War and America

[Typhoon1244]

There have been a number of threads lately that have walked a fine line between open, spirited debate and all-out flame riots...and I fear this may be one of them. Being an observer of humanity and amateur philosopher (which probably describes all pilots, on some level), I am curious about a trend I am seeing in today's political discourse. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'd just like to hear some opinions. So take a deep breath, leave the flamethrowers hanging over your mantles, and consider my question:

An awful lot of people today are saying that if you're anti-war, your're anti-American... particularly in regards to the coming war in Iraq. How do you all feel about that?

 

[BeckyAnne]

No matter how much you may hate or disagree with a President and his administration, no matter how much you hate or disagree with a military action or war, when the boys (and girls) are put in harms way it’s time to stand behind them.

They deserve that much at the very least.

 

[46Driver]

It is hard to have a logical discussion on this if you still remember photos of Hanoi Jane Fonda posing with North Vietnam anti-aircraft gun crews - and I don't think the "stars" in Hollywood are any better today. That being said, debate is generally good.

 

[46Driver]

I forgot to add, may she burn extra crispy in hell.

 

[Heyduke1]

I think that one of the most American things you can do is exercise your right to free speech. What were we taught in elementary school that makes us so lucky to live in the United States rather than a place like, say, Iraq? Freedom, right? If the government is doing something in your name you don't approve of, it's time to speak your mind.

In an LA Times poll released yesterday, "72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq." Hypothetically, if Bush started a war tomorrow giving no additional evidence of weapons of mass destruction, would those 72% of respondents be unamerican if they didn't change their views? Should they be forced to change their views simply because our president wants to go to war? It's an interesting question, and I'd be willing to bet that most people would support a ongoing war that they were opposed to before it started.

But I think that stifling anyone's freedom of speech at any time brings us towards the level of the nations we know we're better off than. It's a scary precedent to set.

One other question: is it possible to support our troops without supporting their mission? Or is that fundamentally contradictory?

 

[mar]

Let's avoid simple Black and White areas

I'm against any war in Iraq and this is why:

The US, like it or not, is part of the global community (don't take this statement as an endorsement of "globalized trade"). As such, it is incumbent upon our government to act as a responsible member of that community. The UN specifically outlaws unprovoked attacks on other countries.

This is an unprovoked attack on Iraq. Questions of weapons of mass destruction aside, there is no credible evidence that Iraq would use those weapons on US soil; indeed to do so would guarantee absolute destruction of Iraq. Not only that, but the Iraq/Al Qaeda link is a red herring.

Second, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld have most deftly circumvented any semblance of constitutional process with respect to war.

The Constitution is quite clear here: Only the US Congress can declare war. The shameless display by our congressmen (democratic and republican) is enough to make me vomit.

By a vast majority our elected leaders torched the Constitution and told George Bush, 'Do as you please, for the American people are not nearly intelligent enough to have a say in this matter--and not only that, but please keep us blissfully ignorant in this matter as it may pose a security risk.'

Thirdly, I'm opposed to this war because of the load it will place on resources already stretched too thin.

I supported the military action in Afghanistan because I thought Al Qaeda clearly demonstrated a imminent threat to America.

The war in Iraq is different because it's not a retaliation--it's pre-emptive and thus contravenes UN doctrine. Not only that but it's unconstitutional (as has been every military action since WWII--the last time Congress declared war) because it's circumvented Congress.

This Bush administration is by *far* the most abusive administration since the Nixon administration.

The economy cannot simultaneously support a global anti-terrorism campaign and war in Iraq. There are much more important things to spend our tax dollars on.

I'm not unsupportive of the personnel in the military. I believe that I'm intelligent enough and well-informed enough to separate the man from the mission.

I disagree with the mission.

It's more complicated than, "If I'm not with you then I'm against you."

I'm "with" the democratic process and the sanctity of the US Constitution.

What can be more American than that?
Peace now.

[edited for spelling and clarity]

 

[172driver]

Just because the President wants to go to war doesn't mean all decent, patriotic Americans must support it. The President is only a human being with opinions, just like the rest of us.

Those who argue against the war in Iraq do so on the basis that there is very little evidence of Iraq's threat to America. Yes, they hate us, but what threat do they pose to our homeland? Despite Bush's attempts to blur the issue, Iraqis were not the culprits of the WTC attacks or any other terrorism on our soil that I'm aware of. If they were to attack us, I'm sure Bush would have 100 percent support in destroying their country.

There are a multitude of countries out there who are extremely anti-American and who possess 'weapons of mass destruction.' Why are they not considered as great a threat? If Bush decided we should attack China, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Russia, North Korea, etc. because they harbor hatred for America and have the capacity to damage us, would you all support him? Would you be anti-American if you didn't? How about if he wanted to destroy the world?

The argument that you must blindly support your nation's policy is flawed at the core. That is exactly how fascist regimes are born. Are we living in America or...Iraq?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Well, the baby woke me up, so I'm going to sit down and bat out a couple of thoughts.

Part of being an American is being ready to fight for your country when needed. If there is a threat to this country, we need to address it...

The key phrase in your post is "if there is a threat." Almost everyone outside the White House agrees that Iraq is not a threat at the moment. I agree Iraq is scary and will probably have to be dealt with in the future...but for the love of Pete, even some of the weapons inspectors are saying that war is unnecessary!

Originally posted by BeckyAnne
No matter how much you may hate or disagree with a President and his administration, no matter how much you hate or disagree with a military action or war, when the boys (and girls) are put in harms way it’s time to stand behind them. They deserve that much at the very least.

Having been one of "the boys" in the recent past, I'm totally in favor of whatever keeps the amount of time they spend getting shot at to a minimum. Don't they deserve that?

During Vietnam, the distinction between the people who were running the war (Johnson, Nixon, and their cabinets) and the people who were fighting in it was lost by a lot of people. Probably, most of the people who were spitting on soldiers in airports were approaching the situation with a mindset of "I dodged the draft; you could have too." Once you start assuming that, then anyone who fought in Vietnam is an amoral war-monger. It never occurred to the spitters that these men might be doing what they think is right, too. (Being born three days after Randy Cunningham bagged his fifth MiG, I can't say I have a whole lot of first-hand knowledge about Vietnam. I just read a lot...and I'm moderately well educated...I think. University of Tennessee, anyone?)

Flash forward to today. I think most people now recognize the difference between being anti-war and anti-soldier. I hardly know anyone who's "anti-soldier." In fact, I think many of the people who are against the war have the people who would fight it foremost in their minds. I am not even slightly opposed to using military force where necessary. But going to Iraq now...? I think this is a misapplication of military force. The services are, in my humble opinion, needed elsewhere far worse than Iraq.

Originally posted by 172driver:
Just because the President wants to go to war doesn't mean all decent, patriotic Americans must support it.

Exactly correct for two reasons: (1) it's not anti-American to be anti-war, and (2) the President wants to go to war. Maybe a better question would have been "are the Bushs obsessed with Iraq?" (No, save that for later.)

 

[rumpletumbler]

If I see a black widow in my house then I'm going to kill it if I can. If I see a black widow in my yard then I'm going to kill it if I can. If I'm walking my dog and I see a black widow across the street and he is not heading away from my home I will kill it if I can. I won't wait until one of the kids or my wife or myself have been stung by it to remove the threat. If I see it and it isn't running the other way then it's history. If it is running the other way I might watch it for a while to make sure it won't change its mind. If I'm not really, really sure that it isn't perfectly content going the other way I will kill it anyway just to be safe. There is no difference in this analogy and the one with Saddam. President Bush I believe will kill him if he can and that is the right choice. It is the only choice for sane, rational individuals. There is no place for the bedwetting, pansy, immoral, liberal mindset in a situation like this. If I saw a liberal in my house... ok just kidding. Keep in mind that the black widow may perceive me as his enemy. That is totally irrevelant and he will be just as dead if I can help it. It is he who has made the mistake of being dangerous and not having the good sense to respect others who are able to squash him like a bug.

RT

 

[chawbein]

Only the unenlightened say if you're anti-war, your're anti-American.... That sounds like some sort of redneck stereotype. This is nothing more than flame-bait despite your claims.

 

[Saabslime]

rumpletumbler:

If our government applied your logic we would be no better than the countries our leaders refer to as "rogue" nations. Attacking without provocation.

Should we go out and declare war on every country the president thinks might represent a threat to national security some time in the future for one reason or another? Sure wish I had a crystal ball like that. Our forefathers developed a very well thought out process that must be adhered to in these matters so as to avoid the very quick to the trigger mind set you seem to possess. The current administration seems to think they are an exception to the rule.

President Bush I believe will kill him if he can and that is the right choice. It is the only choice for sane, rational individuals.

I hereby proudly declare myself to be an insane, irrational American........gooday

 

[Purple Haze]

Re: Let's avoid simple Black and White areas

Originally posted by mar

"This is an unprovoked attack on Iraq..."
Ridiculously long overdue, however, the previous administration chose not to enforce Desert Storm's cease-fire agreements. This SHOULD have happened when the UN weapons inspectors originally encountered resistance (early 90s?). Iraq provoked it THEN -- unless this current action is part of the "war or terrorism." If it is, we need to be told. If this is nothing more than cleaning up the slop from Desert Storm, I agree with you, the timing is ludicrous.

"I'm opposed to this war because of the load it will place on resources already stretched too thin."
This logic puts the cart in front of the horse. Strengthen the resources and make decisions based on national interest, rather than the limitations of a "downsized" military. God bless all the patriots who get the job done despite gross overuse.

"I supported the military action in Afghanistan because I thought Al Qaeda clearly demonstrated a imminent threat to America."
Al Qaeda is not gone - the Taliban is. I hope we will continue to go after countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists. I know of no other way to fight this evil than to stop their money supply and make the cost/pain of supporting them too high. I do wish however, if the Iraq action is a part of the "war on terrorism," the American people would be presented conclusive evidence of Iraq's sponsoring of it -- I expect they do -- show me.

"This Bush administration is by *far* the most abusive administration since the Nixon administration."
I disagree. The previous administration used the military so much we in the military jokingly called it the "war of the month club." The "abuses" you speak of are a reaction to the unprovoked attack against US civilians on US soil Sep 11. I don't like it either, and I'm thankful I am not the guy who must figure out a way to prevent future attacks against us. I'm glad I have a president who is a leader, rather than one whose every action is determined by daily polls. Don't mistake this for blind trust.

"The economy cannot simultaneously support a global anti-terrorism campaign and war in Iraq. There are much more important things to spend our tax dollars on."
I do not share your opinion on the capability of our economy or our priorities, especially if the war and the anti-terrorism campaign are related. If they are unrelated, I'm with you, Mar -- we need to smack down some terrorists.

"What can be more American than that?"
Not much -- maybe an open discussion with people who have differing views, without resorting to flaming -- we can do that.

"Peace now."
Amen.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Typhoon1244, didn't one of the moderator's post a thread the other day to discouraging people from posting flame baiting material ?
I kind of see where some people might say you're anti-American if you're anti-war. I get a similar response when I question all the Homeland (In) Security stuff. Feel like it is the law abiding citizens who will bear the brunt of it and not the bad guys.
My layman's take on all this is that it is a combination of going after the bad guys and controlling the oil - or at least keep the Russians and Chinese in check so they don't control all the oil supply in the area. Perhaps the administration rationalizes that they can knock out a bad guy and control their oil interest at the same time. I admit that oil is crucial for a successful economy and a strong defense.
I do question just how pure our motives are. We'll never know since we're not privilege to be in on the closed door "cloak and dagger" meetings. And for anyone who thinks I'm anti-American and/or liberal, I consider myself to be very conservative (if you want a label) politically. I started losing my trust of politicians beginning with GWBI and especially Clinton.
Whatever happens I hope we don't get in over our head and do agree with BeckyAnne to support our troops.

 

[Joseph II]

When someone says "we don't have the proof", or that "Iraq will not attack us", it makes me think about a few things....

I am pretty sure that President Bush knows a lot more about what's going on in Iraq and the terrorist situation then you or I will ever know. It is easy for us to give our opinions on the war situation based on the information we've received through the tv/newspaper/internet but I bet it's not the entire picture.

That being said, I am pretty sure that President Bush understands the impact on the economy, his apparent "disregard" of the law and circumnavigation of NATO if the US were to go to war. He obvously believes the risk involved in attacking Iraq is worth the cost.

I therefore have little choice but to trust the president and his decisions because of the information *he* has at *his* disposal. If he is right then we have been blessed with a leader who has courage to pursue the enemy. If he is wrong then I hope he lives with his decisions for the rest of his life knowing he put lives at risk for the pursuit of selfish intents.

 

[ksu_aviator]

What I find so amazing is that so many people in this country believe Saddam over Bush. Why would any one believe a tyrant like Saddam versus an elected official like Bush. Saddam has no accountability. He has no one telling him he can't do that. Bush has millions of Americans watching him very closely hoping he'll do just one thing that is slightly devious so they can jump down his throat. So, if Bush says Saddam has nukes and nerve gas I believe him.

... because I thought Al Qaeda clearly demonstrated a imminent threat to America.

Lets just call this the understatement of the year.

The war in Iraq is different because it's not a retaliation--it's pre-emptive and thus contravenes UN doctrine.

What war in Iraq? We haven't attacked yet. We have just threatened it. And, look where that got us. We have inspectors back in Iraq, a "comprehensive" (hahahahahah I have to laugh when I hear that) list of weapons Iraq has. We are also gaining support from the international community because we are following the UN's rules.

In an LA Times poll released yesterday, "72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq."

That is true, but it isn't the whole story. The sentence just before that said that 90% don't doubt that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. You implied that everyone is against this war and so much more is needed to convence them that war is needed. When the truth is any inkling of proof will send most people into the prowar category. Also, ABC is reporting that 58% of Americans believe more evidence is needed. From what little I know about statistics, two similar polls with wildly different results such as this, makes both polls unreliable. If both polls had said 70 & 72% or 58 & 60% I would have accepted their answers. However, one poll is skewed and we don't know which one so both are null and void until someone comes up with something more conclusive.

And I agree that saying Anti-war is unAmerican. But, supporting Saddam would be. Not that anyone here does, I just think this is the immediate association that those who say anti-war is unAmerican.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by chawbein
Only the unenlightened say if you're anti-war, your're anti-American.... That sounds like some sort of redneck stereotype. This is nothing more than flame-bait despite your claims.

No, it really isn't. If I'd jumped out and said "I think only white-skinned American-born males should be allowed to be pilots," then that would be flame bait. (No, I don't really think that. Just an example. Calm down.)

I'm just exploring an idea that I think a lot more pilots have than you are willing to admit. I think 46Driver gave me the best clue as to where this alleged link between pacifism and treason comes from: the Vietnam War. (See my earlier post above.)

By the way, "I'm not Fonda Hanoi-Jane" either. As I said previously, I wasn't around to see what went on back then, but I've certainly read about it a lot. I'm not sure what was driving Jane's behavior back then, but it bordered on bizarre. I like to think that today's anti-war celebrities (Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, etc.) wouldn't go to Baghdad to pose with Saddam.

Chawbein, I'm a little disappointed in your shortsighted view of this thread. Despite what you think, the temperature on this thread has stayed very low. I've actually been impressed with the responses I've gotten. Nobody's lashed out, nobody's flamed anybody. But if you think it's flame bait, report it to the moderator.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by rumpletumbler
If I see a black widow in my house then I'm going to kill it if I can. If I see a black widow in my yard then I'm going to kill it if I can. If I'm walking my dog and I see a black widow across the street and he is not heading away from my home I will kill it if I can. I won't wait until one of the kids or my wife or myself have been stung by it to remove the threat.

This analogy has some problems, but consider this:

(1) Most black widows will leave you alone if you don't provoke them.

(2) If you support war--which is completely different from supporting the troops--you're not going to go stomp on that black widow. You're going to send your children and mine to do it. (Good grief, did I really just say that? Maybe I'm becoming more liberal since my kid was born...)

(3) Right now, the United States is the biggest black widow in the yard...and I don't want anybody else trying to step on us.

Yes, that's the problem with this analogy. You forget that every nation with a somewhat modern military is a black widow. If we spend our entire existence trying to step on each other, eventually someone's going to panic and break out the bug bomb...then there won't be any more black widows anywhere.

Now, back to Iraq. Saddam's regime is one provoked black widow, and it needs to be stepped on with extreme prejudice. My problem is that it should have been done a long time ago. Someone pointed out a few weeks back that Bush II was talking about the Iraqi threat during the campaign. Then why didn't he pursue this the moment he got into office? He didn't, did he? He waited until things were looking grim at Enron and people were starting to forget about Osama bin Whats-his-face.

I agree that the President probably knows more about Iraq than any of us. (Makes me nervous when I see he's getting smallpox vaccinations.) I also can't forget that the people giving the President this information are the same ones who (1) completely missed the 9/11 attack, and (2) issued Mohammed Atta a visa after that attack.

 

[Purple Haze]

I agree that the President probably knows more about Iraq than any of us. (Makes me nervous when I see he's getting smallpox vaccinations.)

What a concept: A Commander-In-Chief who leads the troops by example. If memory serves, we didn't see the former president get an anthrax shot. I think he sent the SECDEF to get a shot instead.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by Purple Haze
What a concept: A Commander-In-Chief who leads the troops by example. If memory serves, we didn't see the former president get an anthrax shot.

Nah, you missed my point. It makes me nervous because, unless I'm mistaken, these injections aren't available to everyone yet. It would actually make me less nervous if the President said to the nation, "c'mon, we're all getting smallpox shots, and I'm paying for it."

Of course, I hate shots anyway...

 

[FastCargo]

Hmmm....

Okay, my .02...

There seems to be a lot of 'Why might we going to war with Iraq?' being thrown around...here and elsewhere. My opinion is this: Iraq does present a serious danger to the US, and therefore needs a regime change. Now, why do I think this?

Lets assume for a minute that POTUS is either a) A sincere individual who sees a serious threat to the US or b) A political animal intensely aware of the views of himself, his administration, and his political party. If (A) is true, then we can assume that he is acting in what he considers the nations best interest, regardless of the political consequences, based on his intelligence estimates and advisors. If (B) is true, then we have to ask why the heck is he proceeding along this route, fully aware of the political ramifications both domestic and international. Assuming (B) is true, he would have to know the political devestation an unpopular war would cause for the '04 elections...regardless of the securing oil argument (I'll address that in a minute). My conclusion is that there is compelling evidence of Iraq's collusion in terrorism, past, present, and future...but the evidence cannot be publicly exposed due to compromising intel sources.

My layman's take on all this is that it is a combination of going after the bad guys and controlling the oil - or at least keep the Russians and Chinese in check so they don't control all the oil supply in the area. Perhaps the administration rationalizes that they can knock out a bad guy and control their oil interest at the same time. I admit that oil is crucial for a successful economy and a strong defense.

The oil angle always causes a little chuckle. While we are dependent on the oil from the area, what would be the easiest way to secure oil from Iraq? Answer, lift the sanctions! Come on, if Iraq has really changed it's ways, it would help everybody, right? We get more oil, France and Russia get to do more business, the peaceniks are happy...we all sit around the campfire and sing happy songs. Yeah....riiighht! As far as the Russians needing oil...no, not really. They have plenty, with more that can be exploited...to a nice tidy profit! There are political easier and faster ways to secure that oil. Again, why are we not going about it in those ways?

This turned out to be a lot longer than I expected. Am I naive enough to believe in fully altrustic reasons for war in Iraq? What, are you nuts?!? However, considering how much easier other political options would be, I lean toward there being a VERY good reason for actual conflict, should it become necessary.

Of course, I could have been imbibing too much of a controlled substance...ask me again tommorrow!

Y'all be safe out there...

FastCargo