Quote:
Originally posted by KillarneyRose
It's my feeling that, since war is apparently inevitable, those who opposed it should accept that they were, in effect, overruled. I'm not saying they should embrace the cause, but I don't understand why they would continue to protest something that is a done deal. I don't think additional dissent would do anything to end the war. Rather, it would add to the image the rest of the world must surely have of the U.S. as being fragmented and therefore vulnerable.
|
Rose,
Vietnam was a "done deal" when the protests began. We had been there for years. Had we not had dissenters, we might still be there. (No? Ask the French -- sorry, we're not talking to them are we?)
While there may have been some, I have not yet seen anyone showing the kind of disrespect to members of our military such as was shown during the Vietnam era. Just the opposite, in fact. Remember, I've seen both -- most of you haven't.
I strongly support our men and women in uniform. If I felt that there was absolute proof the alegations against Iraq, I would support this military action.
The campaign by the administration has been clever. The President's speech writers are outstanding. But, when you cut through the rethoric, the proof, for me, is lacking. Purely circumstantial. Lots of propaganda techniques -- bandwagoning, transference, begging the question, name calling -- the whole spectrum.
What has been missing is hard evidence. Or, at least, that's the way it appears to me.
The protests around the world would seem to indicate to me that the evidence has failed to stand up in the court of world opinion.
We are using several UN resolutions to justify an invasion, while it is obvious that the UN does not agree with our course of action. Even many of our NATO allies disagree. Many will say that the UN and NATO have outlived their usefullness. That may be so, but if is, why use the previous resolutions as justification?
What am I missing there? Playing both ends?
I had no problem with the first Mid-East war because Saddam was clearly invading a neighboring country -- I just wish the hell President Bush the first had allowed the military to finish the job. There is no question in my mind that we could have.
Finally, I have no patience with the "Love it or Leave it" argument. In many (most) cases, that's a pat fallback for those who have no real argument. Bandwagonning, again.
The right to criticize goes both ways -- and both sides need to remeber that.
Threaded Mode