quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
I know what terrifies me and fills me with anxiety isn't the memories of september 11 or the idea that it could happen again. It's the idea that what if all the craziness leads to war. What if what if what if. I dream about raising children in a time of fear, learning about gas masks and bunkers in school. Raising children in a time of hate, learning about enemies and war. Raising children and not knowing if they have time to grow up before the world is set on fire. (I don't know why it's all about children, too much baby dust around here...) It seems like everything is gone crazy: terrorists and large governments, leaders of the middle-east and leaders of the west, terrorism here and war there, new laws here to take away what we fight for there it's so hard to keep track of what's going on and yet I feel like if I miss something I am being swept away in madness I want no part of. I could go for some peace rallies and folk songs and dissent dissent dissent. Let me die in my footsteps/before I go down under the ground.

I'm blathering and I forget what my original point was supposed to be. Anyway. I just wanted to say that sophie's "political analysis" is a kind of grief and sharing too. A lot of days I feel like it's the only kind I have.

---

I feel the same in a lot of ways yam (and the kid thing is very relevant for me right now). I guess, if you really start looking at the history of violence in the middle-east, you can see that a lot of the seeds were sown quite a long time ago, and America (and others) did play a role in that, both directly and indirectly. My fear is just that we will be sowing more seeds for future violence by acting inappropriately or by acting too hastily and letting our emotions have too much of an effect on our decision-making process. So, I agree with Sophie, in a lot of ways. Granted I know I don't have access to top-secret information or anything nor do I have specific solutions to offer, but war is not not something I want AT ALL. It is very troubling. It scares the crap out of me that it would likely drag on for years and years. It scares me that terrorist activity could become so much more common here in my home and that that activity will be fueled by war (and vice versa, a viscious cycle). So, it's F-ing scary as shit and those fears can and should be addressed as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophie:
I *love* America, and that's why I think Americans should ask more questions - to keep what makes it great.

---

So, of what Sophie said, this last part is the most troubling to me (not because it's attacky or anything, because it's most definately not). It troubles me because, as an American that does ask questions, it's terribly frustrating to be reminded that oftentimes asking questions doesn't appear to do a lick of good. I've written all the appropriate letters to all the appropriate people and recieved the incredibly frustrating form letters dismissing what I've said without really addressing it. I vote my conscience when the time finally rolls around. I spend my money in a way that reflects my values. Yet still, I have to live with this fear that those in control will act hastily and fuel an already raging fire. I don't know what other steps can be taken other than to return to Vietnam-era protests, and I certainly do not want it to get to that point. So it's terribly frustrating and frightening to watch something so huge spiraling and to feel like you have no control or say, even though supposedly we do. I hate the feeling like my hands are tied and then I will have to bear the brunt of any repercussions because of my nationality. I don't want division between people... like yam said, I just want peace and stability and happiness. But when I see danger reeling it's head I can't sit by quietly... even though I don't know what in the heck to do other than what I've already done. Sigh.

That said, I hope you guys know, I'm just expresssing my personal fears here.

But another part of me feels like we don't have any other choice. I mean, we had to do something after we were attacked. And we have to prevent future attacks on our country. I hate war, and wish there was no reason for war, but what else at this point can we do?

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLourdes:
And we have to prevent future attacks on our country. I hate war, and wish there was no reason for war, but what else at this point can we do?

---

I understand the sentiment. So far though, I haven't seen anything that indicates that bombing Iraq would prevent future attacks on our country, and that is my main concern.

I'm not saying that we need to abstain entirely from military action if it is necessary. It just seems to me that the likelihood that this decision is being based largely on fear and the momentum that began on 9/11 last year is not that off base. I remember back in November people were asking "will we bomb Iraq next?" It's like it's expected or something. I'm afraid it's based more on the climate than on facts and good sense. The whole terroism thing is so abstract and vague and without a clear, targetable enemy, I almost wonder if we are not just finding an easy place to rest our angers by directing it at Iraq. If Iraq does pose a threat to us, then something needs to done, granted... but whether or not that something is bombing them I'm not too sure. The obvious reaction to that bombing (pissing off middle-eastern countries that have so far been cooperative with us/justifing the terrorists cause even further in their minds/other friendly countries no longer wanting association because they can't condone our actions) seems more detrimental to any outcome that would occur if we did not bomb them. The fact that we do not have international support for this action is also very troubling.

I think the biggest source of my fears right now is the fact that I honestly don't have any faith in our leadership. This is just my personal opinion and I am certainly not going to insist that George W. is a complete and total moron. Obviously he's not. However, I feel that he (and much of the administration) is terribly simplistic and quick to suggest war or military action as the only resolution to these issues. I am also uncomfortable with the language being used to describe the current conflict, and the messages sent. Everything is so very black and white, good vs. evil, and I cannot feel good about leadership that doesn't seem to understand that in everything there are shades of grey.

I am uncomfortable with the fact that it seems our country is increasingly less concerned with the opinions not only of other countries, but of its own citizens. There is anything but overwhelming support for a war with Iraq, yet our government continues to push the issue undaunted. I worry that the U.S. is going to do something unforgivably stupid like go ahead with unilateral military action.

I worry because this Iraq thing seems opportunistic in the extreme. How long was it after 9/11 before people started mentioning that Iraq might be a future target for some kind of military action? And why? I'm not saying Saddam Hussein is a good leader or even that there isn't reason to fear Iraq, but it seems to me that Iraq has just kind of been targeted for the sake of targeting something tangible, a known enemy. I fear that George W. simply wants to finish what his father left unfinished, consequences and global opinion be damned.

I agree with BG... it seems to me that the current discussion about war, particularly with Iraq, is driven largely by emotion and fear. I think the support this idea has gotten from the U.S. public is largely garnered through fear. We feel unsafe and all we want is to feel safe again. For some people, having the government say that going to war with Iraq can bring back some measure of our previously felt safety is good enough. Not for me.

Ever since September 11th I feel like we as a country are standing on the precipice of some towering cliff, windmilling our arms wildly in an attempt to keep from falling into some great abyss. With this current talk of war with Iraq, I can literally feel the ground shifting beneath our toes, the rock crumbling under our feet, and I fear that we're about to plunge headlong into something very dark and very scary. And I am simply one cell making up this tottering entity, without any power whatsoever to stop what is happening.

To ramble just a while longer, another reason that I think rushing into a war, particularly a unilateral attack without the support of the U.N., is so terribly perilous is because it will be setting a dangerous precedent. What are we saying to the rest of the world if we storm into Iraq and attempt to bring down Saddam Hussein because of a perceived threat to ourselves? What happens when India decides that Pakistan poses an obvious threat to them and initiates nuclear war without regard to the global community? What happens when any country feels threatened by another and decides that war is the best answer, opinions of others be damned? Shouldn't we act as we want other countries to act, or do we truly believe that we are better than that?

Lastly, and possibly most controversially, I think that our country needs to think long and hard about this problem and where it comes from. I think the U.S. is by and large a great country, but I do not delude myself into thinking that we are infallible. Frankly, I am ashamed of some of the things our country has done or supported, either directly or indirectly. We have a lot of power and sometimes we abuse it. I do not think the U.S. deserved 9/11, and I get angry at people who suggest it. However, I think we as a country need to really examine why other countries hate us so much as to come here and kill thousands of civilians simply to express that hatred. We have done things that were wrong. We have made bad decisions. We must accept these facts and learn from them and grow from them. We need to consider the repercussions our actions may bring before we take them. We cannot let fear and anger and personal agendas guide our actions.

I fear George W. and our government because I feel like they're trying to avoid asking the tough questions. It's hard to admit we're not perfect, and that in fact sometimes we're as bad as those we criticize. But it is inexcusable to turn this into a simple question good vs. evil, ourselves being "good", of course. To declare something evil is to make no attempt to understand it. To declare something evil is to assign some immutable nature to it and dismiss any hope of diplomatic change or growth. By refusing to learn and understand and grow, and by further positioning ourselves to make even more grave mistakes, we are endangering ourselves as a country in a way that is unimaginably terrifying to me. For every bomb we drop on Iraq, we are creating a thousand more threats to our future safety and security. For every dissenter who is silenced or criticized as "unpatriotic", we are becoming more and more like those we claim to despise.

Enough from me. I need to stop. I don't dispute that something needs to be done about Iraq, but I firmly believe that it has to be done within the U.N.

I know I always post Times stories, but this is a thoughtful, interesting piece. I'm too swamped at work to write out my feelings on this issue coherently for now, but this was interesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WaterGirl:
I just read Bush's speech to the U.N. and it seemed to be a convincing case against the dictatorial regime in Iraq. The speech and White House press release supports the U.S. claims against Iraq. According to these, Iraq has not kept many, or any, of these promises to allow weapons inspectors, has increased its biological weapon capacity, and carried out gassing of ethic minority villages... But, the list of claims against Iraq seems pretty convincing all the same.

---

The claims that Iraq has not been cooperative with weapons inspectors, etc. are true. My issue with it is that the resolutions that Iraq has consistently broken were issued by the U.N., not the U.S. Yet the U.S had made it clear to the U.N. that it (uh, we) intends to pursue military action with or without the support of the U.N. I see this as a serious overstepping of our bounds. It is the U.N.'s responsibility to police it's resolutions, not the U.S.'s. The U.N. is proceeding much more cautiously, and they do not seem to be shying away from the situation at all. So this stance from the U.S. seems even more unnecessary. The difference I see in whether it is just the U.S. going to war with Iraq or if it is the U.N. is mainly:

1. The U.S. is in a sensitive situation in that we are already seen as an agressor (and not just by terrorists), this would further that impression.

2. The U.S. is also viewed as acting in such a way that increases Isreal's position in the middle-east. Whether or not there's relevance to that view, us acting without support of the U.N. and the international community would be interpreted as us making further attempts to increase Isreal's power and inevitably fuel that hatred.

3. By acting on our own and defying the wishes of the U.N. we alienate U.N. nations (and those standing by and watching) decreasing our respect and influence throughout the world, which would have direct impact on our ability to function on an international level.

4. Our actions will not just affect us and Iraq. This is an international situation and many nations have a stake in this. It is not up to us to decide for all of them. That's why we have the U.N. It's just not "our place."

I just wanted to reiterate that I agree with you and think that it is absolutely wrong of the U.S. to launch a miltary strike on its own without the support of the U.N.

War = bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by meghanbe:
What happens when any country feels threatened by another and decides that war is the best answer, opinions of others be damned? Shouldn't we act as we want other countries to act, or do we truly believe that we are better than that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WaterGirl:
BG - War = bad.

---

oh boy. I can't tell if meghanbe thinks the UN is the greatest leader of justice in the world or not. Look at the members of the UN. How many dictatorships and countries whose governmental framework is antithetical to human freedom belong to the UN?

Yes, I believe the United States is imperfect. But if I had to say who is usually right when the US and the UN disagree, it is no contest. I believe we live in a country more enlightened than the rest of the world. Most societies in the world are plagued with racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and limits on personal liberties that are had to fathom for people who have not visited or lived in these countries.

War is not all bad. War is hell, and I would anguish over every death I would contribute to by supporting Hussein's ouster. But please remember who Saddaam Hussein is. It is not a secret he is trying to produce biological and chemical weapons. Once he attacks Israel and maybe down the road Kuwait, do you really think he will stop?

There are reasons to replace Hussein - stability and peace. If we do not attack Iraq and he later uses this time to produce, procure,unleash his biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons I can't help but wonder how those who were against acting alone will feel.

ps. as indicate later, I meant that I believe that the US is more enlightened than MOST other countries in the world, even though these countries are part of the UN.

[This message has been edited by maxpower (edited 09-12-2002).]

Still, I am very worried about the US interventionist policy. I've seen what such a policy has done in Central and South America, where the hatred against Americans might not be public or present a real risk, but it is still present. American-supported dictatorships have done so much economical and social harm there that I doubt it really served its original purpose (fighting communism).

The same thing can be said about British "integration policy" in Quebec. The Lord Durham report was published in 1838 and lots of people are still resentful about it. (It basically said that French Canadians were ignorant and barbaric people and should be assimilated for their own good...) This report, and the British interventions that followed, were done in good faith, but they are still the source of today's separatist movement and fueled 150 years of hatred.

Military intervention has long-term side-effects, and I'm not sure those effects are being carefully weighted right now. What will the people remember in 20 years, in 100 years, in 250 years, in a thousand years?

Are we going to create more terrorists? Will Afghanistan and Irak children be told horror stories about the big bad Western soldiers who bombed their grand-father's house, and killed their uncles and raped their aunts?

I don't care if all of it is true or not (even though I guess it is true... war creates such horrors, no matter how civilized the attacking country is) That's what the people there believe, and that's what they will remember.

What exactly do you mean by enlightened maxpower?

enlightened

adj 1: highly educated; having extensive information or understanding; "an enlightened public"; "knowing instructors"; "a knowledgeable critic"; "a knowledgeable audience" [syn: knowing, knowledgeable, learned, lettered, well-educated, well-read] 2: having knowledge and spiritual insight; [ant: unenlightened] 3: freed from illusion [syn: disillusioned] 4: having or based on relevant experience; "an educated guess"; "an enlightened electorate" [syn: educated] n : people who been introduced to the mysteries of some field or activity; "it is very familiar to the initiate" [syn: initiate] [ant: uninitiate]

What I've been trying to figure out is what President Bush's ulterior motive might be. From my perspective, he seems to be stubbornly insisting that we must attack Iraq, regardless of what the U.N. or the rest of the world thinks. Doesn't he realize that it's not a good idea for one country--"superpower" or not--to take an action that the rest of the world opposes? I just don't get it.

I just hope that people with reason will actually think about all the possible and less possible consequences before *anyone* goes on a modern-day crusade for any reason.
We have too much war already, and whether this is outspoken, hidden, economic or political...
It's not just going in and winning/losing a war...it is also what happens after. The 'aftermath' is so much harder to plan, harder to deal with, and how do you wage war on hatred? How do you wage war on disillusionment and embitterment? How the hell do we think we can solve the resentments of hundreds of years when "civilized" nations like Ireland, like Spain, can't even solve their not-so-old problems...The christians/jews/muslims have been triangle-bashing for ages now...and so the warring parties have changed a little bit, but we still have a massive conflict of interest...How can we wage war on xenophobic ideologies? How can any bombing fix that?

I know from my country...A lot of old Finns still really resent the Russians...and they might have friends who are Russians and they are OK, but jeezus you'll get them cursing and spitting if you mention 'russian' to them...and this is a mild case. Just imagine what the average muslim in palestine will have to say about a jew, or vice versa?
You can't erase the hatred and aggression of generations with more attacks....and you have to be so careful that nothing you do even makes it seem like there could be an attack against them...all this talking of attack is already doing too much harm...

Oh, yeah...and while we are on so nobly about 'cleaning the world of dictators and 'bad' leaders' - why not dispose of Sharon and Arafat? Why not dispose of Mugabe? Why not dispose of the entirety of aggressive governing parts of India and Pakistan? Where the hell do you stop? And who decides what is 'good' and 'bad' leadership? Do you measure it by the happiness of people in a country? By the availability of 'freedom'? By the happiness of neighboring countries? And what *does* make Israel so much more 'entitled' to it's place than Palestinia? Who decides? The UN? And what, please, will the UN do about *anything*? Tell the US to go warring for them? To what end...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twistergirl:
I'm scared about the prospect of war with Iraq. Like other people have said, I believe that the U.S. should not act without at least some support from the rest of the world. If we attack Iraq on our own, that will only inflame Arab hatred toward the U.S. And that's something we really, really don't need right now.

---

If the US launches an attack on Iraq without the backing of the UN, it will be illegal under international law.

Further enraging the Arab world is certainly one worrying aspect, but a few people have mentioned that other countries with histories of hostility will bypass the UN and take matters into their own hands - that really bothers me too.

I don't think we hear much about the Iraqi's point of view, but these people are suffering a lot at the moment and war will make things so much worse. I have to admit I don't know as much as I should about whats happening in Iraq but the reports I see are horrible. Cancer patients getting aspirin as painkillers, no radiation treatment for cancer patients, etc etc. (I'm going off reports of the News hour with Jim Lehrer and reports in the Australian newspaper which is our biggest paper equivalent of maybe the NY Times? Surely the issue is with Saddam not them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by maxpower:
I believe we live in a country more enlightened than the rest of the world

---

My view probably won't be popular, but I agreed with Bush when he said Saddam is a "dark and gathering danger". Here is a huge article from the New Yorker last March outlining some of the horrific acts he's committed: http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

He has thumbed his nose at the UN for years and continues to do so. I highly doubt that he will agree to any new "last chance" resolutions. What will the UN do then?

In other words, it's not that the US and the UN disagree, the problem lies within the fact that the UN can't even stand united.

Something I find very upsetting is that a lot of the current suffering of the iraqi people is brought on by the US sanctions in place. Bush talking about how Iraq has x y and z weapons says to me: "these sanctions have accomplished nothing. ten years of iraqi children starving to death for nothing, nothing, nothing." well, nothing except stirring up anti-US sentiment in iraq, exacerbating the current situation. augh.

I think almost everyone believes that their country is the best, the most enlightened, the most righteous. The UN exists to keep all us countries from trying to out-righteous each other in to a nuclear winter.

War is a terrifying thought (especially now that I know several people who could potentially be sent over to help with military efforts, although they knew that was a possiblity when they joined). However, I couldn't help but see the campaign against Osama Bin Laden as good, especially after 9/11. But that seems entirely different than the issue with Iraq. It seems like most countries agreed with us, and we're fighting a terrorist group who aren't even welcome in their own country(ies).

quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:

tell you the truth, I'm more worried about the US's weapons of mass destruction than I am about iraq's. why is ANYONE allowed to keep them? what possible good can ever come of them? I wonder what time it is right now on the doomsday clock.

---

totally. It reminds me of the whole, "do what I say, not as I do" thing our parents would say. We all know that the US has some stuff (weapons, intelligence, etc) that could f**k some s**t up. Why can we have them and no one else can?

I think there are a lot of freedoms and perks that come from living in America, and we can't really just take those for granted.

One example: A few weeks after Septemeber 11, 2001, I was in the art building at my university. A girl was walking down the hall, talking to her friend about ditching class so she could go to an anti-bombing rally. The girl had bright green hair and several body piercings, and was really jubilant over the whole thing. I couldn't help but be a little angry about her attitude. Because here is this girl who is enjoying all the freedoms that come from living in America (getting to dress how she wants, being able to be an educated woman), but isn't willing to stand up and fight for that freedom.

Now, I know I must sound like a really gung ho, patriotic, war monging type, but I want to reiterate that I am so not. I do not want to act alone in a war against Iraq. If the UN doesn't support the US, then I don't think this is something we should do. However, if we do somehow garner support, and if the Bush adminstration is able to show that Iraq poses a serious threat to the American people, then I feel something should probably be done about it. I think that we might end up being very, very sorry if we don't.

And I think what maxpower was trying to say was that the American way of life is something worth protecting. As a woman, I feel very lucky I live here and am able to take advantage of the opportunities available to me. While the thought of war makes me physically ill, I think that living in terror and opression would be worse.

I hope this wasn't too rambly and nonsensical. I often stay away from these more heated discussions, but I have a slightly different opinion on this than most of my peers do, so I wanted to contribute to the conversation. I'm glad that even though our opinions are different, we disters are doing a good job respecting one another.

As for the weapons of mass destruction - what about Kashmir? We know India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. They're in a standoff at the moment. That situation scares the bejesus out of me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
I have to say the argument that countries have disobeyed the UN doesn't sway me all that much. Australia has come under fire from the UN for our treatment of asyslum seekers and poor Aboriginal health record. I don't see anyone planning to bomb us (yet )

As for the weapons of mass destruction - what about Kashmir? We [b]know India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. They're in a standoff at the moment. That situation scares the bejesus out of me. [/B]

---

Becca, my point about the UN and their resolutions is that unless they are prepared to back them up, what good is having the UN at all?

I agree that the India/Pakistan standoff is a hugely scary situation which seems to be largely ignored. Or maybe I'm ignoring it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
"I believe we live in a country more enlightened than the rest of the world."

Ouch maxpower. I'm saying this in a real nice way, but there are lots of countries that would be as enlightened as the US. Its a bit inflammatory the way you've written that.

---

when I'm wrong (and in this case poor editing is still wrong), I admit it. I do believe there are countries more enlightened than the US. I should have said "than most of the world".

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLourdes:
I do agree with some of what maxpower was saying (and I think he may have just used the wrong words, I don't know).

And I think what maxpower was trying to say was that the American way of life is something worth protecting. As a woman, I feel very lucky I live here and am able to take advantage of the opportunities available to me. While the thought of war makes me physically ill, I think that living in terror and opression would be worse.

I hope this wasn't too rambly and nonsensical. I often stay away from these more heated discussions, but I have a slightly different opinion on this than most of my peers do, so I wanted to contribute to the conversation. I'm glad that even though our opinions are different, we disters are doing a good job respecting one another.

---

Thanks for getting my intent and saying it bettert than I did. I, too, tend to stay away from heated political discussions with people I don't "know". I actually consider myself a liberal, but knee jerk anti-war hardliners who never see any point to armed confrontation upset me when people are being maimed and killed. Diplomacy is important, but it takes a long time (which does not mean it should be abandoned). But what do we do to protect civilian populations NOW and in the short term.

quote:

---

Originally posted by suzette:
Becca, my point about the UN and their resolutions is that unless they are prepared to back them up, what good is having the UN at all?

I agree that the India/Pakistan standoff is a hugely scary situation which seems to be largely ignored. Or maybe I'm ignoring it.

---

I don't think it would be a good idea to ignore UN directives not being followed. That doesn't mean the same thing as bombing countries that don't obey. If you bomb Iraq for that reason then you would also bomb Israel and for that matter France...is that on the agenda? Full scale world war at that point...with nuclear powers fighting...not good

Edited to clarify - Isn't the goal to remove Saddam from power not punish the nation, which I why the idea of bombing doesn't sit too well with me

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:

I don't think it would be a good idea to ignore UN directives not being followed. That doesn't mean the same thing as bombing countries that don't obey. If you bomb Iraq for that reason then you would also bomb Israel and for that matter France...is that on the agenda? Full scale world war at that point...with nuclear powers fighting...not good

Edited to clarify - Isn't the goal to remove Saddam from power not punish the nation, which I why the idea of bombing doesn't sit too well with me

[This message has been edited by becca11 (edited 09-13-2002).]

---

Yes, the goal is to remove Saddam from power. But how would that be accomplished non-militarily?

I don't like the idea of bombing either. But the man is not going to step down voluntarily, that's for sure.

By the way, can I just say that I think it's so great that we have so many non-U.S. views represented in this topic -- it's made for some very interesting reading. And thanks everyone for remaining respectful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by maxpower:
I, too, tend to stay away from heated political discussions with people I don't "know". I actually consider myself a liberal, but knee jerk anti-war hardliners who never see any point to armed confrontation upset me

---

Uh, careful there... that could most definately be interpreted as commentary about some of the posters on this thread... and we really, really do not want to go there maxpower.

Apart from this one questionable remark, I too am really glad to see you guys are talking about this issue as intelligently as you are and the various perspectives are pretty insightful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twistergirl:
What I've been trying to figure out is what President Bush's ulterior motive might be.

---

here's my conspiracy theory: Bush knows from recent polls that Americans are more concerned with the economy than with terrorism. unfortunately, he knows there is little to nothing he can do to improve the economy, and greater scrutiny on the economic issues such as the accounting scandals might implicate his cronies anyway. hence, he feels obliged to up the ante in the anti-terrorism campaign as a smokescreen against the poor economy so that he can have a chance of winning in 2004. or perhaps it's his smarter underlings that came up with the plan who also happen to have a penchant for warmongering.