United for Peace and Justice?
Miss Chelsea & Others Interested-
Sorry I took so long to reply to your post and your views. I have 7.5 hours of class on Tuesdays, and then 5.5 hours on Thursdays with a 5 hour shift in the library Wednesday. It’s pretty hectic around those days. Anyways, I’d like to ask you to respond with answers to my own questions with facts, ideas, and/or other knowledge.
The following are questions from my original post I’m still curious about:
1.) What do you believe we have accomplished or will accomplish by staying in Iraq?
2.) How do you propose to stabilize Iraq and keep the United States afloat as well, financially and otherwise? You stated that, in response, that and while we’re $9 Trillion in debt, it can be balanced so that domestic issues are taken care of. If you bring all of these men and women back “immediately” we would need jobs and funding to take care of them as well. As of right now, they are employed, although with poor pay and whatever else, they have jobs. I would just like to know how you propose to balance this budget when five years ago we had one of the highest surpluses in our country and now was have accrued one of the greatest debts, due in part from the massive military spending on the war in Iraq?
Now, on to my response:
Immediate Withdrawal: I reason I stated my reason for going to the rally was because I do not think anything good will come from immediate withdrawal. I have never advocated for immediate withdrawal and don’t plan on it which is the point I was trying to make by stating, instead, that I was there to protest the escalation of troops. Yes, I would like our troops home but I believe we should try to leave Iraq with some semblance of a trained armed force to protect the people and that will take some time. So what do I think would come from immediate withdrawal? A lot of returning vets with no jobs, inadequate mental and physical health care, and a very unstable Iraq. Personally, I would like to see a slow withdrawal where we enact a timetable for training Iraqis (which we are doing, I know this) and leave as we train them. But, I do think that we need to start pulling troops out soon, not sending more in.
Number of Iraqi Civilian Deaths: There was a study done not long ago that was much more detailed than most before it. I haven’t had a chance to go look it up and get the exact information for you because it was some time ago that I read it, but I will at some point. I did, however, recognize the fact that is it very unclear as to the number of deaths. I said anywhere between “tens of thousands if not nearly 650,000,” just to state the range, not to argue which it was. No matter how you want to look at that, there is a largely in-proportionate number of American Deaths to Iraqi.
My question to you on this: who are we protecting Iraqis from? Themselves? And if you’re going to make the argument that “how many of those civilians that the study counted were taking part in killing our men and women and the men (and women?) of the Iraqi forces?” That this could be, possibly, a civil war we are getting in the middle of? And as a personal question, is it right to take sides of a civil war within another country?
Internal Violence and Saddam: I never said that Saddam was a great dictator and I don’t believe he should have been in power. But, if you go read some history on the factions in Iraq, most historians have been saying that his leadership was what has been keeping Iraq from a civil war for a long time in that country. It may work fine elsewhere, but there has been more tension in that area between these factions than we may have realized going in (which, if I remember correctly, seems similar to Vietnam). I have no doubt there’s a lot of happy Iraqis and they should be with Saddam gone, but there are also many unhappy Iraqis with the new government put in place and our continued involvement.
Last Election and the Republicans: If, as you stated, “the American people obviously have problems with the way the Republicans have been running things,” then why did Bush’s plan not reflect this? Why did Bush’s plan not look to try a new tactic, a new way of approaching Iraq, or at least try to reflect the fact that many of the elected were against the war? And why is he not responding to the fact that many Iraqi War Veterans do not want an escalation? In fact, there’s a group out there now producing commercials about how supporting an escalation of troops in Iraq, means (as they say, not me) that you do not support our troops.
You’re right, no election is won on the basis of one issue but this is a pretty prominent one. This is something that, I believe, should be considered and the fact that Bush’s plan to escalate troops, I feel, is not responding to the why the American publics views are shifting bothers me.
Our Inadequately Supplied Troops: You say that “this is how wars have always been fought.” Does the fact that throughout history Jews have been persecuted for the death of Christ provide a reason to allow it to continue? Does the fact that for many centuries, women were treated horribly and considered below citizen level justify the continuation of misogyny? Just because history has shown wars to be fought one way does not mean it is acceptable. War is no easy experience and to send a person in there physically unprepared (I can’t imagine mental preparation possible), does not seem right to me. Especially when they will come back and face so many other hard times. There should be better preparation if anyone needs to be sent to war. And we should be able to care for our vets upon returning, mentally and physically. If we can’t do that, why are we subjecting people to that experience?
Peace, and Training: Peace, honestly, is a little more than the absence of war of in my opinion. That’s a lovely binary definition but I still don’t think you can say that’s simply the definition. And, you have to remember, I am not interested in political science. I am not interested in politics or even in world affairs. I’m interested in the human being and what it means to recognize each individuals human rights (which was why I was so familiar and impressed that you obtained a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in, I think but could be wrong, Switzerland? I spent a lot of time dealing with that document). That’s why I’ve gotten involved in stuff like this, not because I want to be reading about the government and it’s policies but because I feel like it’s necessary if you’re speaking about human rights. And if we have trained troops in Iraq (yes, I know we are and have) and they’re capable of missions, why is an escalation of tens of thousands of our troops needed?
Terrorism: I agree that there are many definitions of terrorists, but there’s plenty of people saying and supporting the notion that we could, in fact, be creating a reason for further terrorists to join in.
And as for the many definitions, I’ve heard Bush himself called a terrorist for many of the decisions his administration has made. More on that later, possibly.
As an interesting pop culture note, the “terrorism threat” has recently been compared to the “communist scare” of the 1950s. People are comparing the actual discourse and language of how the government pushed the communist scare and the American public’s reactions. Surprisingly, the terrorism threat that society is feeling so tightly now has nearly the same rhetoric and tactics being employed. We can all say we honestly believe it and we’re honestly afraid, and it may be justified. But it also might be interesting to think that in fifty years, our grandkids might be laughing slightly at how we all freaked out when the color coded terror alert system moved to orange. If you’re interested at all in some of the details, I’ll be glad to chat with you about this because I find it really interesting.
Finishing the Project and Democracy: I agree that Democracy is great. I think that, in comparison with many other systems, that it’s much more reflective of the people’s wills. I also think that the people have a right ot a say in their government (article 21 of Universal Human rights declaration) But, in all honesty, the fact that you consider finishing the project as establishing “A stable democracy, or possibly two or three, that are Western-friendly” is assuming that democracy is best for all nations, of all cultures, with all backgrounds. It is assuming that our values are in fact the best to impart on others. And, western-friendly? I would like to know why it’s important to have it be “western-friendly.” I by no means want an Iran where there’s a madman in power, but, is it necessary that we may always be right? There are many international agreements that the United States does not follow. There are many times where we may not have the best answer. And to assume that we need to put a government in place that is western friendly and democratic, may not, in the end, turn out to be the best for that culture. It’s best for us, but we (as a nation) cannot be so egocentric as to assume that we need to make every nation agree with us. Conflict is, while annoying, good for the development of things on a small level.
Their government should be there decision. And I don’t think that being “western-friendly” should be a requirement.
Guantanamo Bay and Explanations: Yes, Guantanamo is a place where we bring people to detain them, get information, and shoot them. However, there are many flaws in your explanation of this a major one being the failure to conform to the Geneva Convention rules for treatment of prisoners. There are a lot of problems with Guantanamo that I have. I mean, is it enough to say that Amnesty International, the United States Director of Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross and more organizations have all attacked the practices the US uses there to prove it’s not consistently treating people humanely? But I suppose that’s another conversation, sorry, I get off track.
I would just like to know how do you explain that? Is it fair to simply assume we are above international agreements on that? And how do you plan on explaining that to the other nations that signed certain International Agreements with us? And, out of curiosity, if it was Russia holding United States prisoners in Guantanamo, how would you feel about it?
As for the atomic bomb, it was a quick end to the war. An end that was only ordered after the Japanese had begun to discuss surrender, which is something many don’t know (it was moved up, suddenly, when the United States learned about the Japanese being ready to surrender… can’t remember source. I’ll find it though if you want me to). It was dropped so that the United States could demand unconditional surrender and make better use of it for our own good. And when it comes to what I’m concerned with, human life (mostly civilians in this case) and rights, the atomic bomb is just about as bad as it gets.
The Taliban and External Governments We Support: I do know that the Taliban started off as a group we believed to be good, it wasn’t that I haven’t done my reading though I’ll admit I don’t spend a lot of my time on the Taliban. My point was we still put them in power. And we haven’t had a great history of supporting other governments. Look at the government we supported in Vietnam. It was actually just as awful and brutal as it could be to its citizens, and we supported it since it was “Western-friendly” and didn’t have communist leanings. We have a tendency to push the government that’s in our favor with our ideologies, not the people’s favor. All I’m saying is that putting a government in place and supporting it when the people of iraq do not may not be the best idea.
United Stated Stability: I was only using veterans as an example because they’re directly feeling the effects of war and we’re not caring for them. There are hundreds of thousands of American Citizens that need help with medical care and other basic things such as housing and food. I feel like this is, however, a wartime issue because the money spent in Iraq and on military expenses could vastly help conditions here at home for many people. It could help with WIIC, it could help with providing the victims of Katrina with housing instead of simply tearing down many public housing units. It may be true for a lot of people that health care is awful, and to me that means we should be taking care of that issue.
You can’t save the world and help them unless your country is also cared for.
Terrorism and My Anti-War Sentiments: I understand what it felt like on 9/11 to watch civilians of my country die here. I remember what I thought then and I can read a lot of it still in my journals that I have. That is why I have become an advocate for peace. Another countryman came here to destroy our people for his causes. No matter the cause, it took away human life that didn’t deserve it. Now we’re out there taking our soldiers’ lives and other people’s family members away from them for whatever our cause is to be there. I do not want to be part of continuing that cycle of violence. There are other ways to respond to violent action and terrorism rather than with violence. There are others means of helping the world and helping them to save their people as well that do not involve violence.
Check out Judith Butler’s Precarious Life. Check of 9/11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow. Check out Veterans for Peace. Ask for more references if you'd like, I've got a lot.
Please… respond to above. Anyone and everyone. If I don't respond with a reply, I'll get around to it eventually. Probably.
Sorry I took so long to reply to your post and your views. I have 7.5 hours of class on Tuesdays, and then 5.5 hours on Thursdays with a 5 hour shift in the library Wednesday. It’s pretty hectic around those days. Anyways, I’d like to ask you to respond with answers to my own questions with facts, ideas, and/or other knowledge.
The following are questions from my original post I’m still curious about:
1.) What do you believe we have accomplished or will accomplish by staying in Iraq?
2.) How do you propose to stabilize Iraq and keep the United States afloat as well, financially and otherwise? You stated that, in response, that and while we’re $9 Trillion in debt, it can be balanced so that domestic issues are taken care of. If you bring all of these men and women back “immediately” we would need jobs and funding to take care of them as well. As of right now, they are employed, although with poor pay and whatever else, they have jobs. I would just like to know how you propose to balance this budget when five years ago we had one of the highest surpluses in our country and now was have accrued one of the greatest debts, due in part from the massive military spending on the war in Iraq?
Now, on to my response:
Immediate Withdrawal: I reason I stated my reason for going to the rally was because I do not think anything good will come from immediate withdrawal. I have never advocated for immediate withdrawal and don’t plan on it which is the point I was trying to make by stating, instead, that I was there to protest the escalation of troops. Yes, I would like our troops home but I believe we should try to leave Iraq with some semblance of a trained armed force to protect the people and that will take some time. So what do I think would come from immediate withdrawal? A lot of returning vets with no jobs, inadequate mental and physical health care, and a very unstable Iraq. Personally, I would like to see a slow withdrawal where we enact a timetable for training Iraqis (which we are doing, I know this) and leave as we train them. But, I do think that we need to start pulling troops out soon, not sending more in.
Number of Iraqi Civilian Deaths: There was a study done not long ago that was much more detailed than most before it. I haven’t had a chance to go look it up and get the exact information for you because it was some time ago that I read it, but I will at some point. I did, however, recognize the fact that is it very unclear as to the number of deaths. I said anywhere between “tens of thousands if not nearly 650,000,” just to state the range, not to argue which it was. No matter how you want to look at that, there is a largely in-proportionate number of American Deaths to Iraqi.
My question to you on this: who are we protecting Iraqis from? Themselves? And if you’re going to make the argument that “how many of those civilians that the study counted were taking part in killing our men and women and the men (and women?) of the Iraqi forces?” That this could be, possibly, a civil war we are getting in the middle of? And as a personal question, is it right to take sides of a civil war within another country?
Internal Violence and Saddam: I never said that Saddam was a great dictator and I don’t believe he should have been in power. But, if you go read some history on the factions in Iraq, most historians have been saying that his leadership was what has been keeping Iraq from a civil war for a long time in that country. It may work fine elsewhere, but there has been more tension in that area between these factions than we may have realized going in (which, if I remember correctly, seems similar to Vietnam). I have no doubt there’s a lot of happy Iraqis and they should be with Saddam gone, but there are also many unhappy Iraqis with the new government put in place and our continued involvement.
Last Election and the Republicans: If, as you stated, “the American people obviously have problems with the way the Republicans have been running things,” then why did Bush’s plan not reflect this? Why did Bush’s plan not look to try a new tactic, a new way of approaching Iraq, or at least try to reflect the fact that many of the elected were against the war? And why is he not responding to the fact that many Iraqi War Veterans do not want an escalation? In fact, there’s a group out there now producing commercials about how supporting an escalation of troops in Iraq, means (as they say, not me) that you do not support our troops.
You’re right, no election is won on the basis of one issue but this is a pretty prominent one. This is something that, I believe, should be considered and the fact that Bush’s plan to escalate troops, I feel, is not responding to the why the American publics views are shifting bothers me.
Our Inadequately Supplied Troops: You say that “this is how wars have always been fought.” Does the fact that throughout history Jews have been persecuted for the death of Christ provide a reason to allow it to continue? Does the fact that for many centuries, women were treated horribly and considered below citizen level justify the continuation of misogyny? Just because history has shown wars to be fought one way does not mean it is acceptable. War is no easy experience and to send a person in there physically unprepared (I can’t imagine mental preparation possible), does not seem right to me. Especially when they will come back and face so many other hard times. There should be better preparation if anyone needs to be sent to war. And we should be able to care for our vets upon returning, mentally and physically. If we can’t do that, why are we subjecting people to that experience?
Peace, and Training: Peace, honestly, is a little more than the absence of war of in my opinion. That’s a lovely binary definition but I still don’t think you can say that’s simply the definition. And, you have to remember, I am not interested in political science. I am not interested in politics or even in world affairs. I’m interested in the human being and what it means to recognize each individuals human rights (which was why I was so familiar and impressed that you obtained a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in, I think but could be wrong, Switzerland? I spent a lot of time dealing with that document). That’s why I’ve gotten involved in stuff like this, not because I want to be reading about the government and it’s policies but because I feel like it’s necessary if you’re speaking about human rights. And if we have trained troops in Iraq (yes, I know we are and have) and they’re capable of missions, why is an escalation of tens of thousands of our troops needed?
Terrorism: I agree that there are many definitions of terrorists, but there’s plenty of people saying and supporting the notion that we could, in fact, be creating a reason for further terrorists to join in.
And as for the many definitions, I’ve heard Bush himself called a terrorist for many of the decisions his administration has made. More on that later, possibly.
As an interesting pop culture note, the “terrorism threat” has recently been compared to the “communist scare” of the 1950s. People are comparing the actual discourse and language of how the government pushed the communist scare and the American public’s reactions. Surprisingly, the terrorism threat that society is feeling so tightly now has nearly the same rhetoric and tactics being employed. We can all say we honestly believe it and we’re honestly afraid, and it may be justified. But it also might be interesting to think that in fifty years, our grandkids might be laughing slightly at how we all freaked out when the color coded terror alert system moved to orange. If you’re interested at all in some of the details, I’ll be glad to chat with you about this because I find it really interesting.
Finishing the Project and Democracy: I agree that Democracy is great. I think that, in comparison with many other systems, that it’s much more reflective of the people’s wills. I also think that the people have a right ot a say in their government (article 21 of Universal Human rights declaration) But, in all honesty, the fact that you consider finishing the project as establishing “A stable democracy, or possibly two or three, that are Western-friendly” is assuming that democracy is best for all nations, of all cultures, with all backgrounds. It is assuming that our values are in fact the best to impart on others. And, western-friendly? I would like to know why it’s important to have it be “western-friendly.” I by no means want an Iran where there’s a madman in power, but, is it necessary that we may always be right? There are many international agreements that the United States does not follow. There are many times where we may not have the best answer. And to assume that we need to put a government in place that is western friendly and democratic, may not, in the end, turn out to be the best for that culture. It’s best for us, but we (as a nation) cannot be so egocentric as to assume that we need to make every nation agree with us. Conflict is, while annoying, good for the development of things on a small level.
Their government should be there decision. And I don’t think that being “western-friendly” should be a requirement.
Guantanamo Bay and Explanations: Yes, Guantanamo is a place where we bring people to detain them, get information, and shoot them. However, there are many flaws in your explanation of this a major one being the failure to conform to the Geneva Convention rules for treatment of prisoners. There are a lot of problems with Guantanamo that I have. I mean, is it enough to say that Amnesty International, the United States Director of Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross and more organizations have all attacked the practices the US uses there to prove it’s not consistently treating people humanely? But I suppose that’s another conversation, sorry, I get off track.
I would just like to know how do you explain that? Is it fair to simply assume we are above international agreements on that? And how do you plan on explaining that to the other nations that signed certain International Agreements with us? And, out of curiosity, if it was Russia holding United States prisoners in Guantanamo, how would you feel about it?
As for the atomic bomb, it was a quick end to the war. An end that was only ordered after the Japanese had begun to discuss surrender, which is something many don’t know (it was moved up, suddenly, when the United States learned about the Japanese being ready to surrender… can’t remember source. I’ll find it though if you want me to). It was dropped so that the United States could demand unconditional surrender and make better use of it for our own good. And when it comes to what I’m concerned with, human life (mostly civilians in this case) and rights, the atomic bomb is just about as bad as it gets.
The Taliban and External Governments We Support: I do know that the Taliban started off as a group we believed to be good, it wasn’t that I haven’t done my reading though I’ll admit I don’t spend a lot of my time on the Taliban. My point was we still put them in power. And we haven’t had a great history of supporting other governments. Look at the government we supported in Vietnam. It was actually just as awful and brutal as it could be to its citizens, and we supported it since it was “Western-friendly” and didn’t have communist leanings. We have a tendency to push the government that’s in our favor with our ideologies, not the people’s favor. All I’m saying is that putting a government in place and supporting it when the people of iraq do not may not be the best idea.
United Stated Stability: I was only using veterans as an example because they’re directly feeling the effects of war and we’re not caring for them. There are hundreds of thousands of American Citizens that need help with medical care and other basic things such as housing and food. I feel like this is, however, a wartime issue because the money spent in Iraq and on military expenses could vastly help conditions here at home for many people. It could help with WIIC, it could help with providing the victims of Katrina with housing instead of simply tearing down many public housing units. It may be true for a lot of people that health care is awful, and to me that means we should be taking care of that issue.
You can’t save the world and help them unless your country is also cared for.
Terrorism and My Anti-War Sentiments: I understand what it felt like on 9/11 to watch civilians of my country die here. I remember what I thought then and I can read a lot of it still in my journals that I have. That is why I have become an advocate for peace. Another countryman came here to destroy our people for his causes. No matter the cause, it took away human life that didn’t deserve it. Now we’re out there taking our soldiers’ lives and other people’s family members away from them for whatever our cause is to be there. I do not want to be part of continuing that cycle of violence. There are other ways to respond to violent action and terrorism rather than with violence. There are others means of helping the world and helping them to save their people as well that do not involve violence.
Check out Judith Butler’s Precarious Life. Check of 9/11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow. Check out Veterans for Peace. Ask for more references if you'd like, I've got a lot.
Please… respond to above. Anyone and everyone. If I don't respond with a reply, I'll get around to it eventually. Probably.