hermionesviolin | Thank you. Just... thank you.

Entry tags:

issues: iraq war

Thank you. Just... thank you.

I was thinking last night. All of us complain and bitch about President Bush, but in the future, 20 years later in textbooks, he won't be remembered for all of this shit. Not for the rejected environmental laws or the pretzel or the Patriot Act. The only people who'll learn about the messed up elections are AP US History Students. Years later, Bush will be remembered for liberating two countries that everyone was afraid of.

Whenever Afghanistan was mentioned in the past, you'd hear about how horrible it was for women. Now that's no more. Girls can actually get an education. For Iraq, everyone hated Saddam (if you said you didn't, it's b/c you're afraid of getting shot) and people pitied the Iraqis. Now that's no more. All because someone decided not to sit back and watch and talk about what's going on, but to actually go out there and change it.

I'm not Republican. I'm not a Bush-supporter. I wouldn't have voted for him. But you must admit, knocking down two horrible regimes during a single term is pretty up-there. Yes, a lot of people were killed, but all of this would happen eventually. It just waited for the person with enough guts to do it. Even if you hate Bush, you have to agree that it's going to be better without the Taliban and Saddam. I didn't know how much Iraqis despised the latter until they were knocking down statues and smacking them with sandals. That's amazing.

You can be the person that leans back and complains about what's going on, or you can be the person that goes out there and changes it.

It makes me wonder. Perhaps the 2000 election wasn't as wacked-out as we think. The butterfly ballot scandal came out of nowhere; it was such a random thing, with a huge effect. If those old people in Florida voted correctly, Gore would've won. If Gore was president, all of this undoubtedly wouldn't have happened. Women in Afghanistan would be stoned in streets and people would be afraid for their lives to speak their minds in Iraq. It makes me wonder if this is the way it was meant to be, if this is a plan of someone above us.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I can't go with what this person is saying, and that is not because I am some sort of blind Bush-hater.

Not for the rejected environmental laws or the pretzel or the Patriot Act

Is that (excluding the pretzel) a good thing? Is it good that all sorts of environmental laws have failed to pass, or have been repealed or loosened up, without much of anybody noticing? Is the Patriot Act a good thing, especially if it stays and is enforced?

Is that the way it should be?

Even if you hate Bush, you have to agree that it's going to be better

I don't know about this. Sure, the Taliban and Saddam were horrible. I can't stress how much so. Sure, the countries they were ruling over will be much better off without them. (Well, hopefully. Post-war turmoil can result in many different ends. Also, I'm not sure US occupation of these countries for the next decade or however long it continues is a good thing, even if it is better than being under the regime of murderous dictators.)

But in the meantime, the only system for international government that we have has been undermined (sure, the UN was already ineffective, but I think it's an extremely important institution, and I worry that this is the death blow), and the whole "pre-emptive strike" thing has been put on the books as US policy and precedented (I know not everyone will agree with me that this is a very very bad thing, but), and the US has lost much of its political credibility with the rest of the world (it remains to be seen if international opinion will change its mind). And so on, and so on.

The Taliban and Saddam were inexpressably awful, but I'm far, far from convinced that this was the best way . . . or even in any way an okay thing for this country to do.

You're right, it is problematic. Ideally, history should reflect the whole of an administration, both the good and bad things to be learned.

As for the UN and the pre-emptive strike precedent, i'm inclined to think them problematic but ultimately the best course given the circumstances. We could talk about this at lenth later, but i'm not up for it at the moment. As for international credibility... double-edged sword: i've lost a lot of respect for a lot of governmental (and nongovernmental) bodies.

Is that (excluding the pretzel) a good thing?

No... I'm not saying that's a good thing. My point is that a lot of people make that a huge issue right now, but it's not what will be remembered some decades in the future. Not that it's not important right now. I hear a lot from friends complaining about the latest environmental bills being rejected, how abortion is being threatened by Bush's prescense. They're not going to talk about all of this in the textbooks. They'll talk about the major governments he took out.

My main point of all of this is that a lot of people stand on the side and make the snide comments and complain about Saddam and so on. They don't like these awful regiments, but they don't do anything. It's been like this for years. Then Bush comes along and changes everything during his first term. I don't think we realize yet, but this is VERY important presidency. Knocking Saddam out is a huge thing. And it was done [pretend I'm snapping my fingers] just like that. Everyone wanted to do it, but didn't step forward. Bush wasn't all-talk. It takes a lot of guts to actually do and not say you'll do.

I'm not saying that the war is good or anything like that. I thought his sudden "He's hiding weapons!" was really desperate and random, but the war wasn't a surprise. I had thought that we'd been bombing them on-and-off already for years. Unless Saddam would drop dead from prostate cancer in the next few years, there was going to be a battle sooner or later.

Before I respond, honey, I just want to say this: I'm definately not attacking you, although I disagree with some of the things you wrote.

My point is that a lot of people make that a huge issue right now, but it's not what will be remembered some decades in the future.

Hmm, see, we're still not in agreement, because environmental laws have a very definate impact on the future, and most likely a very very large one as well. My fear is that, because we're all so busy watching the big glittery "history being made" moments of this (in my opinion) reprehensible war, we'll let the environmental laws get chisled away at more and more, and by the time we realize it will be too late, some irrevocable damage will have been done.

I really couldn't care less about what they say about Bush in the textbooks. I care very much about what actually happens to this planet of ours.

Bush wasn't all-talk. It takes a lot of guts to actually do and not say you'll do.

This also bothers me a bit. Yes, as you've been saying, Bush took action. He did so with (in my opinion) incorrect reasoning, blatantly illegal procedures, and a chilling disregard for what anyone else thought. I really think that it's better to try and find alternate ways of fixing a situation, rather than rushing headlong into violence. Every other route must be tried first. Bush claimed that he had no other alternative, but really. I don't think he believed that himself.

(A little side-note: you were responding to

laynamarya by describing Bush's actions with the saying, "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'm," originally used to describe quick casual sex in the sense where a man uses a woman, thanks her and is gone. This has traditionally been considered derogatory towards women and I find it frighteningly appropriate.)

At any rate, I see your last point about the "sooner or later" bit, but at the same time I feel as though war wasn't inevitable, as though this country should have made a very great effort to find an alternative, and so, I disagree.

That said, I'm sorry if you're unhappy that your writing is being critiqued like this . . . when I read it I thought it was an article

hermionesviolin had found somewhere on the internet, as she often does. I negligently failed to click on the link to your journal until after my initial comment, and therefore didn't realize it was a private musing. I absolutely respect your right to post your thoughts on your journal, and if you'd like me to stop commenting, I will.

However, I thought that your entry brought up some important issues that I wanted to discuss, (primarily with

hermionesviolin, since she posted it here, but also with anyone else, and certainly the author herself since the opportunity arose), and my intention was merely healthy discussion, never personal attack.

I hope we're not scaring you off from Smith with all this. ;)

I just didn't expect I'd have to argue and defend my stupid post. This is more work than I wanted.

With the environmental issues, they can be overturned later on. When Bush is out of office and we have a different person up there, they'll be repealed. All the cruddy laws that've been passed will eventually be taken care of, I'm certain. The environmental damage done before that time? Who knows. But I'm an optimist, so I'm not panicing.

The thing with the textbook... that didn't really have a purpose. It was just a thought, a statement. Just something to think about.

I'm not going to argue that there weren't other ways to do this. Bush was desperate for a war. He was looking for it. But I bet a ton of leaders, past and present, wanted to do the same thing, but didn't want the dirty work. Now Bush gets all the glory (not to us, but to the people down the road). Everyone saw Saddam as a problem, and the only ways to get rid of it would be to have an invasion, to wait for the regime to collapse on itself, or wait for him to die off. I don't know how well peace talks work with stubborn dictators with hidden bunkers and torture rooms.

I just didn't expect I'd have to argue and defend my stupid post. This is more work than I wanted.

Again, my apologies. I'll be happy to take you out to lunch this fall to make up for it. :)

I really appreciate all the calm, rational, mature discussion that has gone on in this post, though.

lilithchilde said "I hope we're not scaring you off from Smith with all this," but honestly this kind of discussion is one of my favorite things about this place.

(And to weigh in on this discussion, Word to "I don't know how well peace talks work with stubborn dictators with hidden bunkers and torture rooms." One of the problems with advocating a civilized way of dealing with a situation is that it only works when all involved parties are civilized.)

Hmm. I can see, sort of, what this person is saying, up to a point.

But I have two issues. One is with going out and changing things. I am trying to get into the peace corps, right? So, I really truly believe that there are other ways to change things than violence. Yeah, so we toppled two regimes. Ok. But that's not the end-all, be-all. America is just showing itself to be more dominant, more let's take over the world, than ever before. We think your government sucks. Let's drop bombs on your country. Yeah. And ok, a lousy government is bad, dictators are bad. But war and death and all the pushing and shoving that America is doing is worse. And I don't think, in the long run, it'll fix anything. Who's to say the next ruler will be better? Shouldn't America just go in there and run the country for them? They are so obviously inept.

I mean, where do you draw the line? Where do you stop being helpful and start being destructive? Whose side are we on, anyway?

We have GOT to share the world. We can't just tell everyone else what to do. We can make suggestions, we can help where it's reasonable. We can try to initiate change. But at some point, we have to back off. America just can't stop when it needs to.

It's not like we're the Mommy of the World, and all the other little countries are our children, and we have to do everything for them and keep dangers away from them just cause we don't want them to get hurt. We're all grown-ups here. We have to deal with our own problems. And we have to respect other countries as being valid, even if we don't like their governments or policies or cultures or whatever. Being rich and powerful doesn't give us inherent rights to tell everyone else what to do.

And about inherent rights. What is this implication that God put Bush into power? I don't think so. God does not have anything to do with screwy ballots. Don't you dare bring God into this. THIS IS NOT A HOLY WAR. And even if it were, it's the same God on each side.

This war is not about freeing citizens, this is not about toppling evil regimes.

This is about power. This is about American supremacy. This is about holding grudges. This is about saving face. This is about oil. This is about blood.

You know, come to think of it, I don't agree with this article at all.

Gah! Thanks for making me feel like shit.

It's not an article. I just had an idea and wanted to write it down.

I'm not saying that destruction is good and whatnot. I was never pro-war or anti- it. I didn't want people to die, but I wasn't anti- it, because I was used to the idea. My point isn't even political. I was more observing on how there are passive people who expect things to happen for them, and there are people who go out and get things done. Being in the Peace Corps is the latter.

People had been bitching about Saddam for years and everyone's all "Oh, the poor Iraqi people!" Same goes for the Taliban. Then Bush comes along, is able to use 9-11 as an excuse, and wham-bam-thank-you-ma'm, both are toppled over. No cautious, wary peacetalks that are for courtesy and get nothing done. Just action.

I don't have a Poli Sci major yet, so I'm only saying this out of my limited knowledge. Look at what happened with Clinton. You have the Israel-Palenstine peace talks, and you can see how far we've gotten with those. Then you have the Kosovo.

"And about inherent rights. What is this implication that God put Bush into power? I don't think so. God does not have anything to do with screwy ballots. Don't you dare bring God into this. THIS IS NOT A HOLY WAR. And even if it were, it's the same God on each side."

Um, hi, I'm not a psycho Christian or fundie. I thought, hey, God works in funny ways. Maybe, MAYBE, this is a way of getting rid of Saddam. God wouldn't be too stressed about the casualties, because this is God, after all, looking at the big picture. It would explain the screwiness of the election. It was just a thought that came to me last night. It's not a political statement, a declaration of holy word. It's just an afterthought from 5 AM. It's my diary, and I write my thoughts. It's not a newspaper article meant to be shown around and scrutinized.

Gah! Thanks for making me feel like shit.

I'm sorry. I hope you don't mind that i posted a portion of your entry (which i saw reading the smithies friendspage -- i'm not some random stalker). I think of LJ as being such a public forum that it doesn't occur to me to ask permission to quote stuff (bad English major *slaps wrist*) You've done a good job of responding to the points people have made. I hope you're not feeling horribly put out or attacked. (And believe me, my friends attack ideas and stystems of logic and all that but not people.)

Oh! I didn't know it was an entry. I'm sorry, I thought it was a published article from somewhere. I hate it when people debate my beliefs in my own journal.

I really did like your passive/active point. Yes, I really think that DOING something about the problem is far better than discussing it, although I really disagree with HOW the problem was dealt with, but I can agree that even war is better than letting the problem drag on and on, if we're already this involved.

But I AM sad that so many people had to die, and I'm worried about what is going to happen next. How can we know whoever takes power next will be good to the Iraqi people?

And I'm a religion major, so I am really sensitive about the idea that God is in favor of killing, for whatever reason. I believe that God gave us lots of options.

I agree that something had to be done, and it's good that something was done. I just really think there were better forms of action, you know? I think God gave us less destructive options.

I'm really sorry I attacked you without knowing that this was a personal opinion, not an article. I never would have insulted your beliefs like that had I known they weren't published and open for criticism.

While i have apologized for posting part of

evil_laugher's entry without asking, i would like to state for the record that i don't think you insulted her beliefs. You disagreed quite vehemently, but you were rational and mature about it. My feelings on this are colored, however, by the fact that i personally have no problem with people debating me/my beliefs in my journal, so i forget that other people often do.

(Also, while it is troubling and problematic to think that God condones or sanctions killing and suffering, i also find it comforting to think that things are part of a bigger plan, greater good and all that. I'm still working on this.)

i personally have no problem with people debating me/my beliefs in my journal, so i forget that other people often do.

Exactly. I know that if someone had responded to my ideas the way I did, I would have been really upset, and I think

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<lj-user =>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i>i personally have no problem with people debating me/my beliefs in my journal, so i forget that other people often do.</i>

Exactly. I know that if someone had responded to my ideas the way I did, I would have been really upset, and I think <lj-user = "evil_laugher"> was upset that I did. For a lot of us, there is a great difference between the personal and the political. That's why I really hate the whole "your sexuality is a political statement" campaign. Some pieces of myself are just for myself.

But that's why I lock all my politically-oriented posts. I really don't WANT to know what most people think of my beliefs and opinions.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thank you. Just... thank you.

I can't agree with this article . . .

Re: I can't agree with this article . . .

Re: I can't agree with this article . . .

Re: I can't agree with this article . . .

Re: I can't agree with this article . . .

Re: I can't agree with this article . . .

Um, I kinda went off on this article...

Re: Um, I kinda went off on this article...

Re: Um, I kinda went off on this article...

Re: Um, I kinda went off on this article...

Re: Um, I kinda went off on this article...

Re: Um, I kinda went off on this article...