catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

A question for anti-war Americans

Default

mrsanniep
Mar 31 2003
05:27 am

What does being anti-war at this point mean? Now that we ARE at war, are you rooting for Iraq, the “underdog?” And if you are, does that mean you endorse Iraq’s methods of attack, the torture and killing of American soldiers? Do you want America to lose?

If this is the peace movement … what’s treason?

Default

mrsanniep
Mar 31 2003
05:03 pm

Can I just interject here and say that it drives me absolutely insane that you, Dan, purport to know the opinion of everyone else outside the United States?

That’s about all the politeness I can muster up right now.

Default

mrsanniep
Mar 31 2003
05:21 pm

If this is a war about American self-interest, than why has humanitarian assistance been such a high priority so far? I don’t think invading armies have ever taken the care we have to spare civilian populations and their electricity, water, etc. Allied forces reopened the port of Umm Qasr and the first thing they did was get food and water to the Iraqi people. We put our soldiers at risk of exposure to chemical weapons so that those weapons won’t be used to subjugate Saddam’s neighboring nations.

It’s been this way throughout history -WWI, WWII, Vietnam. We fight these wars NOT to acquire new territory, but in defense of freedom. Yes, we think democratic self-government is the best thing since sliced bread. Argue against it all you want. But it’s better than what they’ve got and we’re the only ones capable of taking the initiative to free these people up to make their own decisions (we don’t force democracy on them when it’s over).

Default

dan
Mar 31 2003
06:34 pm

Sorry for causing insanity on your end, mrsanniep, but thanks for being polite. Do you think I’m wrong? I think you’d find I’m pretty acurate in my generalizations about how the majority of people feel about this conflict in the Americas (outside the US), the Middle East, Europe (outside the UK), Africa, and Asia right now.

Default

dan
Mar 31 2003
06:40 pm

Concerning humanitarian aid, let’s keep in mind that the crisis was caused by American and British bombing in the first place. At this point it’s not a matter of generosity, but of responsibility.

Concerning America’s role in promoting and suppressing freedom, America has a history of doing both. We propped up or instated Hussein, the Taliban, bin Laden, the Saudi dictators, Pinochet, Noriega (the list goes on), all of whom suppressed freedom. The world wars and the Gulf War are examples of promoting freedom through international cooperation. It’s a mixed bag. But US military unilateralism in the past generally hasn’t resulted in the growth of global freedoms. That’s why I’m skeptical about this one and expect failure.

Besides, mrsanniep, no matter how great we think our democracy is, who ever said the way to create democracy is through military force. It’s counter-intuitive for me. I saw a sign at a protest here that exaggerates the paradox but rings true nonetheless. It said: “Bombing for Peace is like Fucking for Virginity.”

Default

bridget
Mar 31 2003
08:55 pm

I’m tired of being forced into one of the two falsely dichotomous camps. The principles that gird both the anti-war and the pro-war factions ring hollow to me. I am both anti-war in that I think just about any war is unjust, but at the same time I feel pity on the men and women who are fighting in Iraq—on all sides. I can’t put a label on human beings who are fighting and dying and losing lives—Americans, Brits, Iraqi’s—someone started it, yes, but now everyone is dying and I think it’s equally hellish for them all.

I don’t think that perpetuating false dichotomies by asking people to label themselves one or another is very helpful. For one thing, it doesn’t help solve anything. It also allows us to dehumanize each other and it certainly doesn’t promote any kind of peace or understanding.

Just my two cents.

Default

mrsanniep
Apr 01 2003
03:40 am

Before the first bomb fell on Iraq, its economy was suffering a major devastation close to what might result from a war – thanks to Saddam Hussein. For more than 20 years he’s run the economy into the ground. United Nations sanctions after the 1991 war didn’t help the poverty of the people, but they would have been lifted had Saddam been willing to disarm and give up trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction. And had he been agreeable, it would STILL have been a poor country, based on state socialist policies.

Bombing Iraq did not cause hunger or thirst or poverty. Yes, we have a responsibility to clean up our messes. However, the basic humanitarian aid we’re providing reaches far beyond mere responsibility.

Anyhow, what would you have happen now? That America, Britain and all their friends just pull out and go home? Or would you like to see a nice, fat loss on our part?

Default

laurencer
Apr 01 2003
03:40 am

amen, bridget! i am growing increasingly weary of the two polarized camps in this debate, both not willing to budge in the least. both arguments have become one dimensional and ineffective.

pro-war
dan has a point when he says that this is about more than simply iraqi freedom. it is, at least in part, about oil. if we are truly convinced that iraq already has weapons of mass destruction (which is the administration’s justification for this offensive), then we’ve eliminated that difference between iraq and north korea. which leaves oil as a big piece of the puzzle. one that, in my opinion, cannot be ignored. in fact, halliburton, v.p. cheney’s former company, has already secured a number of contracts to help cap oil wells in southern iraq.

then, of course, there’s the whole france bashing thing. if i hear one more stupid, ignorant and all together destructive rant about france, i’ll scream.

anti-war
speaking of destructive rants, michael moore’s performance . . . err, i mean, acceptance speach . . . is another perfect example, albeit one coming from the other end of the spectrum. the left can whine and pout as much as they’d like about how this administration got into power, but it isn’t going to do anything except alienate the right.

the left also needs to realize that this whole thing is not simply about oil. of course it’s a factor, as i mentioned earlier, but it is not the sole reason we’re in iraq. how many people does saddam hussein have to kill and torture before liberals get angry enough to do something about it (and yes, i realize that UN sanctions didn’t really help the iraqi people much either)? the anti-war movement doesn’t have very many opinions when it comes to what should be done to oust an admittedly dictatorial, ruthless tyrant.

leaving me . . .
i’m frustrated with this war because i don’t think our country exhausted all of its options before re-writing international law to attack iraq. there are about a million things that could have been done to topple saddam non-violently that we didn’t explore because we are a terribly impatient people. did anyone honestly think that we would avoid war when george bush first started threatening hussein’s regime eight months ago? he had his mind set then and went through the motions until he felt like he had done enough to justify our actions.

having said that (again), i can now only pray for peace and mourn the loss of life, innocent or otherwise, on both sides of this war. i can only pray for wisdom when it comes to dealing with the aftermath of this entire situation, whatever that might look like.

Default

kristinmarie
Apr 01 2003
05:01 am

A huge, huge second Amen to Bridget and laurencer’s comments. I mistrust any side that claims to have the one true way of viewing this situation. Like everything else in life, this is enormously complex, and I don’t know how any one person or group could possibly have the “truth”. When people take an extreme position (whether right or left), I feel that they must not be exploring all facets of the situation objectively, and I don’t trust their motives.

Default

grant
Apr 01 2003
05:32 am

Dan,

Sorry I didn’t respond right away. I am not saying that Bush’s religious stance is merely to save the Iraqis (that would be a narrow definition of religion as merely a moral stance). I’m saying that he has a principled stance about how he sees the world and how he thinks it can be made safer in the long run. If Zimbabwe fits into that somehow, then yes, he would consider that an area to commit some kind of effort, military or otherwise. And I have no doubt that he will give Iran and North Korea more attention after Iraq, though he will no doubt develop different strategies toward each. And though we can look at the U.S.‘s history of involvement in other nations, I think Bush is marking a change in U.S. policy toward more involvement because of the way Bin Laden used our former support against us. I think the days of throwing money or weapons at a situation in another region are over and a more concerted effort of involvement in foreign nations has begun (this is what I mean by Bush’s principled understanding of his task as U.S. leader in this time and place) .

Default

grant
Apr 01 2003
05:48 am

And for those who desire to get away from the polarized views (though there is much more diversity between the two sides than it seems), perhaps we could talk about this war in terms of our own failure as a Christian community. I don’t really hear any edifying Christian voice calling out right now, but I’m sure it’s out there. Does anyone know where to find such a voice? What has Jim Skillen been saying about this situation?