A number of people are convinced that the US is preparing for another war. I can’t deny that, as we’ve begun to mobilize troops all over the world, most of them pointed in the direction of Iraq. Recently, I’ve begun to notice some anti-war protests popping up all over the media; they typical “War kills” and “Peace not War” protests. People need to go get jobs and forget the 60’s, the stupid wannabe hippies.
I’m a bit perplexed by this protest thing, actually. A four years ago, a small terrorist group declared a holy war on the US. Our president at the time – yes, the clueless yet beloved and useless Mr. Clinton – ignored it with a “we’re the US – what can they do to us? Get me another cigar” mentality. Two years later, three airline jets were crashed into government and civilian targets, as an attack of that declared holy war. Our president at that time – our current President Bush – vowed that he would do whatever it takes to protect our nation and rout terrorism out from the world. These are the facts, up to now.
Now we got Iraq, who has been defiant to the UN, and thereby the world, forbidding weapon inspectors for years, and declaring their own holy war against the US. What would you do? Ignore it? Use diplomacy? We’ve used diplomacy since the end of the Gulf War, almost ten years ago – Saddam doesn’t care. He uses diplomacy to make his opponents look weak and as a stalling tactic to build more weapons. The last time Iraq was attacked it was because Iraq was invading the sovereign nation of Kuwait. The UN (probably minus French support, as usual – they would be the last kid chosen for a kick ball game every time) used forced to stop an aggressor from acquiring more land. What would have happened if the League of Nations took the same strong line approach with German or Japan during the mid-30’s? Would there have been a second world war, in the 40’s?
We’ve also got North Korea, who has declared nuclear weapons to the world; people have said why do they get diplomacy, while Iraq gets armed forces? Um, hello? Look to the past ten years for the Iraqi definition of cooperation for diplomacy. Also, this whole nuclear agenda was flushed out by President Bush, by calling the state of North Korea an “axis of evil”. By declaring them as such, it means our government knew that North Korea had the nukes, and they would respond by declaring it to the world. Honestly, when was the last time you thought of North Korea being a problem spot, after M*A*S*H went off the air? You haven’t; neither have I – our government knew something and wanted to get our attention on it. Besides, in North Korea, they’re still talking to us; also, they know that if they make a nuclear first strike on any nation, they will have every missile in the world pointed at them. Iraq can attack who they want, and odds are no one will care because it’s not a nuclear attack. And remember that if Iraq attacks Israel – who would be their first logical target, again – our current treaties state that it is considered an attack on the US itself, forcing us to respond.
What truly boggles my mind are the protestors… that they don’t see all of the above as reasons to attack Iraq in the here and now. Of course their best argument is that war causes death. Loss of life causes death, even if war can offer a concentrated string of it. Given the technology of the day, the hope is that very few troops are on the front lines and the bombs are more accurate than in years past. War has always caused a loss of lives; that’s true. Lives that were given to the US Armed Forces to defend our nation; should we have not gone to war in WWII because some people might die? How many people would have died if we didn’t go to war? This is nothing new, people; the Armed Forces are there for action and everyone knows it – some people just seem to remember different things when they opt to protest something. I’ve debated with a few online people about this, in the chat rooms. Either they’re all dense or they have no real argument, when you push them. They throw up the same ongoing excuses and reasons that end up supporting my arguments; frustrated, they eventually start to swear at everyone and storm off with a lost argument. I just wonder how some of the high publicity protesters [insert any Hollywood candy-assed democrat here] would do in a heated debate over their issues. Probably couldn’t spell “peace” without their press agent.
Peace might sell, but can how can we afford to buy it?