|
Copyrights reserved by the author. If you are in doubt, please click on 'Copyrights' and read the details. A national debate on a local level continued. Any type of debate focuses on opposing positions. This particular argument I had with, now my friend, James Eldridge showed me that one can always learn from opposing arguments. It clearly shows that one side is not always right or the other side always wrong. I continued the debate as follows: Jim, As far as your concept that those of us who are seeking a diplomatic solution instead of going to war are desperate is difficult for me to understand. I always considered war a desperate solution. As for peace being expensive I don't know of anyone who would argue that a war with Iraq and thus an occupation of Iraq would be expensive. We don't know, as a nation, what that price tag is because our present administration refuses to discuss it. History has an odd capacity about it. If the world refuses to understand it, then the world will be condemned to repeat it. When I stated that a war with Iraq would be illegal I meant that as a member of the United Nations, even though we are the most powerful, we agreed that we would work with the world community in order to keep the world at peace. If another country decided to go to war without the approval of this world body I am convinced the United States would be the first to condemn them. Also to state that our executive branch has a right to go to war without the approval of its citizens is putting us in a very tenuous position. Precedence should not imply law. You state that the current President looked to gain approval of his policies. His inept construction of international and national approval is shown in the current polls concerning this issue. The world community is obviously against any war with Iraq and the last time I looked the national opinion on this war without United Nations sanctions has just gone below 40%. Your statement that the regime of North Korea has no megalomania cal plan beyond his own borders surprises me. In past speeches he has expressed the doctrine that South Korea should be under his rule. He has also stated that North Korea should be a nuclear power in the area. As for Saudi Arabia, it does not take too much intelligence to clearly understand that to our face they are our allies but in reality they financially support most of the terrorist activities that now plaque the Middle East. If one would to compare money sent to these terrorist groups by Iraq to the money sent by the Saudi's many would question why we are planning a war against Iraq? If one would question why we are more concerned with the ability of Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction to the ability of North Korea to use weapons of mass destruction that they now have, most would question what our foreign policy is based upon. You question the relevancy of the United Nations. Another world body was considered irrelevant during the early decades of the twentieth century. This world body was called the League of Nations. After the United States left this organization it basically fell apart. A few years later the world was at war. History is a funny thing because as I stated earlier it has a tendency to repeat itself. You go on to state that Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania all support the US in the UN. Our pockets are very deep even though our nation is now suffering through one of its larges deficits in its history. We have promised every nation who supports the war with financial aid and loan guarantees. Some have decided, like Turkey, to not accept the money. During the first Gulf War nations like Somalia also did not accept the United States bribe. Because of this Somalia became a very poor nation. The Turkish military is upset that the Turkish government is not allowing our military forces to use Turkish territory as an attack point. Do not be surprised by a potential military coup even though 90 % of its population is against an attack on Iraq. As for the rest of the Persian Gulf states supporting a potential war? It is again economic and has nothing to do with any fear of an attack by Iraq using weapons of mass destruction. You talk of an overwhelming force to achieve total victory. Has anyone in the present administration considered how long we have to have a military presence in Iraq? Will this also be swift and without cost? Now lets talk fact. The incursion into Iraq is simply economic. We want to control the vast oil fields of Iraq. Remember that during the Iran / Iraq war Halliburton Industries sold Saddam Hussein armaments and equipment presently used by Iraq to produce these weapons of mass destruction. By the way, the CEO of Halliburton was Dick Cheney. Dwight Eisenhower coined the term, "military industrial complex". He warned our population in the 1950's that this was a dangerous concept that had to be controlled. During the later part of the 1960's and into the 1970's many so-called poly Anna efforts took place that ended what was obviously an immoral and illegal war. It is too bad that so-many thousands of our children and even more thousands of Vietnamese lives had to be ended before this "adventure" was forced to end. By the way, I was one of those "poly-Anna" and I am proud to state that I still am. Yes, James, I have many former students who are now overseas and in harms way. I became a teacher in order to watch young men and women become. I did not choose this profession in order to create fodder in order to create wealth for the few. I appreciate our discussion. History will be our final judge. The debate ended just like the debate over war will end by March 17. If you ever drive down my into my neighborhood you will notice that two houses proudly display the flag of our country. How could it be any other way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
