Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."
Originally posted by Morlock
Australia isn't living under the constant threat of Saddam. Neither is Canada. Neither is France. Neither is the US.
I am. I spent this week getting a room in my house sealed, buying supplies, and making sure my gas mask works. To me, Iraq represents an immidiate threat, not as a boiling pot for future terrorists, but as someone who feels that the world is a better place without me in it, and may be able to act on those feelings...And I'm tired of everyone who doesn't live under these threats saying war is wrong.
For what it's worth, my prayers are with you, as they are with all people who live under the constant threat of violence and warfare. And as a matter of fact, that group does now include the United States.
Loads of people in the US have been doing the exact same thing -- taping up windows, buying gas masks, etc. etc. -- over the past several days. After 9/11/01, I think everyone in this country DOES feel as if they're living under a constant threat from Bin Laden, Saddam, and everyone else who is a terrorist or who sponsors terrorism. Oceans do not protect this country any more, and therapists' offices are crammed to the brim with people who are freaking out because they can't cope with the knowledge that the US is no longer the safe haven it used to be.
I'm currently living in Washington, DC. You think I'm not terrified for my life evey day? I am. If any place in the US is going to get hit, it's going to be here. My mother works on a military base. You think I'm not terrified for her life every day, hoping to God that I get her accustomed phone call?
Don't tell us we're not living under a constant threat, when it's clear that we are.
I'm still against the war, and my reason is written below.
Some wars [b]are worth fighting. The Abolution of slavery was worth fighting for. Freeing the world of Nazism was worth fighting for. Why is getting rid of a man who's full of hate and anger towards the world, and who may be making weapons of mass distruction -which target civilians- not worth fighting for. [/b]
The American Civil War was not fought to free slaves. Lots of people won't like reading that, but it's the truth. That war was mostly fought for economic reasons and because slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy, it was an issue. But the war was not fought because the "tolerant", "humanitarian" North said "Let's go free the slaves."
WWII wasn't fought to get rid of the concentration camps, either. Jan Karski tried to tell Churchill and Roosevelt about the camps, but they either didn't believe him or didn't care. Nazi horrors were not revealed to the world until the Allies went in and found and liberated the camps.
We have to back up for a second and think: This is not the good old days of conventional warfare, when an army went in with guns and that was it. The METHODS of warfare in our era absolutely demand
that we commit ourselves to seeking and finding every possible alternative to warfare; and only
when all those alternatives are completely exhausted can we justify starting a war. The weapons we now have -- think about it, they're called Weapons of Mass Destruction for a reason -- should actually lead the world to avert
warfare and pursue peace; they should not inspire us to use them -- or to create and/or foster a situation where others might claim a reason to use them.
A war against Iraq will further increase terrorist activity against the US -- and its allies -- by provoking retaliation. We are on the verge of a major global meltdown; we are on the verge of destroying this planet if we pursue this war. That's no exaggeration. I empathize -- oh, believe me, I do empathize -- with those who say they want to keep their lives. I want the same thing. Everyone who's human wants that. Like Nippy said above -- terrorism is a massive risk to human life. There is no denying that. I would add that it is a risk that includes all life on this planet. A war on the scale this war promises to be is a much bigger risk. And that
is precisely the reason why this war must not be fought, unless it is proven beyond the slightest doubt that there is absolutely no other option.
I'm not denying that Saddam Hussien is a bad guy. I'm not denying that something needs to be done; I'm not saying that the world should just sit back and let him stockpile. As a matter of fact, no one who's protesting war is saying that either. But I am saying there has got to be a better solution than global warfare. For all our sakes, there has to be.