own or a link to someone else's. Seriously. I really want to
understand the other side. I'm just tired of arguments that gravitate
towards one of the following points:
1) "Bush is an idiot." If you believe that, tell me why he was an
idiot in terms of the "why" of the war, not the "how." I agree that
there were tactical blunders, even strategic ones. But I want to know
why the overall decision was a poor one.
2) "Immediate and full pull-out." Think that one through for more
than a second, and consider what present chaos and future handicap
that will cause. Whether or not continued US presence will get us
closer or further to peace in the Middle East and safety in the US,
immediate and full pull-out most assuredly will not.
3) "War is evil and people are dying unnecessarily." I heard a
protestor, when asked by a reporter what he wants, proclaim, "An end
to all wars by all nations." Sorry, pal, we're fighting groups that,
if we stop fighting, will only fight all the more.
4) "We're bearing too much of the cost when there are so many domestic
issues to deal with." Have we become so dulled by our freedom that we
have forgotten that it came at a price? Are we so naive to think that
if we close ranks and take care of ourselves, the oceans and borders
around us can keep the big, bad world from creeping into our utopia?
5) "No one else is risking as much as we are in this war." So we're
deciding whether something is right to do based on what others are
doing, and not on what we think? We're deciding that though we have
the resources and position to act on a world stage, we'd rather
distance ourselves from that responsibility? Did we ever as a country decide that what the right thing to do had to be in sync with what the rest of the world was willing to do?
So if you'll tell me a reason why we shouldn't have gone to war, and
what we should do now that we're in it, that doesn't involve the five
lines of thinking above, I'll read it carefully and with an open mind. Please, I'm begging you.
Comments