This starts sort of off-topic, but bear with me.
What I find most sickening is when people compare this to World War II. They say that the current efforts in favor of peace are equivalent to the Munich appeasement. The implication is that now we can prevent something like that from happening.
There are two mistakes with this philosophy.
First, realize that the international community is much more able to handle someone like Hitler today than it was then. In fact,
everyone is paying attention to this situation, which is fairly more than could be said for the situation in Germany in the mid-late 30s. We have institutions, like the UN, that are as committed to stopping unilateral "sign-away everything" appeasement* as Bush is (although with different reasons). Hopefully the fact that Bush Sr. went to the UN for support and played the international game says something. (Although I think he's a jerk, I actually have about the same respect for him that Multani has for you.)
The war in Kuwait was probably parallel to the Munich appeasement and what some feel should have come from it.
Second, realize that there are multiple options. It isn't just a matter of going to war or doing nothing.
You could force it down to two options by saying "going to war" and "not going to war," but even then the question of "how?" will come up. We're going to have to be careful
I heard from a friend of a friend that a lot of people at the Pentagon are against the war, and presumably they're the ones who know. Hopefully they're the ones who know, or this country is in a worse situation than I thought it was.
There are consequences for going to war without a serious decision, just as there are consequences for having peace without a serious decision. Peace is generally better though.
More than half of the population of Iraq is under 15 years old.
Assuming that your ideal future doesn't involve the
entirety of Iraq being wiped out† (if it does, we can't do anything to help you, and we should stop here)...
... there are still going to be a lot of kids growing up in a world with even more hardship than is usual for Iraq (which is more than is usual for the US of course). They will have been put here, in their minds, by the United States. In any group there are those with violent tendencies. Not everyone is this way, but some are, and most of those people might unite in hatred of the US, and general, ill-informed contempt of nations on the wayside of this debate now (nations housing more than 80% of the world's population).
It'd be like in another medium sized country called Germany, that proceeded to declare war on all the untermenschen living, conveniently enough, outside their borders. The Nazi movement worked best with the young. These young became Nazi soldiers when they were old enough (and most were old enough in time for World War II).
In this case not as much work would be necessary to make the most vocal and violent of the youths into a powerful force. The reason is not because Iraqis are more violent than others, or
The reason is that they know that the most powerful nation in the world elected someone whose mission was to pummel Iraq.
And they will get mad, and from them (or perhaps with their loyal support) will emerge a strong leader, perhaps on the level of Saddam Hussein.
Should we send the next generation or two of Americans into the deserts of Iraq to kill that next person or should we think differently, now?
As it happens, if we have a war, my consolation will be that Bush had no sons. One of the few advantages of the hatred, stupidity, and specifically sexism in our electoral system is that no more Bush presidents will hold office -- at least for a few decades.
*I'm not trying to take a moral high ground. That's what Tony Blair is doing. There can only be so many moral high grounds before moral high grounds stop being useful in arguments.
Saying "Peace!" and saying "War" are equally stupid. Yet I went to a peace protest today and held up a sign that said Peace. More people saying peace and less not talking means more uncertainty, which is enough to make many people start thinking critically. That's what I want, not just for this war but for the world.
†I know DÛke doesn't want the children of Iraq to be wiped out so consider this post (and the following comment) aimed mostly at train, and/or any other lurker who decides to post.
I'm pretty sure you have made your own personal decision. I'm not saying this whole thing specifically to change your mind, but just to make sure that everyone considering war has seen many points of view. Not all people for war have the same reasons, and the people against it have different reasons too.
EDIT: DÛke: You made some points about opposition and protest that I noticed when I remembered to read [/b]both pages[/b]
after my post.
I want to respond specifically to your thoughts about protest. I've said some of this stuff above but the more we clarify this stuff the better.
I agree that those who disagree are not necessarily righteous. They and those in favor of this war are perhaps equally wrong in that they both favor concepts that aren't automatically best for the hope of development of humanity.
But they get brownie points for at least doing something.
Train is fortunate enough to be in recognition of his laziness. Most people don't even have that. We must be thankful for what stupidity we have
p).
I protested because the more that people who aren't easily definable as pro war or as dirty Iraqis or frenchies or sissy europeans talk, the more people think.
I intend to keep protesting about stuff as I grow older. Hopefully in my eyes and in yours that won't make me a coward. I recognize that this war is in some way related to the disparity in comfort between my life and the lives of others. Comfort isn't actually all that good, I'm beginning to realize. My life instead of comfort will probably involve stuff like protest. I hope then I won't be a coward, for my sake, because I understand exactly what you mean and I want to avoid that state as much as you do.
