There are lots of reasons why we should not throw ourselves into a war with Iraq, and I'm going to list them. If anyone wants to argue with me, please do so and I will list even more reasons:
1. There is no reason to attack Iraq. Simple enough really. All we got is suspicion that there might be something, not even enough really to convict someone of a crime here at home, certainly not enough to bomb the hell out of millions and millions of people. The fact that so many countries officially oppose a war in Iraq only strengthens the idea that there is not enough evidence -- it is a hung jury of the international community of our peers. Problem is, our administration thinks we're better than the rest of our peers and therefore above the law. So we'll lynch 'em if they won't allow us to convict.
2. In some ways related to number one, our standing in the world community is at stake here. Do we act civil and allow our differences to be taken care of through legal means of diplomacy, or do we act as the world's largest rogue nation -- dodging international law, ripping up treaties, threatening other nations, disrespecting human rights, etc -- and start to become treated as such by the rest of the world?
3. There will be retaliation. In direct proportion to the number of bombs that we drop on Iraq, should we invade, acts of terrorism against the U.S. will increase. Not only will our invasion be seen as "evil" by militant Muslims of the Middle East, thereby creating more hatred which could lead to more people being more willing to die to "defeat" us, but it will also take away from our ability to protect ourselves here...after all, I've heard many reports about how upwards to 25% or more of many police and public safety depratments are being called up to the Reserves...leaving our communities less protected than they were.
4. At no time in history has our democracy, or any democracy outside of the U.S. that I can think of, ever invaded another soverign country as a pre-emptive strike for something that they might do in the future. Our fearless leader would like us to believe that there is a danger presented by Iraq that must be nuetralized now because there's a possibility that something could happen somewhere down the road. This is a 180-degree turn from the Roosevelts, Lincolns, McKinleys, Polks, and every other wartime president during our nation's 227 year history and a very, very bad precedent to set. To invade another country pre-emptively is the sort of thing that the Soviet Union or, oh, let's see, Iraq would do. Go ahead, look through a history book and try to find a "good guy" country that's attacked without being attacked first.
5. The U.N. believes that one million or more kids may find themselves knocking on death's door as a result of malnutrition that a disruption in the supply line cased by war would bring. This does not include the 15-20 million people who would have little or no access to clean water, the millions more that would be made instant refugees, and the thousands or millions of innocent civilians that would die as a direct consequence of our military action.
That's enough for now, I may come back and do some more. I know that I have left out some good reasons -- like it isn't right to be attacking another country just to avenge your daddy's pride or oil (take your pick) -- but, in the end, those sorts of things (although probably true) don't further the discussion and debate.
1. There is no reason to attack Iraq. Simple enough really. All we got is suspicion that there might be something, not even enough really to convict someone of a crime here at home, certainly not enough to bomb the hell out of millions and millions of people. The fact that so many countries officially oppose a war in Iraq only strengthens the idea that there is not enough evidence -- it is a hung jury of the international community of our peers. Problem is, our administration thinks we're better than the rest of our peers and therefore above the law. So we'll lynch 'em if they won't allow us to convict.
2. In some ways related to number one, our standing in the world community is at stake here. Do we act civil and allow our differences to be taken care of through legal means of diplomacy, or do we act as the world's largest rogue nation -- dodging international law, ripping up treaties, threatening other nations, disrespecting human rights, etc -- and start to become treated as such by the rest of the world?
3. There will be retaliation. In direct proportion to the number of bombs that we drop on Iraq, should we invade, acts of terrorism against the U.S. will increase. Not only will our invasion be seen as "evil" by militant Muslims of the Middle East, thereby creating more hatred which could lead to more people being more willing to die to "defeat" us, but it will also take away from our ability to protect ourselves here...after all, I've heard many reports about how upwards to 25% or more of many police and public safety depratments are being called up to the Reserves...leaving our communities less protected than they were.
4. At no time in history has our democracy, or any democracy outside of the U.S. that I can think of, ever invaded another soverign country as a pre-emptive strike for something that they might do in the future. Our fearless leader would like us to believe that there is a danger presented by Iraq that must be nuetralized now because there's a possibility that something could happen somewhere down the road. This is a 180-degree turn from the Roosevelts, Lincolns, McKinleys, Polks, and every other wartime president during our nation's 227 year history and a very, very bad precedent to set. To invade another country pre-emptively is the sort of thing that the Soviet Union or, oh, let's see, Iraq would do. Go ahead, look through a history book and try to find a "good guy" country that's attacked without being attacked first.
5. The U.N. believes that one million or more kids may find themselves knocking on death's door as a result of malnutrition that a disruption in the supply line cased by war would bring. This does not include the 15-20 million people who would have little or no access to clean water, the millions more that would be made instant refugees, and the thousands or millions of innocent civilians that would die as a direct consequence of our military action.
That's enough for now, I may come back and do some more. I know that I have left out some good reasons -- like it isn't right to be attacking another country just to avenge your daddy's pride or oil (take your pick) -- but, in the end, those sorts of things (although probably true) don't further the discussion and debate.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home