catapult magazine

Cuba:

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

Holding onto ideals is tough when other countries are directly opposed to our ideals.

Here’s a link to the state of the union address. The last half is about war on terror/Iraq

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

I missed it on TV and this answered a lot of my questions. (Dan, you’ve stimulated me to become more informed)

I must say, it was clear cut enough to convince me. The evidence on Iraq was not favorable. Sorry, Saddam.

It’s a good speech. I especially like the part about developing a hydrogen powered car that people might actually buy. But I’m still waiting to hear from Powell about Iraq’s links to Al Qaida and the 9-11 connection. I doubt he’ll be able to present anything that will convince me that Saddam actually had anything to do with 9-11. But I’ll wait and see.

I generally fall into the anit-war camp.

Today I had a conversation with the janitor of our building, who is Kurdish. He is very much in favor of a U.S. invasion, and in fact, most refugees from the middle east feel the same way. Most of them wish the U.S. had more pure motives, but nonetheless they are eagerly awaiting the overthrow of the corrupt dictatorships that hold sway. At one point, my Kurdish friend said, “Those people who protest the war, they don’t know nothing about Saddam Hussein.”

Still, I don’t quite understand why the U.S. thinks it has to go it alone. Perhaps one of the pro-war camp people can help with this. Why not wait for the U.N.? Is it because we’re not very buddy-buddy with the U.N.? I’m beginning to be won over to the idea that military action is the only way to go here, but short of the U.S. being on a bit of a power trip, I don’t quite understand why it doesn’t see likely that we’ll wait for the U.N.’s inspection to be completed.

I don’t agree with this characterization of the U.S. wanting to go “willy-nilly” into war. The U.S. does not desire to go against the will of the world. Rather, the Bush administration wishes the will of the world was more appropriate to the current situation.

Bush feels the U.N. does not have enough clout, that it has not been effective (so far, Saddam has proven that). This is why Bush wanted to avoid the U.N.—not because the U.S. wants the responsibility of applying force, but because the U.N. doesn’t take its own responsibility seriously enough. If the U.N. did what Bush thinks it ought to do, the U.S. would not have to take this “superpower” role (I stand by my claim that the U.S. is a reluctant superpower).

This situation is as much a conflict of the future of the U.N. as it is a conflict with Iraq. Rumsfeld’s recent slip-up in which he stated that the European way of thinking is an old way of thinking reveals some of the thoughts of the administration, I think, though it was stupid from a political standpoint. The Bush administration believes the current reality of the dangers we face in this world require a more proactive (preventative) response. Since September 11, we can no longer afford to wait to be attacked. If Bush leaves Hussein alone, the Nelson Mandelas of this world who now think Bush is a war mongerer will be the first to criticize Bush for not thinking ahead when an even greater attack occurs against the U.S., Europe or even Africa.

If anyone can explain to me the direct connection between Iraq and September 11, I’m willing to follow your line of reasoning, grant. Until someone (Powell on Wednesday?) does that, I’ll continue to consider Bush a war mongerer.

As far as Bush bypassing the UN because it is ineffective, I’ll turn that around by saying the UN has been ineffective because the US doesn’t support it. The US has done all it can in the last couple of years to undermine the effectiveness of the UN—the world’s richest country, in fact, owes the UN millions of dollars. So it’s really no surprise that the UN is ineffective when the most powerful country decides it’s not going to play by the rules anymore. A truly reluctant superpower wouldn’t flaunt its military power and undermine cooperative inertia in the world. I’ve never known a superpower that was reluctant—this would suggest that Americans wish it were otherwise. I don’t think that’s the case.

I thought I was Iraq-ed out until Dan started posting again. Put ’em up, Dan-o! :)

I have a baby to bathe now, but … I’ll be back.

(insert menacing music here)

Well here is the view from a 15-year-old. To put it bluntly, isn’t war stupid? Sometimes it is necessary, granted. In fact in this instance, I believe that it may be very necessary. Sadam is a very dangerous person, and he needs to be taken out. But the idea that nations need to build up tons of nuclear weapons, and biological warfare agents is just stupid. The sole purpose of these things is to kill. There is no other purpose for these things. Any thoughts on that?

War isn’t fun and it isn’t glorious, but it is necessary. I am not “pro war” but I am pro freedom and pro order. Saddam is making a mockery of the UN inspections and he’ll play a shell game with us for another ten years if we let him. Or maybe he’ll just get tired and try to nuke us in three years.

Until we get to heaven, suffering and war (spiritual and physical) is part of our existence.

Dan, I’d be perfectly willing to call back the boys (including several of my close college buddies) if you can ask Saddam nicely to turn over all his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and stand down as dictator.

See, I’m not a warmonger. :)

The shell game metaphor is interesting. I guess I see the U.S. playing the shell game than any other country in existence. As far as timing goes, I’m not convinced Iraq would start an act of war directly against the U.S. Retaliation? sure. I see America getting tired of Saddam and nuking his butt, faster than Iraq getting/using nukes against the U.S.
And that’s not a good thing.
Powell’s info sharing on Wednesday will be a real eye opener I believe. And I’m afraid I’m not going to like what I see.