I was cleaning out old e-mail and I found this conversation with my brother from March 27, 2003. I wrote an e-mail at the beginning of these wars telling my relatives to quit trying to bully me into supporting the war & the President with lame reasons. My brother responded, & I responded back. We may have even done another round of responding. The only editing I'm doing to it in this post is to make clear what I wrote originally from his responses & my comments back & to delete names for privacy reason . We did some color coding originally that will help me keep it straight; my apologies to my brother if I mess up just a bit as the color coding didn't copy & paste with the text.
Why am I doing this.... well I once said this blog would occasionally discuss politics & it hasn't yet. AND now around 2/3 of the country agrees with me. Whereas when I wrote it, I was very much in the minority. If you were/are a supporter of the war, I don't mean to smash it in your face that I was right about any of it. I just wanted to store the fact of what I thought some place other than in my e-mail.
For the record my current stance is: I pray for the troops almost daily. My cousin's son is in Afghanistan. A best friend's son is going to Iraq. I have acquaintances at church who have returned from Iraq. I honor them all.
I still believe our president to be mostly incompetent. I still wish he had waited for other countries to prove that their intelligence agencies had more accurate information than he did. I still believe that most of the reasons we were given for going to war were lame. I do think that there could have been some good reasons for going over there, but they weren't the ones given at the time & that we still apply those good reasons with inconsistent logic, and could even be considered hypocritical in the way that we do apply them.
I have always believed that Saddam Hussein & Bin Ladin did evil things. I still am befuddled as to why we see it as our job to attack some countries for the evil of their leaders, but not others. Why do we befriend some of the other atrocious leaders? Do I want us to go to war with all of the evil leaders? No. Do I want to find away to convince them to acknowledge basic human rights? Yes. Heck, I wish our own country would sign treaties/accords etc that acknowledge basic human rights, & I wish we would live up to the ones we have already signed, too.
Because of the way we interrupted each other's flows of thought to comment, it might be easier if you read all of the
original purple, then all of
his responses in blue & then all of
my responses in green. Or at least go back to the last lines written in that same color to follow our purple & blue trains of thought. My green words are pure responses to his blue ones.Here is the
original from March 2003:
I am feeling bullied by many around me to support a war that I still believe was not necessary. You few/some were picked to read my rantings because I have discussed with you at various times war, politics, etc. & you with me; or I've just known you long enough to think we can disagree and not end our relationship. If you are offended, so be it; you may respond as
you are wont to do. I've just got to get all of this off my chest & brain.
Let me preface the rest of my thoughts with this: I am concerned about the soldiers, and I do not want them to feel abandoned by the US public like many Vietnam soldiers felt. Furthermore I do not dispute the facts of Saddam Hussein's atrocious acts against people nor the breaking of Gulf War 1 treaties and resolutions by having "illegal weapons."
But my concern for them can go even deeper than many war supporters. As a newspaper columnist wrote recently, if we really cared for their lives we would have not adopted a stance with Iraq which essentially said, "We said to do as we said, and we want you to do it now because we are bigger than you are, or ELSE."
My brother: The prelude to this war included many meetings with Iraq's government. Both open and private. First off, Clinton threatened and backed of many times in his 8 years. He should of forced the issue ....... but he was a coward. Not wanting to get the USA in a big war. After GW Bush won the Gulf war Part1, Clinton lost the peace. Current George Bush played it the right way .... pump up the propaganda machine. Allowed 1 year of talks, while building a credible consequences. Clinton never made the price look high enough. A normal loser in a war would have allowed full inspections. Hussein never thought he lost, I guess.My response: We knew when we elected Clinton that he had no stomach for war & no international politics experience. We got what we asked for. I never fully understood why we didn't go get Saddam in the first war. We knew he was bad then. Saddam probably didn't feel like he lost because he was not capitulated, and his regime was left in tact. In my brain I know that there was lack of UN support to "dethrone" him at that time, but I would have accepted our thumbing our nose at them better then. Nuances in the situation and my personality are the reasons for my change of stance.
Back to original: As every parent whose child has lived to age 5 knows, when such a threat is given there has to be a followup of a mighty "or ELSE." The average parent has learned that or else statements just make the kid say, " NO" in some defiant way. And there ends up being a no one win situation. Defiance comes in a variety of forms. Hussein's regime was using the foot dragging, behind your back strategies. Parents look for a situation that is at least a win/lose if not a win/win. With a win/win situation confrontations over that particular issue are rare, and confrontations over other issues become less likely. The win/lose solutions get a job or conflict resolved, but leave lingering after affects. I had hopes that my governmental leaders were smarter than the average parent.
Brother: See above ... Clinton messed it up. George Bush tried to fix it. Win/win could have of happened if Hussein allowed inspections, not gassed the Kurds. And had been a good neighbor. Sanctions would have been lifted. Oil exports allowed and he would be a happy rich mofo. After
all the USA was a friend to the Shah of Iran. The Shah was publicly a "good guy," while secret police "bad guy." Shah did not gas, invade any country, launch missile at our allies like: Saudi, Israel and Kuwait AFAIK. Our government / Bush admin played the game well.
My response: Other countries thought that there was still hope of inspections getting done. Other countries also just wanted more time for various reasons. No one likes his gassing of the Kurds, except maybe the Turks? Depending on which station/broadcaster I'm listening to, sometimes Turkey seems agressive to the Kurds, and other times not. I will admit confusion on that issue. I did not understand us treating the Shah as a good guy, until I learned just how bad the Ayatollah was. As a social studies student/teacher I have to remind myself & students that the Middle East is a different culture, and has a different perspective about what we call atrocities & civil/human rights violations. South America in the 50's-90's has begun to evolve to be more like us, but their understanding of what is just punishment was & still is in many places is much more harsh. The Middle East remains harsh. To think that the Ayatollah is better than the Shah, seems to be more of an economic & religious view than, a civil/human rights view. I would like more information on whether the Ayatollah remained "humble" compared to the conspicuous consumption of the Shah. Few leaders stay humble.
If the international community had more fully backed the US, then I could be more for the war. But we thumbed our noses at the UN, & so now can the rest of the world. We have rendered it as useless. It was bad enough when we didn't pay our dues, and didn't support treaties/resolutions for pollution, healthcare, trade etc. But going to war is worse. I resent that a lot.Orignal: Do I know what a win/win situation could have been with Hussein's regime? No, but the leaders of other countries asked for more time and patience to create the win/win situation. If Bush had not taken the or else stance and continued with it, then we could have followed the advice of other nations. But he did what he did, & now because he's the leader of my country I am not allowed to bad mouth him?
Since when are we not allowed to bad mouth a president? We just finished 8 years of Slick Willie Clinton being bad-mouthed every day in the press. George Sr. was accused of waffling on issues, & its hard to believe that he didn't recall many things he should have during the Iran-Contra inquisitions. Teflon Ron Reagan was fair game until he was diagnosed with Alzheimers--- but he was accused of having the symptoms while in office. Ford was called a bumbling oaf. Carter was accused of being bogged down in minutea & not seeing the whole picture. Nixon (Tricky Dick) had to die before people started speaking respectively of his administration. Don't tell me not to bad mouth a president just because he's president after my lifetime of experiences hearing others bad mouth our presidents. Our country was established on the freedom of speech, & I want to feel free to use my voice without being damned and labled as unpatriotic. If you want to be patriotic, then you had best be willing to support our constitution's guarantee of free speech.
Brother: Actually, Clinton got very little bad press from starting wars in Somolia and Kosovo. Though he should have ... he did not seek UN approval to go either place. So ok Somolia started out as a UN relief work feeding the hungry, but soon degraded to fighting tribal warlords. However the UN is a useless, meaningless body. And if you saw the movie Blackhawk Down. You see Clinton was a coward by not giving the military the tools and means to do the job they were sent in to do. If a country commits to war. It should use as much force as possible. To accomplish the job ASAP with the least possible civilian damage and loss of life. Clinton did things with the least force possible. To keep the liberal folks back home happy. So they would believe this is not "the next Vietnam".
I was very mad at Clinton for this too.
My Response: Never said Clinton's bad press was about war. Hell, most the country didn't realize we were even in Somolia to fight. General impression was "peace keeping" & humanitarian aide. With Kosovo & Bosnia the bad press was about not getting there sooner. My professors throughout the years have said that the US is still rather racist & Euro-Centric. War in Africa--who cares. Problems in Europe--why weren't we there yesterday. Their words do seem to still ring a bit too true.
Never said anything about Clinton being good at his job. I think the country just wanted to party for awhile & make money. Remember the campaign slogan: "It's the economy, stupid" ? We didn't seem to care that Bush senior had international experience, or was pro-moral conduct with prayers, & no abortions, etc. We got what we voted for. Slick Willie.
I did not vote for him either time. I do not belong to a political party & probably never will as I have seen both major parties be dishonest & immoral in their actions and beliefs. When a minority party has someone who is not too insane, I have voted for one of them more in protest & to give hope to a third & fourth parties of any stance to rise up & try. Other times, I have felt like I was picking the lesser evil.
Brother: To Hussein these things were apparent, so he did things his way. The war has just started .... So everyone is full of anxieties ... most people believe or wanna believe the elected folk know more than we know. My gut was far more worried about Clinton's wars than this one, though I never publicly protested his wars. Us conservative folks :) worried about a Commander in Chief that said he "loathed the military." I was very mad at his bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan. An ally, that has never ever been proven to support terrorists.
My response: I just barely remember the aspirin factory situation & will accept your version. I have only once joined a war protest & that was the first Sunday after the first Gulf War started. It was not so much a protest as just a lot of people who were very sad wearing gray & black in mourning. In retrospect, I see that war as much more necessary than the timing of this one. I wish all wars could be avoided, but I do understand the need to have some of them.
Original text: I teach my children not to fight with fists or weapons unless all elusive, saying "stop" & "telling" strategies have been used, and actual violence is upon them. Even then, I tell them to consider their attacker... If bigger, stronger or more prone to be cruel in response to attack, then just go into survival mode, which can mean submissive or easy going. The last thing they are to even consider is attacking 'cuz that will just enrage the bully into thinking he has a right to harm his victim. Pre-emptive strikes are not discussed, because of the hypocrisy of the act making yourself the bully.
Now, I know Saddam Hussein is not a bigger neighborhood bully, and the US and the rest of the world are not my kids, but the similarities are close enough. Saddam Hussein's regime is more likely to break international rules of war & see pre-emptive strikes as giving him the right to use his Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Brother: I was taught fighting is always wrong .... I was taught wrong. Siblings shouldn't fight for blood against each other, I agree. But when a stupid bully starts a fight .... over nothing just to be a bully. For good kids to do nothing and allow another kid to be beaten up is wrong!! Run or Fight if no helpful friends are around. In some weird families, brothers and sisters fight physically for fun. Normal kids don't understand this weird behavior, so a normal kid may believe he or she is gonna die!
My Response: One day my youngest son's best friend beat up another smaller kid. My son did nothing. I yelled at him. I may have spanked his butt. I grounded him for a week; he had to tell the kid's parents & apologize for doing nothing & tell his friend's parents what had happened. My son was not allowed to play with his friend for a couple of weeks. My husband may have spanked him when he got home from work. The best friend's parents used a belt; my husband may have used one on our son, which is really a rarity. My husband has threatened a few times, but I think he has only done it once. I just don't remember when. We told our son that if anything like that ever happened he was to tell the beater/bully to stop, hollar for adult help, send for a grown up to help &/or try to stop the bully himself depending on sizes of children & weapons involved. All three are now best friends.
You & I used to wrestle, and I let my kids play wrestle too. My husband & I taught them how actually on Saturday mornings when we would find two or three tiny kids in our bed. We sometimes join them in their wrestling still.. Our daughter has developed a few quick effective moves to let her brothers know when their behavior is not acceptable. She & I had a talk about how as her brothers get older wrestling may actually be their way of hugging her, since girls & hugging are increasingly yucky at their age/stage. But I did not reprimand her for letting them know that stop meant stop.
Brother: Saddam Hussein IS THE BULLY in the neighborhood AFTER ALL he invaded KUWAIT remember? Gassed the Ethnic Kurds Remember? If this isn't the neighborhood bully WFT is? No hypocrisy involved Saddam KILLED FIRST !!! Saddam must go. He will not remain in power no matter what. All his moves are up ... he is history.
My Response: I have never said that I condone Saddam's actions. I too condemn these actions. But why didn't we get him in the first war? Why didn't we get him the week after he gassed the Kurds? Ok, Clinton. But how about the rest of the world ? Why weren't they outraged enough to try to talk us into it? I agree that Saddam must go, but the timing & method are what I don't like. And to be truthful much of what you write makes me feel more OK, about the war. What I couldn't stand being spouted to me were the crap reasons to support the war. I still can't tolerate them.
Orignal message: My religion taught me not to kill. Yeah, so what if accurate translations say the commandment word is "murder," that's not what was ingrained into me at church.
Now I also know that in a country where the constitution says the government will not establish a religion/church, I can't force my religious belief on my government. But we do have rules about killing. Our "self-defence" rules basically state that the other guy has to pull the trigger first. Yes, sometimes immediate eminent danger is allowed, but it has to be proved. According to the weapons inspectors and international leaders that was not proven. Bush only claimed it was.
Brother: Our self-defense rules say that, a reasonable person must believe his/her life, or those who are dependant upon, is in immediate danger. No where is there a requirement of bad guy pulling the trigger or throwing the first punch. The defensive response is to stop the attack.
Whether or not the bad guy lives may depend upon the means the defender has to meet the threat. Later in court the threat may never be fully proved, but common law generally favors the defender. This I have studied a lot.
My response: This is becoming more true in our life times. The activism of abused wives & mothers of abused children really helped the evolution of these laws. When I wrote the other day, I was remembering Dad with his "if your shooting him pushes him back out the window he is crawling in, push him back in the house before you call the cops." I am less ticked off today, & know what you write is true. But some women still have to prove that rape wasn't consensual, or "asked for" by their dress & behavior. Fortunately this has improved in the last 20 years, too.
Brother: If anyone ever believed the UN weapon inspectors were ever gonna say: "Hey,we found nerve gas over here." You are an IDIOT. UN weapon inspector were seeking forensic evidence, that weapons were ever produced. Besides can you say SCUD ..... believed to have been launched into Kuwait. SCUDs have about twice the range of the missiles he finally agreed to destroy.
My Response: Actually finding weapons is forensic evidence. & I watched inspectors on television actually finding some small hidden arsenals. And that helped me understand that war was probably likely because of the lying & hiding. But other countries had faith in the process, and I wish we could have listened to their perspectives better.
Original text: We also have rules about fair trials and trial by peers. The UN trial of peers agreed that Saddam's regime was not behaving correctly, but did not agree on capital punishment for them. Our jury system calls for unanimous decisions for death penalties, but we are not living by that system in the international setting.
Brother: UN can't agree on many things. All the major powers have a veto. If in our congress, house and senator leaders all had veto power. Not much could happen here either. Our intentions are for Hussein and family to leave Iraq. If he stays and survives, he must win the war or accept surrender when he loses.
My Response: Yes, I know the UN can't agree on many things, & the frustrating part is how we too don't help the process by agreeing to more of the good things. For years we didn't even pay our full dues. We complain about the weakness of the UN, and then undermine it & keep it weak.
Original text: Let me address another hypocrisy in the reasons why we had to go to war. Iraq has weapon's of mass destruction, and therefore must have been planning to use them is the stance I hear from Mr. Bush etc. Yet, we have similar and worse weapons of mass destruction. Are we therefore planning on using our nuclear weapons? How about our biological & chemical weapons? Yes, we have them. Have we forgotten Napalm, agent orange? Do you remember the
neutron bomb? It would wipe out life, but leave the buildings. How about those 2 huge new bombs in the news just this month... shock waves for two miles around one of them. We say we have these weapons as a reason to keep others from shooting at us first.
Could not Saddam use the same logic as we? Perhaps that is the only reason Iran or Turkey didn't invade him already. Perhaps we should be invaded until we dismantle our weapons. Oh,
& if we with all of our technological bookkeeping can't find some weapons, what then? Let me assure you that we have equipment that is "missing," and we have people who would keep them missing even if our president publicly agreed to follow the rules. Iran-Contra situations have probably happened more than once in a variety of forms.
Brother response: The USA is a proven "Good Guy" remember.
Yes, of course!! We plan to use OUR NUKES!! They have kept the peace for 40 some years!!
Just don't attack the Good Old USA with nukes, and your country is safe from nuclear attack from the USA.
My response: No, the USA is not a proven "Good Guy." We have supported too many dictators throughout our history to earn that title. AND we usually did it to support our "big business" friends of the president or senators. I will agree that we are better than many other countries in many ways. Much of the world does not trust us, but they like doing business with us.
Brother's response to the original: In WWI, Germany complained the shotgun was "an inhuman weapon and should be banned." This from the first country to use Mustard gas. Napalm is "An
aluminum soap of various fatty acids that when mixed with gasoline makes a firm jelly used in some bombs and in flame-throwers. b. This jelly. 2. An incendiary mixture of polystyrene, benzene, and gasoline." Gasoline, soap, and any metal shavings available anywhere, no way to enforce a ban.
My response: & the guillotine & electric chair were all created to make execution more humane. And the gattling gun was to save lives by killing more enemy faster & end wars faster. I am embarrassed sometimes by my German heritage, but am glad my ancestors were here long before WWI.
Brother: Agent Orange is not a weapon, but a defoliant, it takes the leaves of the jungle canopy. Easier to see the enemy. Neutron bomb a great devise, kills but leaves the real estate intact. But funding was stopped after politician thought about it. They are definitely right on this one. MOAB is just a bigger fuel/air bomb. Been done before but this one is just bigger. Spray the air above target area with jet/diesel fuel and ignite it. KABOOM!! Was mentioned in the press more likely as propaganda, than for real usage.
Weapons do not start Wars.
My response: Yes, Agent Orange is a defoliant, but it also has been responsible for illnesses in our own soldiers. Though it may not be a quick acting weapon, it does have long term affects on those exposed. Neutron: funding stopped, but still the technology exists. In a time when we are demonstrating precision bombing, and concern for innocents, when would MOAB be useful? Yes, I know the timing of the press release was propaganda. Husband & I said that to each other the first day it was in the news.
I totally agree that weapons don't start wars, but they have been used as our excuse to invade Iraq. I object to our using them as our reason. The hypocrisy is in using the weapons as the reason.
Brother: Big difference ... Saddam lost Gulf War Part 1, or maybe he forgot. GHWB followed the UN rules in Gulf War Part 1. Shoulda kicked Saddam's ass outa there. And/or Clinton the coward in command should have enforced the peace. Again GHWB followed the UN rules in Gulf War Part 1 ... the useless UN didn't backup the Peace .... We all Lost the Peace.
Me: Already covered this issue.
Brother: Saddam has a big backyard to bury his toys in. It might take awhile to find them. I worry more about bombing his anthrax supply and releasing it into the air.
Our missing inventory/ Saddam Hussein's Missing inventory he lost 5,000 liters of anthrax and 500 tons of chemical agents. Umm, I am more worried about his missing stuff.
My response: We too have a big backyard, & we have missing plutonium. I fully understand your worries about the anthrax & other chemicals, and would prefer for inspectors to find them than for bombs. Kind of reminds me of cops burning marijuana to keep people from "enjoying" it's fumes. I often wonder the effects on the cops. Anyway, bombing factories that make chemical & biological weapons or warehouses that store them is just not logical. What if the precision bombing hits the wrong thing due to bad or dated intelligence or aiming error?
Brother: Iran/Contras .... See enemies enemy below .... not always a great idea. But the USA and Soviets and China were our allies during WW2. Again Germany and Japan. Seemed to work out ok that time.
Original: Today on the news, the reason for the examples of strategic bombing was to make us be less anti-war, because we were being shown that no "innocents" were being killed. There is no other reason to show us footage that could have come from Nevada, Gulf War 1, or computer doctoring of photos except to alleviate that fear. We want the world to see that we are moral attackers.
At the same time we let it be known that his soldiers are dressed as civilians, so if we mess up....oops. Remember how hard it was to tell Viet Cong from the Vietnamese allies? According to our profiling tactics "they all look alike" anyway right? Better safe than sorry, right?
Brother: Do you have any Faith in our leaders? They are people just like you and me. If Bush was gone tomorrow ... like Clinton gone today ... that You and I wouldn't we elect similar Leaders to replace them?
Americans have the same basic values .... We always try to keep our leaders in check .... To fight the good fight ... for the good of All people. I disagreed with Clinton many times on foreign affair matters .....but believed he thought he was doing the "Right Thing". Except for the Aspirin factory. If we were an evil country .... we would just "Nuke their Ass and Take There Gas"
My response: Faith in our leaders? I don't really. They are humans. Humans respond in predictable ways to economic and "power" incentives. And those ways are not always moral, or logical from a more general perspective. My fears are that we will keep electing presidents that do not have the expertise or common sense they need to govern.
When asked why I am a social studies teacher I say it is because I want my students to be active, and to feel empowered in our government. It is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, & if our people don't ask for the government & people to do a better job, then we get ordinary greedy stupid people making our important decisions. The people must monitor and advise the people elected & hired to do the actual jobs. The elected officials are supposed to listen to us. Not think that they know better what is good for us. They are not our parents, they are our employees.
For interviews I am a bit more professional & less vehement.
Brother: We started the Gulf War Part 2 by attacking Saddam's bunkers and command structures. You know kill the Generals first ......not lining up the troops like during our Revolutionary War. That kind of warfare makes me very sick. Watch The Patriot, with Mel Gibson if you don't know what is mean. Hell, we weren't even taking POWs along the way to Baghdad. Saddam's army didn't even leave an enemy soldier alive while invading Kuwait.
BS we have made it clear dropping tons of leaflets. Saying: do not take up arms against us and you have nothing to fear. "No gun. No get shot."
My response: I am thankful for the strategies you point out here. It makes what we are doing more tolerable. If we were fighting the old way, even the WWII way, I would be in the protest lines everyday despite my agreeing that Saddam & his regime are evil. I do believe that the pictures they showed us are real, but they didn't have to be. And there were some controversies over the accuracy of how Gulf War one pictures were labelled/presented.& yes, Wag the Dog movie comes to mind even though it was fictional.
Original Text: Now what about the terrorist threats? Let's see. We went into Afganistan to take care of that. Afganistan with mountains and caves. Afganistan with the elusive Osama Bin Laden. Those caves remind me of Vietnam tunnels & jungles, but we can't let the US public in general think that, can we? So let's be destracted from that ongoing problem by Saddam Hussein, cuz just maybe it can be conclusively proven that some terrorists got supplies from him. There is debate on the whether his regime has or not. I myself wouldn't doubt it, but that isn't my point.
Ask for a moment these questions: Where do Israely terrorists get their supplies? How about the Irish Army that sets off bombs in Dublin?
Hmm. Let me guarantee that US money, weapons and training are involved in one or both of those situations (i.e. our government probably does not knowingly train the Irish). Let's not even go into the "School of Americas" with its training of South American terrorists. If it is ok to attack a country that supports terrorists, then it is ok for other countries to attack us.
Brother: Are you distracted? I didn't fall for the aspirin factory did you? Afghanistan is almost over. I was not worried about their caves. Osama Bin Laden may be dead or alive ... who knows for sure. But he will most likely have a cult following. So our al Qaeda problems may continue with or without Osama Bin Laden. Osama is from Saudi, so Afghanistan is not likely to miss him much.
My response: No, I am not distracted, but I know that you & I are more vigilant than others. Bread & circusses still keep the general people from caring. Half our nation couldn't even locate Iraq on a globe 3 weeks ago, and have forgotten where Afghanistan is now. AlQaeda, many Saudi's with many other nationalities who were hiding in Afghan regions with the knowledge & support of Taliban... what a mess. Some websites claim we will go after Saudi or Iran next, some of them cite Bushes' speech about the evil countries where he also listed North Korea. Yes, I think most of those sites are set up by kooks, but they do make me think & wonder. Talk about a bigger mess if we did as they predict.
Brother: Please follow the link, School of Americas established in Panama in 1946 Over its 56 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics.
And every country in Latin America, except Cuba, is now governed by elected leaders accountable to their people. So it must have worked. I agree some of the graduates of SOA are real SOBs that deserve to die painfully.
My response: A few years ago I took a class on South American politics, and School of Americas was mentioned frequently, & I visited websites about it then. The Central & Southern Americas are much more stable now, but I predict that by 2010 we will find out that some of those you describe as accountable are forcibly kicked out of office & not elected out. At this moment I am having trouble remembering why the leader w/ a Japanese sounding name was in the news, but he is introuble for something. & Pinochet ... well, by the standards he treated people, he is being treated too nicely. We helped him rise to power by the way.
Brother: Umm... Israeli terrorist? The Israelis carved out the only democratic place in the Middle East. Only place I'd consider living in the Middle East. The Israelis won their war. Their neighbors should get over it, and move on with their lives. Has Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi, or Lebanon offered a peaceful place for the Palestinians to live? Hell No. Israel offered more than any reasonable country should, land for Peace and an Independent state with self rule! But No Palestinians wanted all of Israel. Assimilate or leave Israel, I say.
My response: Israel... Oh what fun. The British Empire controlled Palestine up til around 1948. There was no Israel. The British Empire encouraged Jews to pursue their Zionistic return to Israel. Why? Because quite truthfully all of Europe & America wasn't thrilled with having Jews either. Remember how the KKK called Jews "Christ killers"? The KKK was one of the biggest social/political clubs of the 1920's. (As a sidebar, Your own Grandpa paid dues to belong, but when there was a mess up about his robe not being given to him, after he paid for it, he decided not to attend the meetings. & your Granny B didn't like Eleanor Roosevelt & refused to go to the train tracks when she came to her town, because she was too nice to Blacks & Jews. )
Back on topic. Great Britain took over after the Ottoman Empire fell apart with WWI, Palestine was created at that time. A good portion of their country was taken away & given to the Jews as refugees from Russia & German occuppied countries needed a place to go after WWII. After WWII, Palestine was divided into the two countries. I refer to Israelly as terrorists because some of the acts are terroristic. A few decades ago they were called guerilla, but the tactics are similar enough. & yes, Palestine is "more guilty", but they are the displaced. Just as the American Indians were. Or the Australian Aborigines, & the blacks of South America., and the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, & Caribs. The people of the region didn't like British rule & cared even less for the Jewish invasion. The actions of the the displaced can be understood, though it would be nice for them to "get over it." But it has only been 55 years, and both Jewish & Arab cultures support revenge (& feud) logic.
Brother: Irish Army or the IRA? I musta been distracted :) Whether it is the US government or US citizens .... Irish or Israel or other. The good folks in the USA will support freedom loving people ... Heck a friend on mine sent 75 bucks to the Afganistani's during the Soviet war.
My response: IRA, yes we support freedom loving people. The hypocrisy is supportiing some terrorists and blasting others. simplisticly, alQueda sees their view of the world as at risk from this huge American immoral influence. Things they respect and hold as dear are indangered.
The people of IRA, Israel, Palestine, etc have similar views. We have similar views. But at least theoretically we don't support terroristic tactics, but the reality is that our government & our fellow citizens have.
Original Text: Let's also not forget that looking for a few men in a city of millions can be very difficult. Yes, Hitler found 6 million Jews, but he did miss a few, and his nation supposedly agreed with him. We don't know just yet how much the Iraqi's agree with us. The Nazi's even escaped to South America, and stayed hidden there for decades despite their Aryan looks and German accents in a predominantly Spanish/Portuguese speaking dark-skinned people area of
the world. Hussein could at least look like he fit in in South America, let alone his own country.
Brother: Hitler could not have hidden amongst the Jews and Hitler could not have hidden in South America .... he was long since dead, long before he killed himself. Hitler's SS didn't carry on after he died.My response: We were told that we were in this war to get rid of Saddam. We were told we were going to get rid of Usama bin Laden. These are damned harder jobs than we are led to believe. There could have been easier ways with Saddam & more internationally legal ways.
When & if we ''get these" two guys & their followers, it won't be done easily. & I don't like our government pretending that it will only take a 3 week war to do it. Hussein is a smart man in trying to stay hidden. He has his doubles set up & we know it. Our own gov't has trouble analyzing when it's him & when it isn't.
Separately, we had dead bodies & weren't certain if they were bin Laden's brothers.
Ok, so the "spy" part of my brain says that our gov't tells us it's confused or starts the rumors that it is in the first place, for propaganda reasons. Or shall I twist it a bit, & say that they hope we think it is propaganda & they really are that inept? I could go as beserk as the conspiracy nuts in movies with it, but I digress again.
If Hitler had not killed himself, he could have hidden. Some of the most atrocious Germans did. I wonder at times their reasons. Was it pure self preservation? or was it lack of pride in their behavior? loss of conviction in their cause? shame? Did it start off as one & end as the other? Why hide if you believe your way is right, besides that you know the rest of the world disagrees & wants you dead & you prefer living. I digress again.
Will Saddam martyr himself? or hide to fight another day? He won't take a cyanide pill, that much we know. UBL is hiding, or dead & his fanatics are using a "ghost" to make us wonder. I don't have updated accurate info on what the current theory is there. It seemed to fluctuate daily until this war started & I've not heard of it since.
I do believe one reason Bush started this war was to distract us. I resent his trying to present Hussein & bin Laden ties as a reason for this war, when I heard "experts" telling me that those ties can't be proven. Now, we can hope that GW didn't lie & just has higher security info that those experts don't.
But at this time, I see it as propaganda, & Remember 9/11 as a battle cry rings as false as "Remember the Maine" & the Gulf of Tonkin have proven to be. Heck, even the Lusitainia happened over a year before we joined the war, but my high school history book said that was why we joined WWI. But then Pearl Harbor was real & a real reason.. Lusitainia was real, but it wasn't the reason for joining WWI. The Maine did explode, but even forensic evidence that they understood at the time shows that it exploded from within not from a torpedo or mine type device on the outside..
9/11 was real, but it is not our real reason for fighting Hussein, & I resent being told it is.
Brother: Hussein cannot hide amongst the Kurds or have much luck
>hiding in Asia. He is already dead ..... even before he commits suicide. The
>Iraqi soldiers are beaten soldiers or religious fanatics ... they will not
>hide. Or they will surrender once Hussein is gone. The Elite Republican
>Guard won't fight on after Hussein is gone either ....
July 14, 2007 note: this next part was identified separately... don't know why or which came first.
Brother: Even in our war of Independence and Civil wars only about 7% of the citizens fought. Most civilians don't seek war or fight in them. Certainly they don't support tyrants like Saddam Hussein.
Debbie: Less than 30% even agreed with the American rebels for the revolution. & I kind of like what the minority thought that time. I don't recall the %age of actual British supporters, but with many residents coming from other countries I doubt it was high. True though that most civilians don't seek or fight wars. Most civilians are to busy trying to find bread & butter to think about how the gov'ts actions affect their efforts to get that bread & butter. Others think enough to be afraid to speak out for fear of consequences. But tyrants have support, or there would be nothing to fear. Never forget that Hitler was elected originally, & his charismatic speeches swayed many to seeing his "truth." Regime coups in South America had support, often of the military, for the new tyrants. It's scary how tyrants often replace tyrants. Somewhere way back in my schooling I was taught an accepted theory about the progression of governments & the "predictable" order that they replace themselves with, but I don't recall how it goes at this time. I digressed again, but just because we oust Saddam's crew, doesn't mean that the people of Iraq will be emotionally/mentally/psychologically ready for the new system we try to "help them "create. It takes generations. Look at how many of the old USSR countries flounder about trying to use systems they were told would be better. Look at how corrupt the governments in Latin America still are, even by our PAC & soft money standards.
What is proposed to happen will take more time than GW admits it will, & if he is not willing to commit the time it will take, he should not have sent us over there. Perhaps he is just not admitting to us publicly that he knows & will commit to that long commitment. That would sound rather colonial of us, and that is not politically correct at this time.
Grant tells me that France now supports the war, and was just afraid of the bad press for having sold some of the chemicals to Iraq. Greed & pride struck again instead of morality. I now have another reason to be more supportive of the war, because a naysayer had lied about hidden motives to oppose it, instead of good moral reasons as they claimed.
If the war supporters use good moral reasons I can support them, but when they use hypocritical and greedy reasons I feel bullied & angry. The other day I was fed up with the crap. I still think we are mostly there because of oil, even though I'm told by many sources that the %age we buy from there is actually low. Let's just say, I don't know who to trust to give me accurate data, but right now my government is using propaganda & so I doubt it the most. Being there for oil is not moral, it is greed. The US has known since the 70's to implement alternative energy sources, and to quit being so wasteful, & we haven't. I am guilty too, though I try to reduce, reuse & recycle. I put on sweaters & keep the heater set low, do the opposite in the summer. etc, but I'm still wasteful with fuel & energy & don't have active or passive solar energy strategies in place. But if more people were even as conscious of energy use as I am, we would be in a much better situation. & if we were as active as some people I know, .... the world would truly be different. A classmate of mine really went off the other day on SUV's & Hummers owned by city people. Lawrence area has many bermed houses, houses made of recycled things (like tires & aluminum cans), a few cement houses, solar collectors, in house green houses, bicycle riders, vegetarians & even greener "green freaks." We recycle more than most towns our size & by percentage recycle more than many more cities. Heck some of our Amish use more coal & oil (& nuclear) generated energy than some of our "green freaks." But the freaks are called freaks, so they are not the majority yet. & I digressed again.
By the way, as a person who used to dream of writing professionally, I want to ask, is what I write interesting to read? I know sometimes my facts can use updating, especially when I get too emotionally pent up & I digress, but is it easy to read? Could I have an old dream still worth pursuing? I guess is the real question. Another friend sent parts of my ranting on to others of her friends...as she agreed with them & she sent me back her Canadian friend's response.. At first my husband agreed with everything I wrote, but then found a few logic holes like you did. So I figure it must have been somewhat persuasive. It looks as though you even read through it twice in a few places, & your comments have made me better state ( I hope) my frustrations.
Original: I'm experiencing the aches of typing too much, so I will quit, but I have more reasons for seeing this war as uncalled for, hypocritical, and just plain wrong.
Brother: If I sound Harsh ... Grow up. War has always been around us (the USA). Countries will always support their enemies enemy. War is an Awful thing that should be avoided, but used when necessary. If you win it in war, it is yours ... If you lose (Iraq Gulf War Part1) accept
defeat.
All that is necessary for evil to rule ... is for good men to do nothing.
Clinton did too mucha nothing about Iraq ...
My response: Except for the Idiot phrase, you were not harsh. I have been trying to remember the quote about evil for several days, but knew I wasn't getting it quite right. I wanted it for a paper about Ida B. Wells-Barnett. She was sick of do-nothing people, & I get that way too, thus I'm a teacher. Brother: Peace, cya .....
My response: Couldn't have said it better myself.
2007 comment: 4 years later.
Afghanistan: still going on. Osama bin Ladin, 6ft tall man that needs kidney dialysis still not found. Taliban officially kicked out, but residuals exist. Many of bin Ladin's associates found & dealt with.
Saddam Hussein: found, tried, executed.
Iraq war: still going on. Propaganda? The word from returned soldiers & the news stories don't seem to match up as to whether the civilian Iraqies in general like or hate us. They technically had democratic elections; they just weren't used to them & don't like the procedures or the results or, or, or ???
USA Fatalities: over 3,500 seems to be a BIG DEAL to the media ... I agree every lost life is a tragedy. I acknowledge the families' & friends' losses, and we mourn their loss, and respect the soldiers' efforts to help Iraq set up a new government. But the historical perspective is that more men died in single battles & in single days in previous wars than in these past 4 years.
USA integrity: Prisoners held w/o trial at Gitmo. Secret prisons. Sexual harassment & torture. Proven wrong about storage of mass production of WMD. Haliburton.
At least we seem to be going through the motions of correcting our wrongs. History will hopefully help us sort out truth vs. propaganda better someday.
Optimistically: We're trying to do the right thing now.
Cynically: I've been lied to even more, and watched more folks try to Cover their asses, and am tired of waiting for events to become history to find out "the truth." Heck, the CIA just released "the truth" about their past, and it weren't pretty... & that's the part they let us know. There are still unreleased documents about JFK, & MLK assassinations... and it's over 45 years for the former & almost 40 years for the latter. Why do we have to wait?
Why do humans still operate out of greed & power?
Dear Lord, Please help us to operate out of love & respect. Let us people around the world derive our sense of well-being from giving rather than taking. From helping vs. hurting. From truth rather than secrets.
Labels: A long conversation for historical perspective
