?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Crude Moves.

mrs_presley posted this piece she found in the conservatism community. It's an amusing tongue-in-cheek look at the world seen through a bleeding heart liberal view that suggests that we shouldn't have war. You should go take a look, if such stuff interests you. And it should.



I suppose, by definition, I am forced to wear the tag "liberal." I'd prefer to think of myself as "reasonable." I'm open-minded. War might be the correct answer to this problem.

What is war, anyway? It's a last resort option. You've tried everything else and nothing has worked. No reasonable person WANTS war. But sometimes you have to have it.

I think of this situation as sort of a geopolitical metaphor. The United States is the parent country to the world. We have some bratty kids doing bad things. Spank them, yes or no?

The fact is, we've been a terrible parent for a very long time. And that's true on both sides of the aisle. Jimmy Carter's policies with Afghanistan really ruined our relationship there. And allowing the Shah of Iran to use the USA as a safe haven (from what would certainly have been his execution) resulted in a hostage crisis that terminated his presidency. If we had stayed out of their affairs then, would we be where we are, now?

Reagan's Iran/Contra affair may have been the most twisted bit of foreign policy in world history! The fact that he didn't know what was going on doesn't help that case. Those people were under his employ. He brought them in to positions of power. Nuff said.

Over the last twenty-five years, money has been sent, aid has been dispersed, covert actions conducted, and who knows what other dealings took place to try to settle things down. Has any of it worked? Rhetorical.

So now we want a war. Why is that, exactly? Oh, yes. Oil. Let's be honest! It's all about OIL. Black gold. Kuwait tea.

Similar power struggles are currently happening in African countries. However you never even hear about them, let alone see the USA take any interest in them. That's because there's nothing there that we want.

No. We want oil and we want it now. It's our (not so) vested interest. And since these radical governments know our dependence on their oil, they have us over a barrel. We are their puppets, and they are pulling our strings. Clearly something has to be done.

Let's say we do have a war. Surgical bombing in three shifts daily. Let's say we win it in a matter of a week or two. What then?

In one scenario, a group of moderates would come to the fore, peace treaties would be signed, our aid would be gladly accepted, we would move forward with the United States in her role as benevolent leader, and we all lived happily ever after.

More likely, though that isn't the result. Face it. There is so much more going on here.

1. We don't have intelligence that can speak their languages! How can we even hope to deal with these people if we can't even hear what they're saying?

2. Won't there be a power struggle as we "remove" the people currently running the show? Won't we be right in the crossfire of that? And what if another group claims control and they're even more angry and insane than the current?

3. Isn't this going to be a full-time and long-term military action, forcing troops to occupy this region for years while things settle down? Won't this cost a lot, in both lives and money?

4. Won't we be fighting this war both there and here, as angry zealots attempt to do more terrorist attacks throughout the US?

5. Where's the Worst Case Scenario Handbook? Have we planned for this most likely result?

We don't get the basics of the region. We look at a straightforward attack as the way to go. In fact, all of these countries are interconnected, and we've offended pretty much all of them at one time or another when trying to get our way. We've given them guns and money and they have funded their system of terror with it. It's all our own doing.

It's not going to be easy, no matter what choice we eventually make. My concern is that people haven't given real thought to what will happen after we finish the war, and that the big trouble won't begin until the aftermath.

Innocent people have already given their lives. More will.

Bombs away.

God Bless America, and God Bless America's Oil.

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
vaysha
Feb. 5th, 2003 01:20 pm (UTC)
Both the article and your thoughts were thoroughly enjoyable.
thanks D
firedragon
Feb. 5th, 2003 01:49 pm (UTC)
Well said, djblax!
elysiangirl
Feb. 5th, 2003 02:20 pm (UTC)
ow my head! ;P
food for thought, indeed.

dreama
Feb. 5th, 2003 05:51 pm (UTC)
Dissenting View
If this war was truely about oil, then why did we withdrawl troops from Kuwait after the 1991 Persian Gulf War? If it was about oil, our troops would have been an occupying force in Kuwait rather than a liberation group.

This is about liberating people. This is about the freedom of people, to live without fear, to not be experimented on, and sometimes force is necessary to remove the element that denies the basic rights of humans.

We owe it to history to not let the same mistakes happen again, to not let a dictator become so powerful that it would be hard to take him out later on. 2 of 3 components Iraq has obtained to a nuclear weapon. If we go on any longer they will have developed this weapon.

Saddam has no interest in human life or humanity itself. The US has been very careful about its nuclear arms. I have a strong conviction that Iraq would not be as careful as they disregard human life.
penpusher
Feb. 5th, 2003 06:46 pm (UTC)
Re: Dissenting View
Hi Dreama...

Thanks so much for these comments. They mean a lot.

Okay, it's not *completely* about oil, but it's a pretty big motivator.

The problem with military action is that there are so many levels to examine when you see what happens. By that, I mean there are certain levels of PR involved in it, most especially in the Gulf War.

If we remained in the Gulf, would the American people have been as happy about it all? And really, what would the point of remaining there have been?

I think on one level you are right. There is an issue of liberating people. On the other hand, there are human rights violations taking place in many other places as well, that somehow aren't a concern. Is that a coincidence? Well...

Yes there is a threat of nuclear weapons. But where did that come from? I don't know how their people got this stuff. Did they go on the internet and build it from a kit?

It's frustrating because I don't know what's there, what's real. I don't know what all of the ACTUAL facts are, as opposed to the facts that I'm told are true.

What I am sure of is that we have constantly screwed up everything we do in that area by trying to get from point A to point B, when we probably needed to take a different course to get it done. We have no real allies in that area. We are going to have to do it pretty much all on our own.

I support a war, but face it. No matter what, we will still have to negotiate some sort of peace with whatever survivors are there. It seems that we aren't prepared to do that, and unless we just want to put a big hole where those countries used to be, we will need to deal on that level eventually.

I'm not getting a sense that that's what's going to happen, and I'm not certain that the war won't cause more mayhem and death both there and here.
dreama
Feb. 6th, 2003 07:41 am (UTC)
Re: Dissenting View
I'm going to have to post out a response to this on my own journal because it's going to run a little long, and I think it makes a few good points and comparisons.

I do, however, respect your view, and understand your concerns and frustrations. These are difficult times, but they are critical and dangerous times all the same.
doeadear
Feb. 5th, 2003 11:22 pm (UTC)
Why SHOULD it interest me? That is an interesting statement, Dean, it SHOULD. Hmmmm.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars