“I just can’t believe tighter sanctions and some glassy stares couldn’t have put this off a while longer . . .”
—I’m tellin’ you, people: lorgnettes!
If I’ve gotta be on the fence, it’s nice to be in such good company.
Does Saddam have to go? Yup.
Is it our resposibility to oust him? Hmmm…
I think the thing that bothered me most about this was Bush’s decision after a weekend of phoning world leaders to NOT seek another UN resolution, but to deliver an ultimatum instead. That could easily be taken to mean he’s adopted the position that we’ll play along with the UN as long as he’s reasonably sure we can win the votes. If we can’t win the votes we’ll ignore the UN and take what action we see as being necessary.
That one’s gonna come back and bite us.
Oh Eve, do you need someone to organize and edit the newsletter? 
I’d like to go back in time and find that passionate committed kid with the ironclad position on the war in Vietnam.
I feel I would need ALOT more information to make a decision about this war, information that unfortunately I’m not privvy to. Never has a war had so many complex reflexive variables that need to be taken into account. You need a Phd and field experience in international diplomacy, economics, engineering, psychology, logistics, modern military, negotiation, etc. AND you can’t just have advisors because it requires a synthesis of the subtle implications from all these fields. My main problem with the war is conducting it with the international “impression” that we are acting unilaterally. There just isn’t a need to make enemies if you can avoid it.
Ahhh…lorgnettes! Do they make a model with a gas mask attached to it? Those totally round frames on the equipment have to GO!
That’s my take on it, too.
I’ve been following the news for months, trying to make sense of it all and reach a decision. I haven’t been able to do so.
Sigh. Time will tell.
–Kris
::hands skerri a cushion; my rear end is adequately padded due to my numerous chocolate-eating binges. During depressing times, I “self-medicate” with chocolate.::
I’m afraid that I won’t be able to join you all on the fence.
I’m too busy dithering and blithering, jumping from one side of the fence to the other, trying to squeeze myself through what little gaps there are in it and burrowing feverishly under it. I have no which side I should end up on, so I’m trying to simultaneously be on both sides at the same time.
I think when things have all calmed down, and we see how this war has turned out, I’ll be able to firmly say which side of the fence I was on, and confidently state that I’ve been there all along.
Add me to the bunch.
Mostly opposed to the war (doesn’t meet my definition of just war yet)…yet I don’t find myself having a lot in common with the vocal anti war protesters.
I’m glad you started this thread, Eve. Everyone I know IRL seems to have very strong views on the new war. I, on the other hand, flip on a day to day basis, or even based on the person I’m talking to (I think I’m playing Devil’s advocate, others think I’m argumentative. You be the judge.).
I too am on the fence.My husband is totally against this war,which is unusual he is usually a staunch supporter of the republican party.So every time I waffle back and forth he looks at me in astonishment stating "You think this war’s a good idea!??"He doesn’t get the fact that I just don’t know. I’ll read about Sadam and think ‘Hell yeah we need to bomb him to hell’ Then I start reading about the other points of view. I admit that I’m leaning more toward Bush, but I keep thinking with everyone against this war,I surely must be missing something. I usually make my own opinion and do not rely on public opinion, but something in my gut does not feel right.
I seem to be on the fence, but I’m not. I don’t think we have any business being there without backing from other countries. And I feel like there hasn’t been any proof of WMD, which appears to be the justification for this action. I mean, if they’d FOUND anthrax or something, you’d think they’d put it on the news. A hell of a lot more people would support the war if such evidence were to be presented to the general pubic. Right now, it just seems like there’s been a lot of circular logic and stuff being used. Serious matters like war should not involve circular logic.
That being said, I believe that Saddam should be ousted. In my opinion, though, that should’ve been done back during version 1.0. Hence, I am anti-war.
However, now that the war has started, all I want is for it to be over quickly, and for as few people as possible to die. I’m pro troops–I understand that those individuals are standing up for what they believe in, and are willing to put their lives on the line to back it up. I want them all to come back safely. In a way, this makes me anti-war, too–they’ll ALL come back safely if there’s a peaceful resolution.
However, most anti-war people–or the most rabit, really, not most–don’t like that I’m pro-troops, and don’t like that I’m not going around right now performing acts of civil disobedience. There’s going to be a war right now–protests be damned. It’s happening. I will express my opinion, but I’m not going to waste my time and energy standing around with a sign whilst my friends are breaking down because they’re scared that someone they care about is out there clearing minefields. I will provide chocolate and milk. I will do what I can to make things better.
So, basically, I get crap from both sides. C’est la vie.
You just summed up the position of everyone in the world who opposes this war.
When you’re the biggest kid on the block, you have to make sure your motives are noble and beyond reproach in order not to foster resentment. If you’re going to lead, you’ve gotta be great.
I think Saddam’s regime is a cancer, but I don’t think Bush is a surgeon trying to treat a patient. I think he might be after the gold fillings…
Things like this make be firmly believe Saddam needs to be out of power. If it isn’t our responsibility to do so, then who does it fall to? Do we stand by and let it go on indefinitely? Sure, Saddam will die eventually, but then one of his sons takes over to continue the family tradition.
My problem with the way we’ve gone about starting this war is that Bush’s motivation is less than pure. From what I’ve seen, he’s only recently brought up the humanitarian angle and it seems to be more of a last ditch effort at garnering support rather than something he truly believes in. I’d be much more comfortable with the whole thing if we’d been discussing the humanitarian issues back in December and if we’d worked on convincing the UN of the urgency of those issues.
As many others have stated, I firmly believe Saddam needs to be ousted, but am uncomfortable with the motivations for the current military action. I just try to keep reminding myself of the side-affects which will (hopefully) bring liberation to the Iraqi people; it makes this war a bit easier to swallow.
I’ve found that Public Broadcasting gives the most in depth and balanced news coverage.
Television: ** The News Hour with Jim Lehrer** 6:00 p.m.
central standard time
Radio: ** Morning Edition with Bob Edwards** 6:00 a. m. central
** All Things Considered** with Michelle Norris, Melissa
Block, others.....3:00 p.m. central
These programs give you the headlines and then explore these headlines in depth usually with proponents from both sides of the argument giving detailed analysis.
I’m sticking with The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is the only interviewer who will ask a political pundit—left or right—“are you out of your fucking mind?”
Not on the fence. This is a war of naked aggression started with the evidence of innuendo, half-truths and outright lies and I am against it.
That being said-- I hope Saddam gets his, now that the war has started. I hope our boys all get home safe. I hope this war ends speedily so that our country can start rebuilding good relations with our allies (and the not-so-allied).
I find myself knee-jerking against mindless rants, no matter from which side they come. It seems that I won’t feel qualified to say which opinion is correct unless I can see in the future. On either extreme, I see two possible scenarios.
Scenario 1: The coalition storms through Iraq and occupies Baghdad within 2 weeks of the first shot. Surgical strikes mean that there are few allied or civilian casualities. Incipient chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare laboratories, on the verge of implementation, are captured and televised world-wide. France and Germany mutter an apologetic “Well, I guess you were right.” Since Hussein was killed 3/19/03 by a cruise missle (his later telecast was a taped transmission), there is no figure head for resistance fighters to rally around, and activity against the short lived US occupation is almost nil. With the aid of grateful countries, the people of Iraq willingly create a democratic government. The sun shines, birds sing, life is good.
.
.
.
Scenario 100: Iraqi resistance is tougher than expected. Six months after the US invasion, still mired in ferocious house to house fighting, over 25,000 American troops are killed when a platoon of Republican Guards blows a dam, unleasing millions of tons of water. A disgraced Bush begins exploring the possibility of “peace with honor” by offering to withdraw and conceding the $2 billion dollars in reparations demanded by the UN. Hussein becomes a hero to the Arab world. As the Japanese did to the British in WWII, Iraq has disproven the US’s invincibility. Terrorist acts become rampant in the US. Americans are reluctant to travel to other countries, not only because they are afraid of terrorism, but also because they are just flat-out embarrased.
I don’t think either scenario will occur, but I bet it will be one between the two extremes. I just don’t know which one. Good people are gving arguments that contradict each other. But I seem to be hearing a lot of the wrong arguments both for and against war, from “I’m against the war because wars kill people, and – oh, yeah, Bush is an idiot,” to “Support the troops!” (as a reason for war).
I’m at work, and I’m typing on the sly, so there are probably some grammatical errors and typos that I missed. But if I sound a bit vague and uncertain, that pretty much reflects my thoughts on the war.
This is one crowded fence. One one hand there’s the remote possibility that we are witnessing the opening salvos of WWIII. On the other are the protestors whose efforts only seem to result in inconveniencing everyone.
Yep, fence-sitter here too. I see good arguments on both sides. The only ones who totally disgust me are the extremists on either side—the “Yahoo, let’s bomb the ragheads!” crowd, and the naive hippy “War is never okay!” crowd.
But I’ve pretty much hopped down off the fence since Monday. Now that the war is happening, might as well support the Pres (who I still don’t like) and the troops, and hope all goes as well as it can.
sigh
It’s heartening to see so many other people stating their position like this. In such an emotive issue, it seems a little ironic that the people who appear the most unsure are probably the ones who are thinking hardest about it.
To add to the “me too” pile-on, I’d like to thank astorian for spelling out my position for me very well, and add that a good quote I heard recently was that ‘America will win the war but lose the peace.’ I worry that the consequences of the war will be far-reaching and detrimental to Middle-Eastern stability, American security, etc.