I Don't Want to Go to War
It is finally time for me to weigh in on the whole Iraq issue, and even though my opinion doesn't mean a damn thing to the whole debate, that hasn't stopped me from giving it anyway. Simply put, I'm against it. I think we have no business trying to start a war with someone whose only form of aggression against us in the past decade is firing the occasional shot or two at our patrol planes over the "no-fly zones".
Here's my problem: I don't like who I'm sharing this side of the issue with. It makes me uncomfortable to know that by being against going to war with Iraq that I am on the same side as the still-irrelevant Al Gore, many more Democrats than Republicans, the whole "peacenik" crowd, and the anti-globalization crowd (a.k.a. "the Seattle mob"). Which means that some may try to characterize me as someone who may state my views on Iraq before going to ride a bicycle into Washington, D.C. traffic in a pathetic attempt to "shut down the nation's capital". Either that or they think I'm against all war in general. I was firmly behind our efforts to get Osama Bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban. Of course, we had a very good reason to do that; the loser had just killed 3000 innocent Americans on American soil.
A better columnist than I wrote better about this whole "I'm against the war but I don't like the people I'm with" thing; however, I cannot remember who the guy was or when the column was written (I do know it was in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, my new official newspaper). At first when thinking about how to write this column, I almost decided to link to that column and say, "This guy can explain it better than I can." This is what happens when you don't save stuff...
The fact of the matter is that I don't agree with a lot of my peers on the anti-war side of the fence, especially when it comes to the reasons for the war. I do not believe this is a war for oil, nor is this just Dubya getting a friendly government in place in Baghdad so he can get his oil tycoon buddies more business. A recent study of Iraq's struggling oil industry says that it would take 10-15 years before Iraq is back to the output capacity it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 10-15 years, or just about the same amount of time it would take to get a good amount of oil coming out of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Why would Bush fight a war for oil he can't get until long after his presidency is gone, when he can just wait until next January, when the Republicans once again have control of Senate, and just shove the ANWR drilling plan right through without any problems? Then again, liberals will believe what they want to believe; remember that these are the same people who think that Bush let the California energy crisis happen in order to help out his oil buddies. What did you want him to do, federalize the energy industry? Actually, they would probably love that, but Bush did the right thing in refusing to have federal intervention in a STATE-level crisis that was caused by a blundered deregulation process. One recent letter to the editor just absolutely slayed me; the writer suggested we go back to the energy policy President Carter had. Yeah, I remember that "energy policy"; it was called "gas lines".
I mentioned a while back that if he continued to bang the war drums exclusively that people would accuse him of ignoring other things in this country, and they certainly are. To say the war is for political reasons, though, and that by threatening war with Iraq, Bush is ensuring people will vote Republican is ludicrous. Bush doesn't need a war with Iraq to get the Senate back in GOP hands. I've mentioned before that all the Democratic Party has been good at this election season is shooting themselves in the foot. The latest gaffe came when they dumped Bob Torricelli from the New Jersey Senate race in favor of a candidate with a better chance of winning. If the Republicans don't win that seat in a laugher, then maybe something is afoul in the swamps of Jersey.
The worst part of all of this is that the Democrats are trying to claim that the reason for the war is to distract voters from what they believe is the "poor state of the economy." Liberal cartoonists and pundits (I don't wanna name names, but Garry "Doonesbury" Trudeau for one...) are screaming to anyone who will listen that the economy is "tanking", or in a "sorry state", and some are even asking, "Mr. President, what about the 'recession'?" I put "recession" in quotes because THERE IS NO RECESSION!!! The economy is in its fifth straight quarter of growth, which means that the economy has actually been on the rise longer than it has been in recession during the Bush presidency. You would never know it, though, to listen to Democrats. The nutty thing is that when Bush was mentioning the coming recession just before he took office, he was right, but the Democrats accused him of "talking down the economy". Now, there is no recession, hasn't been one for over a year, and the Democrats are claiming we're in one; by your logic, Democrats, would that not be "talking down the economy"?
No, here is my reasoning for not going to war with Iraq, plain and simple: I think Bush and his team have put themselves at the front of a crusade to rid the world of "the evildoers", and he's now cementing our unwanted position as "the world's police". Going after Al-Qaeda is one thing, and unfortunately the results are not as good as we wanted, but what happens if the Indonesians don't try harder to go after the cell in their country, do we start bombing over there? And now we find out that North Korea, another member of the "axis of evil", has been lying to us all along about not developing a nuclear weapons program, and worse yet, they think the non-nuclear treaty they signed with us is invalid. So, following the precedent of regime change when faced with an unwanted possible new nuclear power, when do we start the bombing runs over Pyongyang?
See, it's certainly idealistic for President Bush to think he can solve all the world's problems with the swift hand of military justice, and although a little idealism isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's better to leave well enough alone and focus on Osama. That's a much more rational explanation against war than "impeach Bush because he wants to fight a war rather than lead us out of the 'deepening recession'." I just wish I wasn't on the same side as those who feel that way...
Here's my problem: I don't like who I'm sharing this side of the issue with. It makes me uncomfortable to know that by being against going to war with Iraq that I am on the same side as the still-irrelevant Al Gore, many more Democrats than Republicans, the whole "peacenik" crowd, and the anti-globalization crowd (a.k.a. "the Seattle mob"). Which means that some may try to characterize me as someone who may state my views on Iraq before going to ride a bicycle into Washington, D.C. traffic in a pathetic attempt to "shut down the nation's capital". Either that or they think I'm against all war in general. I was firmly behind our efforts to get Osama Bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban. Of course, we had a very good reason to do that; the loser had just killed 3000 innocent Americans on American soil.
A better columnist than I wrote better about this whole "I'm against the war but I don't like the people I'm with" thing; however, I cannot remember who the guy was or when the column was written (I do know it was in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, my new official newspaper). At first when thinking about how to write this column, I almost decided to link to that column and say, "This guy can explain it better than I can." This is what happens when you don't save stuff...
The fact of the matter is that I don't agree with a lot of my peers on the anti-war side of the fence, especially when it comes to the reasons for the war. I do not believe this is a war for oil, nor is this just Dubya getting a friendly government in place in Baghdad so he can get his oil tycoon buddies more business. A recent study of Iraq's struggling oil industry says that it would take 10-15 years before Iraq is back to the output capacity it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 10-15 years, or just about the same amount of time it would take to get a good amount of oil coming out of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Why would Bush fight a war for oil he can't get until long after his presidency is gone, when he can just wait until next January, when the Republicans once again have control of Senate, and just shove the ANWR drilling plan right through without any problems? Then again, liberals will believe what they want to believe; remember that these are the same people who think that Bush let the California energy crisis happen in order to help out his oil buddies. What did you want him to do, federalize the energy industry? Actually, they would probably love that, but Bush did the right thing in refusing to have federal intervention in a STATE-level crisis that was caused by a blundered deregulation process. One recent letter to the editor just absolutely slayed me; the writer suggested we go back to the energy policy President Carter had. Yeah, I remember that "energy policy"; it was called "gas lines".
I mentioned a while back that if he continued to bang the war drums exclusively that people would accuse him of ignoring other things in this country, and they certainly are. To say the war is for political reasons, though, and that by threatening war with Iraq, Bush is ensuring people will vote Republican is ludicrous. Bush doesn't need a war with Iraq to get the Senate back in GOP hands. I've mentioned before that all the Democratic Party has been good at this election season is shooting themselves in the foot. The latest gaffe came when they dumped Bob Torricelli from the New Jersey Senate race in favor of a candidate with a better chance of winning. If the Republicans don't win that seat in a laugher, then maybe something is afoul in the swamps of Jersey.
The worst part of all of this is that the Democrats are trying to claim that the reason for the war is to distract voters from what they believe is the "poor state of the economy." Liberal cartoonists and pundits (I don't wanna name names, but Garry "Doonesbury" Trudeau for one...) are screaming to anyone who will listen that the economy is "tanking", or in a "sorry state", and some are even asking, "Mr. President, what about the 'recession'?" I put "recession" in quotes because THERE IS NO RECESSION!!! The economy is in its fifth straight quarter of growth, which means that the economy has actually been on the rise longer than it has been in recession during the Bush presidency. You would never know it, though, to listen to Democrats. The nutty thing is that when Bush was mentioning the coming recession just before he took office, he was right, but the Democrats accused him of "talking down the economy". Now, there is no recession, hasn't been one for over a year, and the Democrats are claiming we're in one; by your logic, Democrats, would that not be "talking down the economy"?
No, here is my reasoning for not going to war with Iraq, plain and simple: I think Bush and his team have put themselves at the front of a crusade to rid the world of "the evildoers", and he's now cementing our unwanted position as "the world's police". Going after Al-Qaeda is one thing, and unfortunately the results are not as good as we wanted, but what happens if the Indonesians don't try harder to go after the cell in their country, do we start bombing over there? And now we find out that North Korea, another member of the "axis of evil", has been lying to us all along about not developing a nuclear weapons program, and worse yet, they think the non-nuclear treaty they signed with us is invalid. So, following the precedent of regime change when faced with an unwanted possible new nuclear power, when do we start the bombing runs over Pyongyang?
See, it's certainly idealistic for President Bush to think he can solve all the world's problems with the swift hand of military justice, and although a little idealism isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's better to leave well enough alone and focus on Osama. That's a much more rational explanation against war than "impeach Bush because he wants to fight a war rather than lead us out of the 'deepening recession'." I just wish I wasn't on the same side as those who feel that way...
posted by Dave | 12:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home