CategoriesArchiveSearchRandom
View the archives

or

Search the archives
 

warhawks and doves

September 25th, 2002

The news is filled with commentators and guests talking about the speech Al Gore made a few days ago about the possibility of going to war with Iraq (note: It’s only a “war” if congress declares war which it has not done in the “war on terrorism”, and the military actions taken by the US have been taken under the War Powers Act which dates to the Vietnam war!) Rush Limbaugh said that he almost stayed home because he was so livid at Gore’s speech. One of Limbaugh’s callers called Gore un-American.

Un-American? Now this guy has a right to his opinion and to voicing his opinion. But I wonder how well he understands what being American and un-American mean? Dissenting viewpoints and open discussion of things are at the core of what is American. I mean, get over yourself. Say that you disagree, say that Gore is a flower child and should be ignored, whatever, but to accuse someone of being un-American because they hold a different point of view from you tells me that your emotions are ruling your words not your intellect.

As for the idea of more “war” in Iraq? I don’t like it, I think we need more Al Gores and Scott Ritters out there voicing concerns. I agree with what Scott Ritter is saying; that we need to send the UN Weapons Inspectors back in to Iraq, and if they are harassed or not allowed to perform their duties then, with the support of the UN we should take action. Then we have an argument grounded in an international forum. Today with Iraq telling to UN to bring back the inspectors and George Bush and Tony Blair saying, forget what Saddam is saying, we need to got to war now, it’s Bush and Blair that should like blood thirsty war mongers.

What really pisses me off is the politicalization of the war talk. Chaney saying that the dissenters are un-American, and that people should vote for republican candidates because they are pro-war on Iraq. It’s obvious that there will be no war till after the November elections, because the republicans think they can get more seats in congress on war talk. Bush will most likely hold off any military action as long as he can so he can drag any war and its aftermath out to the next presidential election. Politics as usual.

“I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
-Voltaire

2 Responses to “warhawks and doves”

ARG! Politics. Complete bastards. I don’t like Gore’s position and more than Bush/Limbaugh/Cheney’s position. It’s not that I absolutely dissagree with them (in fact, I do agree with Gore, and think that Limbaugh really needs to learn some respect for freedom), but that I sense a lack of insencarity. Things get filters, refined, writen up, tested and changed, JUST so it makes the best impact. Give me a man who makes clear, personal statement I can agree with. Hell, people love the West Wing president for that. (I wonder how many people Bush could alienate from the general populous if we knew him in that respect!).

Any which way though, I am against this “war”, either with Iraq or with terrorism. The war on (with?) terrorism has just fanned out too much ot be ordered and clear (wasn’t that our issue with Korea and Vietnam?). As for Iraq… what the hell? Show clear proof that Iraq is up to something, or else shut the fuck up.

Politics as usual! It’s always going to be politically motivated no matter how sincere the politician is, simply because they are politicians. My whole thing is that we need more debate, more desertion so that there is a useful dialog over the whole thing not an accepting silence from those of a different mind. As for Pres. Bartlet on the West Wing; I would vote for Martin Sheen as long as he runs for President as Bartlet and lets Aaron Sorkinson (sp?) write all his speeches. As for Iraq… I understand why they don’t show the proof to the general public — it would be on CNN in 30 seconds and Saddam could see it just like everyone else, then he just moves the shit. I think they should show the proof to a closed session of the Security Council. Or to individual leaders like they did the Al Quida stuff. If they’re not willing to do that, then I have doubts that there is any clear evidence. Anyway, it’s all fucked up and if we bomb Iraq, Iraq bombs Israel and Israel bombs the whole middle east, then Iraq bombs India, and Pakistan and they bomb each other, then… you getting my drift? World War III all because Bush wants to play party politics and get re-elected, and since the economy sucks he needs a war, but the “war on terrorism” is not hot enough… he needs a real war!