this. If the U.N. says no to something, and nations go against that, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the U.N.? The U.S. is not the world government. The U.N. is supposed to be.
Anyway, I think that's your answer. For me, it's a matter of picking your spots. Sometimes, war is necessary. It should be a last resort. But, now is just plain not the time for this.
-r