My Most Recent Post All of my older posts Email me Leave me a message! Read my diary profile Get your own!

DON'T BLAME ME!

Leave me a note!


My Most Recent Entries:

King B.O.

How It Should Be Done

I Didn't Vote for Him

New Math?

VOTE 2008!


My Online Photo Albums:
(This site has been closed. IbeLooking
for a new place. Stay tuned.)


Other Places I'd like you to visit:

All my stuff

She is my daughter!

JohnnieV, a Sensitive Father.

Cosmicrayola, my cyber sister

MKM's Words, a friend whom I admire.

BillF has an opinion or 2.

My Jazzy friend with international flair.

Uncle Bob, the 1st blog I ever read.





*HUGS* TOTAL! give IbePiglet more *HUGS*
Get hugs of your own

If you want to know how it all began, click HERE for the FIRST entry. At the top of each post you can click "NEXT ENTRY" and so on. It might make a bit more sense that way, and you might stumble upon one of my better postings in case this one sorta just sucks!
Read the previous entry - Read the next entry

CLICK HERE for a RANDOM ENTRY.


Thursday, Mar. 20, 2003 - 6:21 P.M.

I Support Our Involvement


I know I haven't had much to say lately. Lots of things going on. It's hard to be real funny when we are beginning war. I found the following article in the Chicago Sun Times that was interesting to me. I agree with it. I am not PRO war just because I am not against this war. I am also smart enough to know that President Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney know more than me, and I KNOW they know more than the pitiful actors and actresses who think that because they are in the spotlight they somehow have enough information to make me feel that they know it all. BULL shit. Baba Streisand and Cher never finished high school. Neither did Mike Ferrel. And Martin Sheen portrays the prez on television. What makes them think I would listen to them? Get real. If you like, read this article. I found it insightful, calm, and it helped me put into words why I am not out protesting our involvement in this horrible world event.

And frankly, I hope that if the French are attacked some day, we sit by and turn a deaf ear to them. Maybe Jerry Lewis can entertain what's left of their troops.

Here is the article:


We are at war, the second war the United States has fought in the still-new 21st century. Before our attention is captivated by the specifics of battles and generals, casualties and prisoners, it would behoove us to, one final time, review the causes of this conflict. Why are we there? Why are we fighting? Why will some American soldiers die and a vastly greater number of Iraqis die? For what?

This war can be traced to two main causes. First, Saddam Hussein, unprovoked, driven by megalomania, invaded his peaceful neighbor, Kuwait, in 1990. His army looted the country and committed unspeakable atrocities. The United States built an international coalition, drove him out of Kuwait and instituted a series of sanctions and resolutions, working with the United Nations and the international community, designed to keep Saddam from regaining his ability to terrorize other nations. An uneasy truce--it couldn't really be called "peace"--followed.

That is the legal underpinning of the war. The Gulf War never ended, but was suspended on the understanding that Saddam would disarm. He did not. Just the opposite, he continued to seek and acquire weapons of mass destruction, thumbing his nose at the United Nations and its 17 resolutions. The UN imposed economic sanctions and, occasionally, the United States acted militarily, such as when the Clinton administration launched a missile attack, or when allied planes responded to Iraqi violations or provocations in the UN-established no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.

We might have continued forever in this desultory fashion. . .

Then came the second cause of this war: Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly 3,000 Americans died. We looked back at our haphazard reply to threats, our tendency to make a symbolic gesture and then forget about it. It seemed both weak and an invitation to future attacks.

So the nation went to war, against a stateless, shapeless enemy, first in Afghanistan, destroying the cruel Taliban regime and scattering the al-Qaida terrorists it harbored. The operation was by any measure a success--few American casualties, great harm to our enemies. If Osama bin Laden was not killed, he certainly was driven underground.

A new, democratic government in Afghanistan did not mean a safe world, however. Our attention was next directed at Saddam, for his avowed enmity toward America, for his financial support of terrorism, for his harboring of al-Qaida operatives in Iraq, for his energetic pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons at home, for his proven willingness to use such weapons on innocent civilians.

Some, at home and abroad, are uncomfortable with the nature of this conflict. This is without question a preventative war. The stunning, war-inducing attack has not come from Iraq. And now it never will. We think that is a good thing. President Bush has come under enormous pressure from those who would have had him wait until one of Saddam's weapons was smuggled into New York or Chicago. First disaster, then response. Give them the first swing. That was the old way. This war is a declaration that America will no longer wait to be attacked. The prospect of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists makes the stakes too high. Those who want to be counted as our enemies, who enhance their positions at home by becoming a threat to America, will find themselves instead threatened, in their homes.

This is hard for some people to take. They prefer to cling to an idealized vision of American innocence--first let the Japanese bomb us at Pearl Harbor, and only then act. First let the North Koreans pour into South Korea, and then act. Some marched and shouted and counseled inaction as if that was a defendable policy.

Now the United States has acted. We would be bolder in predicting just how quickly that blow will lead to success, were not the history of warfare replete with long, bloody conflicts that were supposed to be over by Christmas.

But this is not the First World War. There will be no Battle of the Marne in Iraq, at least not for us. This war will end when the Iraqis are defeated or decide they have had enough. We predict that most will want to live to see a new Iraq, freed from the tyrant Saddam. We pray they will, because either way the outcome will be the same--a new day in Iraq.

This is without doubt a change in the world. The UN, by failing to act to enforce its own resolutions, has shown itself a hollow promise. There are broken bonds with long-time allies to repair, and the task of rebuilding Iraq. All the while, those who counseled inaction will feel free to harp on every setback. Let them. We have supported the president throughout this process because we thought he was doing the right thing. We still do.


Won't you PLEASE leave your feedback here?
0 readers left their mark on this one!

TagBoard
Name

URL or Email

Messages(smilies)


Read the previous entry - Read the next entry

Who's Who in Ibe's Diary (last UPDATED September 21, 2008)


If you would like to be notifed each time this page is updated, stick your email addy in the form and click on "join."

Your email address:

Site Meter