Are you for this war? …
Posted by Sarah - 21/03/03 at 10:03:31 amThen maybe you should take a look at it from the other side. I don’t think most Americans would be so war-crazy right now if the B-52’s were about to drop bombs on Washington, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle…
Similar Posts
None Found
March 21, 2003 | In Rants & Raves |
14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress. Theme based on GimpStyle.
© 2009 Terrapin Gardens
some proxy servers choke on the _ in the domain name. If this happens you can probably use an anonymous surfing service such as http://www.the-cloak.com
Comment by Peter Scully — March 22, 2003 #
Interesting link. Have you been following it for a while? I’m curious to know more background information on this Salam Pax. I gather that he’s in Iraq (Baghdad?) and knows someone name Raed (who’s missing?).
Comment by katie — March 24, 2003 #
For those having difficulty with the underscore in the URL Sarah listed, try this mirror: dearraed.blogspot.com
I haven’t been following Salam Pax’s site, but the newspapers certainly are. I saw one article in the Washington Post and one today in the USA Today. A search of Google News found a few articles, including:
Newsday
The Beacon Journal
The Guardian
New York Times
Comment by Rick — March 24, 2003 #
Raed is another guy who posted from time to time on the blog (it was origonally intended to be a group thing). Salam Pax lives in downtown Baghdad and posts when he has internet access (which isn’t much now that the bombing has started.
Comment by Yuriko — March 28, 2003 #
What you peacenicks don’t get is that if we don’t use B-52’s to drop bombs now, the day will come, when unprovoked, these middle eastern fanatics will be dropping nuclear bombs on Washington, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, LA, San Diego, and every other major city in the US. Then they will start on the smaller cities. Won’t you don’t get is that they want us dead no matter how much you love peace - they don’t. And to say American did something to deserve 3,000 people dead on 9/11 is like saying a women should be raped because her skirt is too short. Get your heads out of the clouds and stand up and fight now before they kill you and you don’t have a chance to defend yourself.
Comment by Eileen — March 28, 2003 #
American did something to deserve 3,000 people dead
Nice strawman argument. No one here EVER said that Americans deserved to die. When you are back on your medication come back, perhaps then you will be able to argue cohesively without resorting to putting words into other people’s mouths. Until then, maybe you’d like some nice Freedom Fries?
Comment by Rick — March 28, 2003 #
Eileen, you have just supported my argument. Those in the pro-war camp say we have to make war to keep the peace. They say we have to strike first before we are struck. But I doubt these people would have the same views if WWI, WWII (besides the horror of Pearl Harbor), and Vietnam were fought on U.S. soil. I believe that the Americans who support the war do so because they have no real, personal understanding of the horrors of war. They do not know what it is like to have bombs dropped on their houses. And the Bush administration is counting on that lack of first-hand experience in order to whip us into a frenzy of blind terror, so that this “war” can be waged without question, without responsibility, and without the backing of the rest of the world. I am not discounting the tragedy of 9/11, nor do I think that America “deserved” it. I do hope that our intelligence agencies don’t fuck up again and let another massive terrorist attack hit us. But waging war on Iraq will NOT guarantee an end to terrorism. I challenge you (or anyone else) to show me the cogent argument that Bush has made to support this war.
Comment by Sarah — March 28, 2003 #
Do you know what it’s like to have a bomb dropped on your home? Personally, I do not, but I have been to Kosova and Bosnia doing humanitarian work, and I have met and talked with families who have had this happen to them. I’ve cried in the places where bombs were dropped, where terrorists detroyed families. The US is not the terrorist here, and our goal is not to kill civilians. I am all for peace, but if we are to achieve peace, evil must be rooted out. Who knows how many more civilians would die if we do not intervene. We can agree to disagree.
Comment by Steve — April 2, 2003 #
One more thing. My brother is in this war. We fully support him, he supports this war and we support this war.
Comment by Steve — April 2, 2003 #
Steve, I believe that Sarah is asking people to look at things from the point of view of the Iraqis. Many people and nations around the world honestly consider President Bush to be the aggressor here. (I will not argue either way, because it is not germane to my point) Imagine if you would if these nation’s banded together to invade the US because they don’t think we are running our country the way they see fit? Even though these nations have not been directly threatened.
That’s a big part of the issue here. That and the US trying to argue that they are bypassing the UN in order to uphold a UN resolution. Interesting logic.
This position is quite arrogant, and the precedent it sets is scary no matter how evil Saddam is (and he is).
As for your connection to Kosovo and Bosnia, remember that the Republicans were very much against the US (ok, ok, they were against Clinton) going into these countries even after evidence of genocide materialised. In fact, Tom DeLay and Donald Rumsfeld are being hypocritical as they clamor on and on about what can or cannot be said when troops are in the field.
In closing, I want to say that I sincerely hope your brother makes it home safe, sound and soon!
P.S. You are right that we can agree to disagree. I appreciate your well-written, and well-thought out points!
Comment by Rick — April 3, 2003 #
Deffinitely, I do not support this invasion.
Comment by Tora — April 5, 2003 #
Olivier, I think you are comparing apples and oranges as well as applying 20/20 hindsight to history. Also, as you implied in your reference to Richard III. Peace was back in England “for a time.” I wish I shared your optimism, but I don’t. Sure, this war will bring a temporary peace to the area. But long-lasting peace will not be so easy, and historically, the US has a very poor track record in its nation-building (um, they did prop up Saddam for a loooong time afterall). Plus, the anger that America has stirred in the hearts of many folks around the world—including extremists willing to die for their cause—will not be sated simply because America was successful in overthrowing the Iraqi government.
I certainly think Saddam is/was a horrible person, but preemptive strikes are a bad precedent for ANY nation. Now China has an argument for invading Taiwan. North Korea has an excuse for invading South Korea. And India and Pakistan now can rationalise preemptively striking one another.
Where will it end?
Comment by Rick — April 9, 2003 #
I totally agree with the nation-building issue. And we’ll all have to be very cautious for this.
I am using this comparison because something should have been done at the time against Hitler, in the 30s. But my own country, once again, signed a peace agreement with the Devil.
For other countries like North Korea, I wish the United Nations could do their real and first job — democracy and human rights — instead of being a patchwork of countries who pass and sign “laws” that are never respected. Unfortunately, financial interests, whether it’s for oil (France defended its own oil company, ELF, by vetoing the US) or weapon sales (Russia) are more powerful than the NU.
At last, it breaks my heart that American are so criticized. But I’d rather be critized, or hated, by people who live in free countries, and appreciated because some people who couldn’t speak have been freed.
Only History will judge this gamble and I hope it will judge it right.
Comment by Oliver — April 9, 2003 #
Sorry for not sharing the same idea but some today’s scenes in Bagdhad remind me the happiness of my homeland at the end of WW2. Peace just for peace doesn’t do anything to me. I wouldn’t have mind being sacrificed at the time if the removal of Hitler or another Saddam was at stake. I jus saw the play Richard III and it was insightful to hear that by killing and ousting him, peace was back in England at the time.
Comment by Oliver — April 29, 2003 #