catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

"I don't think war is noble"

Default

mrsanniep
Feb 06 2003
03:02 am

Cuba:

We already can’t buy good cigars here anymore. What more do you want? How much more must we sacrifice??

Default

laurencer
Jan 27 2003
07:51 am

okay, back to the original discussion. i’ve been gone for a week, so i haven’t been able to keep up with all of this very interesting discussion (this and other threads). hope i’m not too long-winded.

first of all, as christians, our concern should be with seeing that justice is done in this situation, which, of course, offers more questions than it answers. is hussein’s treatment of his people just? is killing innocent civilians in the course of overthrowing an oppressive dictator just? is forcing a sovereign nation to do what the US wants it to do just? is it just for iraq to be seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction(WMD)? is it just for any nation to have WMD?

secondly, it seems that the US has been and is notoriously short-sighted when it comes to foreign policy. we attempt to deal with situations when they get out of hand, instead of actively and perpetually seeking ways to solve issues peacably. by the time situations reach the point of boiling over, we are usually left with limited options.

and so we find ourselves in this current situation with iraq having few feasible options (yes i know that sanctions attempted to deal with hussein, but they were administered rather poorly). we have several options (and there are certainly more than i’ll list here), but none of them are really ideal, in my opinion:
[ol]
[li]the new idea that hussein might be willing to go into exile is absolutely ridiculous. the man is a dictator who craves power, therefore going into exile (relinquishing power) will be of little interest to him.
[li]attacking iraq without sharing our “evidence” with other nations is also an ill-advised option because we will simply push nations who are generally allied with us even further away than we’ve already pushed them.
[li]or we can allow the inspectors to do their job. hussein, of course (although he has been more cooperative this go-around), is attempting to put barriers in the way of the inspections. this is why we need consequences for each failed (non-cooperative) inspection attempt. consequences that don’t involve a full-scale war. i don’t know, maybe we tell them that if they attempt to divert inspectors at any given inspection site, we’ll bomb a pre-determined palace or oil field within 15 minutes (pre-determined to allow people to evacuate—killing people has no effect on dictators, but destroying infastructure does).
[/ol]
well, those are just some thoughts that crossed through my mind while reading this thread. i’m sure i’ll be adding more in the near future.

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 27 2003
08:02 am

The link was more for my debate buddy, Dan.

I thought it was okay to digress once and awhile on this board. There has also been some Canada-vs-America ribbing going on in this discussion.

Default

Jasonvb
Jan 27 2003
08:16 am

Gotcha, mrsanniep. Sometimes it’s hard to know ribbing from real honest opinions on the board. I’m lighter now.

Default

dan
Jan 27 2003
09:37 am

I agree with parts of Goldberg’s rant. For example, I find Canadian’s attitudes of superiority rather distasteful myself. Most of the rest of the article seems like the result of an anger management problem tied together at the end with a veiled apology to “the nicest and most decent people you’d ever want to meet.” And then the ultimate slam: “They just don’t live in a normal country.” Ouch. Hey wait a minute—I just realized that last sentence doesn’t mean anything. The essay doesn’t hang together and I won’t waste any more time talking about it. I’ll lighten up now.

Default

laurencer
Jan 27 2003
11:08 am

of course it’s okay to go on tangents. it’s sometimes difficult for kirstin and i (people working for *cino) to know when to say something on the board about certain comments that can be taken the wrong way. we don’t people to be afraid of posting for fear of some sort of reprisal. sorry if i spoke too soon.

and now, for a somewhat awkward transition. i don’t know how many sane people actually envy the power of the united states. along with power in a community comes responsibility, which is why the US has to be very careful when making these decisions. abusing power, which we’ve done several times in the past, is a very easy trap to fall into.

going back to an idea dan had earlier: why is it that republicans, who usually prefer smaller government because they fear having too much power concentrated in one sector, ask for non-wavering support (trust) for our leader in a time of war? and democrats, usually resorting to solving all problems through more government programs, end up becoming very wary of trusting the government at the same time? i guess it’s just another reason republicans and democrats don’t make any sense to me.

Default

JasonBuursma
Jan 27 2003
02:17 pm

I just figured out there was a page 2.

Dan- Clinton’s foreign policy: gutless, weak, kowtowing (I learned, mrsanniep) to Arafat et al.
But it wasn’t as bad as I expected.

sidebar #2: If america is so bad, why do people from all over the world come hear to study, earn money and have a better quality of life? Not to mention protest in our cities and are not shot, but admired for their passion for their home countries (while anti-government protesters would be shot in many of their home countries)

“I talked to Canada yesterday” – Jeff Kent, to a Canadian reporter during the World Series

Rob,
I think the Rep./Dem. thing has to do with the view on human nature. Libs are often humanistic. In other words, everyone is basically good. If we just had a really nice president who felt our pain and instituted enough good programs, all of our problems would be solved. Any poverty is a result of oppressive rich people.
And any bad behavior by other countries is a result of bad treatment by the US. So if we were just nicer, then the rest of the world would be a great big utopia.
Conservatives take a dimmer view (ie. sinful nature). Since there are crazies out there, we need to protect ourselves. Conservatives don’t think government programs are the answer as much as individuals rising above their current status (rugged individualism). Social programs might change the externals, but they cannot change the heart. So they are sometimes heartless, wondering what’s wrong with people who are struggling, because even though they realize that moral and personal responsibility is the key, they have no idea how to communicate that to the people in an effective and caring way.
Successful conservatives are more likely to look down on the unsuccessful people, while successful liberals are more likely to feel guilty about the opportunities life gave them (affluenza as Limbaugh puts it)
Is that clear as mud? To be honest I don’t totally understand my own political ideas.

Default

dan
Jan 27 2003
06:57 pm

neither do I. but i passing the baton and will let some others do the talking on this subject. i may join again later. i’m all iraqued out.

Default

JabirdV
Jan 28 2003
10:49 am

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 28 2003
03:47 pm

Bush just said, “The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whenever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and safety of the American people. Different threats require different strategies.”

I just thought I’d transcribe that; test out my typing skills.

As for the difference between Dems and Republicans, here’s how I like to tell it: Democrats want you to believe in Santa Claus. Republicans are the killjoys who tell you he doesn’t exist.