David, RE: "Your use of the term "murdering" is offensive "
10,000 people were alive, breathing and walking human beings, until the USA murdered them. Of course the word is offensive. Murder is offensive.
White-washing murder into something else, isn't constructive, because it hides the facts.
It's important people see the facts and make the proper decision based upon the facts.
RE: "civilian casualties are ALWAYS a cost of significant military action."
You should never use the phrase "civilian casualties" to discuss the killing of human beings, because it whitewashes the facts. It distorts information. A casualty is when you bump your knee into the door.
People need to be fully aware of the cost of military actions. Whitewashing distorts the facts. Grown adults need to learn how to handle the facts.
When I was a child, the media used to say, "the car lost control and drove into the wall." Hello? The car drove itself into a wall? Is that truly factual or is it whitewashing?
Today we are big adults, and so call it like it is and we now say, "the driver lost control and drove into the wall."
Call it like it is, even if it is offensive.
Grown adults can face the facts and don't resort to weak-nilly-willy whitewashing.
RE: "I know it has been reiterated ad-nauseum, but"
Thanks for the list. I was truly beginning to wonder if there was any reason for attacking Iraq, since it certainly wasn't made clear. Why do you think Bush's reason waivers and changes like the wind?
RE: "Saddam was in violation of the terms of a ceasefire agreement"
This item sounds weak. Spend 130,000 troops because someone crosses a line?
The USA will probably need to deploy another 150,000 troops. How many students graduate per year from our schools?
RE: "Saddam ejected the weapons inspectors."
Okay, this would be a valid reason to go to war.
But tell me, why wasn't it done prior to 9/11? This smells.
RE: " didn't PROVE it"
How was he suppose to prove it? I assume by destroying it in front of the inspectors? Which makes sense. Okay, this item is probably a valid reason. But it is unethical to attack a country without explicitly expressing what is wrong (especially given the change in direction by the USA), and then a reasonable period of time to address the issues with the UN. How many days did Bush even give the UN to deal with this? 30 days?
RE: "Saddam was assisting Palestinian terrorists"
USA is assisting Israel, including unbridled support for Israel to kill Palestinians. Using your logic, should Saudi Arabia attack us?
Where's the consistency here?
Or, do you support different rules for yourself than for others?
RE: "Support for Palestinian terrorists is support for terrorism, and subjected Saddam to attack."
Fair, but as long as there is a distinction made between Palestinian terrorist and Palestinians that are not terrorists.
RE: "if our nation's leadership determines that the best way to avoid a future terrorist attack is to destroy Iraq from top to bottom, it is his duty to level it. Period, end of story."
Okay, this is where I think the less-than-sensitive crowd misses it altogether. I suspect you may not have the sensitivity to understand fully how our attacking Iraqi has inflamed the middle east, and has created a hotbed of a recruiting ground for terrorists. If you realize it is creating a hotbed recruiting ground for terrorists, why do you support attacking Iraq? Explain how this doesn't inflame more into becoming terrorist-wannnabe's.
Why do we wish to inflame? In Buddhism, each person has his or her suchness. By being sensitive to people's suchness, one can coexist peacefully in the world. It's like electricity - electricity can be very helpful to the world, but it has a suchness about it that can really hurt you if you are not sensitive to coexist with it. People consist of both good aspects and bad aspects. People are made up of shades of gray. The fundamental flaw Bush makes is he assumes people are either evil or good. Black and white thinking is getting this country in trouble. He simplifies inherent complexities of human beings, and in doing so, he is driving in the wrong direction based upon wrong assumptions. He is incorrectly assuming both the approach or people's sensitivities don't make a difference. By ignoring sensitivities, he risks inflaming more people. Why maximize the risk for inflaming the bad aspect of people? Why not work to minimize the risk?
RE: "democracy is the best way to do it"
How come the USA helped start an insurgency in a South America country when the USA didn't like the leader the citizens in a democracy system voted into office? I've come to believe the USA isn't so much about democracy, as it is about supporting the leader it wants to support. Also, countries like Singapore aren't a democracy, yet it is a very well runned country. Maybe the issue isn't the type of government, but who the leader is and what the leader does.
RE: "it really doesn't matter whether he was involved in 9/11"
So why lie about it then? Why link it to 9/11? Why create a huge trust issue? Why hurt American credibility? Why drag America in the dirt, with such a lie? Why not be truthful and frank about the issue. Why hide behind an excuse? This isn't the 70's, where leaders hide the truth. In a true democracy, the facts are put on the table, no matter how disturbing they are.
RE: "our president ...protect even one American life."
Is it the American life our president is truly protecting?
Or, is it the American lifestyle? We are large oil consumers.
I think Bush has inflamed the world so much, he has negatively hurt our chances to be safe and protected.
Regards,
Amy J |
