![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Usually I just make stuff up, but this was actually just copied from a photo. Slavishly, as they say.
To see how off I was, check out the source.
Wish I had the time to post more.
If the majority of Americans actually support this war, this shouldn't bother them at all. I guess people were just tired of that post-Cold War lack of an evil empire. Nobody to feel morally superior to, nobody to channel divinely sanctioned aggression into, nobody to keep us all in line with a sense of fear and paranoia. Are there people out there who think "rollback" was really the way to go during the Cold War? Wasn't that the mindset of those prepared for, maybe even eager for, a nuclear war? Please convince me, it would certainly help put my mind at ease.
This looks to me like good news for militant fundamentalists of all faiths. Bad news for those of us who believe in things other than intolerent dogmas, though.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I've been thinking about moving out of America.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Besides, people always manage to bring religion into things. Even if you don't think of it in a religious way, I know a heck of alot of people do. Even just on LJ I've seen a ton of posts bringing religion into it. ;P It always happens.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
As for the war itself, I believe oil has a huge part to play, but I also think with Bush bringing up his god so much, there is defintely a religious undertone.
Some people are a little too young to understand that, though.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
"I believe oil has a huge part to play" = reason other than religion
"there is defintely a religious undertone." = religion has a minor, yet distinct role in war
(As I interpret it)
...and I heard indirect insults from both of you two. If I had more time, I'm sure I could come up with a lengthier debate. I may just have to sit out now, unless I have something of my own to add. :)
From:
no subject
In effect she has agreed with me that the war is *not* about God or Allah. I never said that there was no religious undertone, nor did I say that religion was not involved. I said this, and only this: This war is not *ABOUT* God or Allah.
And as far as insults go, hers was not so "indirect"
I implied that her comment was dumb. I never once said that I thought she was dumb, while she took it to a personal level by saying that I am "too young" and therefor "Too stupid" to understand (which is funny since she later decided to agree with me).
I have *not* attacked her personally and I will not. I don't believe that everyone who disagrees with me is automatically "stupid" or "ignorant" or "too young to understand." I believe that intelligent people can have vastly differing views, without making one smarter or "older" than the other.
From:
no subject
From:
Off Topic
-K
From:
no subject
First of all I don't think this war has anything to do with feeling "morally superior" to anyone, except perhaps Saddam's regime, and I have done a lot of reading, Jason - if you don't believe you are morally superior to *those* monsters, I don't think you should be married to my best friend! Or to anyone, for that matter...
Our govornment here in the US of A is *not* perfect and they are making a lot of mistakes. However, I have read all sides and I have chosen the "lesser of two evils" in my own eyes. The leadership that bullies other countries into giving them what they want, is not graet. The leadership that kills thousands of it's own, publically tortures and executes (on Live TV!) anyone who dares to say a bad word against them, and burns down the homes of families who do will not allow Saddam's precious children and troops to rape their daughters, from the age of twelve on up (and perhaps even younger)...
Forgive me if I *do* feel morally superior to *those* people. I do NOT however, feel morally superior to all Iraqis and Arabs.
We have a hypocrytical govornment. We support Isreal, who is responsible for more terrorist attacks on other countries than any other country in the world. They are *far* from perfect, but at least they are not abusing us!
If you were in Iraq, and you were talking about Saddam and his regime in the way you are talking about the US govt, you'd be dead, and so would your wife, and perhaps your parents and cousins and aunts and uncles as well.
I absolutely *abhore* intollerant dogma - but if you look at our two countries... theirs is much worse. I don't think it is fair of you to judge the "morality" of the American govt when you are not also judging the opposition.
I choose the lesser of two evils. I also choose to support those poor people out there who are dying and killing for us - for YOU! Weather you like it or not. They still deserve all the support in the world.
"I'm supporting the troops by trying to bring them back home," is a lame thing to say. We can rant and rave but they are *not* coming back till this thing is done. Our country *is* "pro-war," our govt is not backing down, and that is that. Support the troops.
-T
From:
no subject
But I disagree with the reasons for the war. The reasons for the war have nothing to do with how evil Saddam is. If we were fighting him because he was evil... we'd also be fighting a buttload of other countries.
From:
no subject
When you go back to the very beginning of this whole thing, you will see this:
The UN gives Saddam a deadline.
Saddam claims to have gone along with the sanctions.
Saddam refuses to let the UN in to check.
Saddam is not willing to "prove" that he has gone along with the sanctions, even with the threat of war. Easy to believe that Saddam has something to hide.
The US decides to follow up on the threat and *not* extend the deadline as the UN requested.
I don't think the UN should back down on deadlines, no matter *what* they are. That is a statement that says to the entire world "The UN won't do anything, so you don't have to listen to them."
The UN is important, I think, and I beleive in what they stand for - but they need to follow through.
All other reasons aside, I believe that this validates war.
From:
no subject
First of all I don't think this war has anything to do with feeling "morally superior" to anyone
and
I *do* feel morally superior to *those* people.
Also- you seem all concerned about the UN... shouldn't it bother you that we are totally going against what they say right now, fighting a war that is unsanctioned? If you view what they say as important, isn't this being a bit hypocritical?
From:
no subject
The war isn't UN Sanctioned but it isn't illegal either - they are salivating like DOGS, waiting for this war to end so that they can get their hands on Iraq. (Though it looks like Bush is going to try and keep them away, if he can - Blair wants this to go to the UN when we're done).
I do think the UN serves a very valuable purpose but they, like any other organized group, have their major flaws. They failed to do what they promised to do - attack Iraq for not complying with their deadline! I will once again say that they should stand behind what they say they will do, if they want anyone to ever take them seriously.
I personally have never defied the UN so I don't think I am being hypocritical! ;)
From:
no subject
I was simply thinking of reasons why some people are now so enthusiastic for war. I think there has been a lot of "Us vs. Them" rhetoric that allows people to rationalize the natural human fascination with violence and power with the reassurance that they are on the side of All That is Good. I am not saying that I support Saddam at all, and I think the end of his regime is definitely a good aspect of this war, but I don't remember the focus being on the human rights of Iraqi citizens back when Bush was trying to make a case for war before the UN...
We have a hypocrytical govornment. We support Isreal, who is responsible for more terrorist attacks on other countries than any other country in the world. They are *far* from perfect, but at least they are not abusing us!
Thank you for hilighting the fact that this is ostensibly about US interests, under the premise of keeping us safe from terrorism, with the liberation of the Iraqis serving as a reasurring self-rationalization.
Though my point in citing the first article was precisly to predict that this is going to encourage terrorism towards the US in Iraq and at home, and Bush's sudden obsession with the imminent danger of Iraq's WMDs was a somewhat disingenious pretext to finally get rid of a troublesome dictator. Yes, I believe that Saddam is deserving of immediate overthrow and full punishment for his crimes against humanity. However, this doesn't address the problem that Bush, against popular opinion, against world sentiment, and outside the legitimacy of the UN, invaded a foreign country without being able to show convincing proof that it was any kind of immidiate threat.
I also choose to support those poor people out there who are dying and killing for us - for YOU! Weather you like it or not.
lol I can't help getting an image of you as uncle sam in the war poster, with your finger pointing at me when you say the YOU!.
None of us want to believe that the lives and bravery of the soldiers who are our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, or mothers and fathers are being sacrificed in vain. And I do take some pride in the efforts of our military to avoid the death of innocents and provide relief and aid. But I have to wonder at the fact that you single me out as the ungrateful recipient of their efforts, since the very point of that first article was that the war was not actually being fought for our safety.
"I'm supporting the troops by trying to bring them back home," is a lame thing to say. We can rant and rave but they are *not* coming back till this thing is done. Our country *is* "pro-war," our govt is not backing down, and that is that. Support the troops.
So your point here is that when our views differ from those of the majority or from those in power, we should just back down and, instead of voicing our honest reservations, obediently mouth some patriotic slogan? Sure, I'd have to do that under Saddam. I hope I don't have to here. If America itself thinks that's democracy, how are we going to establish a credible one in post-war Iraq?
For the most part, I think we can agree on both the fallibility of our administration and the brutal depravity of Saddam's regime. I'm still hoping for the best (just like I was hoping our initial decapitation strike and psy-ops work would prevent the destruction and bloodshed we now are seeing). But there is a diffrence between oblivious optimism and my voicing of disturbing possibilities brought up by the articles linked in the post.