Thread. I just wanted to say that I have never contacted SI about any matter. I think it's interesting that the administrator singled out that post of Watson, and I agree that it's an example of the kind of posting that doesn't add to any discussion. I, however, felt assured that it spoke more to Mr. Watson's problems than it did to my character.
I haven't followed this thread for long but I'm curious; are there ANY pro-Bush admin posters here that will actually make a rational and well-thought out response to the important issues? Virtually every one of the "conservative" posters has seemed to often rely on bald-faced, emphatic conclusions to "support" their views, as if they believe that the strength of their assertions will end the discussion.
For instance, can anyone give a rational military- political-police action thesis for why Iraq will not remain a constant drain on American lives and money? Why isn't this more like Vietnam and less like South Korea?
My view is that the similarities with Vietnam are striking. For instance, we have a culture we don't understand and yet we project American views onto them, we have a huge number of young, passionate, politically and religiously motivated "enemies" who are willing to die to cause us harm, we have a population that contains at least a strong minority that is willing and able to support a guerrilla force that opposes our presence, we are in the process of installing a puppet government, we may well be the only obstacle standing between the Iraqi people and a theocratic form of government, we are considered a foreign invader by many common Iraqis and our goals in Iraq are, at the least, multifaceted, with many of our goals probably at odds with the interests of the Iraqi people, or at least certain factions of them. This seems to me to be the ingredients for a very nasty soup.
In the face of deadly resistance from a force that looks just like the man on the street and picks it's time and place to attack, what good is our overwhelming military power? What methods could we employ to deal with that kind of resistance? How many soldiers will we lose? What will that process do to the world leadership of America culturally, economically, in the war against terrorism and, ultimately as the sole superpower in the world. And WHAT DO WE GAIN?
In the face of increasing evidence that there were few, if any, compelling reasons for invading Iraq for "imminent danger" issues and given the Bush administrations continued proclamations that it "isn't about Iraqi oil," the "humanitarian" purposes are increasingly touted as the justification for the invasion and our continued presence in Iraq. Even assuming that our invasion of Iraq was motivated by humanitarian purposes, (which I don't) in the final analysis, doesn't it all come down to an acknowledgement of the fact that each culture, each nation and each region's peoples have the right and the power to choose their own path? As a corollary, isn't it a fact that you can help a people in their struggle against injustice, but ultimately they must earn a better future with their own suffering and vote with their own lives. Does anyone here really believe that throwing American blood into this mix will "cure" any ills we perceive in a culture, a religion and a history that dates back thousands of years?
Please note that I'm not asking for your opinions on whether I'm an "American hating-pinheaded-liberal-unpatriotic-hope for the worst-Saddam lover." I am just curious to see if there is an alternative viewpoint on this issue that contradicts a view that I and many other anti-Iraq invasion Americans have held from before the invasion and occupation.
Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler? |
