The Bush doctrine is preemptive war.
But we forget what war means. What is like to have a bomb dropped in your town, a big explosion in which 12 people die and 30 are injured? Everyone around the explosion stares in disbelief and fear, people pull survivors away from the fire. People's lives are ruined in an instant. Loved ones traumatically die in an act of violence and terror. What does that do to a town? What if at the same time the bridge you take to work has been bombed. The electric plant has been destroyed and the power has been off for days. People are using generators to power refrigerators, and hospitals. Surviving, and helping others survive through gasoline powered generators. While everywhere someone is mourning the loss of a loved one. In Lebanon this is happening right now. Every day.I fear that nothing is shocking anymore. We have seen so many explosions on TV that we have forgotten the true reality of it. The damage and suffering that they leave in their wake. Over 1,000 civilians have died in Lebanon in the last month. Hundreds of highways and bridges have been destroyed. A power plant on the cost was bombed and the oil the plant used to make electricity spilled onto the Mediterranean coastline creating one of the worst environmental disasters the country has ever seen.
I'm not saying that we are the only ones who are violent. What I am saying is that violence never solves a problem, it only perpetuates more violence and revenge. People do not simply submit to abuse and do what you want them to.
People are not pacified through violence.
Are we safer now that Iran is the figurehead for defiance of the US? Before we went into Iraq, when we named Iran in the 'Axis of Evil', the Iranian government was struggling for legitimacy with its own people. Much of the Iranian population didn't want to live under a religiously based set of laws, and the Iranian government didn't have much power to do anything. But what happens when the US starts being aggressive toward Iran and other Middle Eastern countries? Everyone rallies around Iran's position, strongly opposing the US.
And when more innocent Muslims die, we prove Iran, al Qaeda and Hezbollah right.
Bush and his advisers have never seen war, except for Collin Powell who is ironically a big opponent of the Iraq War. But Bush wants more war, he thinks Preemptive war is a great idea. They believe the US should be starting wars without provocation. Bush says that we should have an aggressive foreign policy. But should the US really be acting like the aggressor, starting wars and killing people around the world? No, the Bush Doctrine is completely un-American.
Now that we've ignored, abused, and discredited the UN are we safer? The UN represents the rule of law in international relations. Without the rule of law, nations resort to force. We didn't want the UN to stop us from invading Iraq, what happens now when we want to stop Iran and North Korea from developing Nuclear weapons? We can't ask the UN for help because we ignored them, now everyone else can ignore them. Force becomes a more likely option, because we don't have an alternative.
I sure as hell don't feel safer.
Thanks e-strip for being my journal
I think the Peace Movement is a good movement. It can work, but for it to work all parties in conflicts must have a peace movement. For example if the peacefull muslums instead of the violant assholes who are in chrage could take over the government then there would be no reason to fight with the Jews. However at the same time if the Jews still hate the arabs and want a fight wich I belive they do then there won't be peace the jews must also have a peace movement. The problem is that the people who want peace have no way to take over the armies peacfully. I belive you can have peace and have an army to be used only a a defense it can be done.
On a side note I think the Korea situtation can be fixed through peace. But not by the Ameriacans. Again it has to be done by the brainwashed Koreans overthrowing Kim Jong Ill II, but how do you do that peacefully. My understand is that North Korea would like to be united with the South. But the south dosn't think that they are ready yet and that hopefully some day they can do it right. Granted the piece I saw was from a few years ago but the general gist was that the wall coming down in germany wasn't really that great because it is like an invisable wall is still up and the country is still seperated and South Korea dosn't want that to Happen. Maybe Kim will get smart and think about what is best for everyone in stead of having his people worship him like a god.
I suppose I should answer Dcoffee's question, since I didn't in my previous message. We are CERTAINLY safer, but the sticking point is how much of our personal liberty are we willing to give up in order to achieve some sort of balance. The right has a field day with the left on this issue precisely because lefties see the effect on personal liberties and believe that its an unneeded burden. This of course is when you hear the "pre-9/11 attitude" charges and the "jingoist police state" charges being levied. Unequivocally, we are safer. But at what expense?
Ajay, where do you start? I would suggest getting educated about the last 50 years of American political discourse as a good starting point.
Carter - the left's hero. This is the same guy who encouraged the Shah's military commanders to step down and accept the Ayatollah's leadership as a way to "broker peace." Shortly thereafter, all 150 of them were killed as one of the Ayatollah's first acts, and lead the way to the founding of one of the most repressive and anti-American governments in existence. That was just an appretizer to what Carter did under Clinton's watch for North Korea. As you know, he foolishly gave away the farm to North Korea in exchange for a *promise* to stop a nuclear program. Of course the NK's couldn't be trusted as we now see. Carter, the supposed human rights advocate, is busy chumming up with Iran and North Korea, which is why his political AND human rights records are a complete laughing stock. Nobel Peace Prize? The same thing they gave to Arafat? Puhleease.
In order to avoid embarrassing yourself by supporting Carter I would suggest reading up a little more about his presidency and his current efforts to prop up criminal and corrupt regimes. Oh, P.S. - what he did with Israel and Egypt was no different than what Israel did with several of its Arab neighbors, including the moderate counties such as Jordan. And by the way - Carter is not a neutral in the Middle East either. The man has received millions of dollars in the past from Arab sources, and the Carter Center would likely have not been possible without those donations. :::link:::
Peace movements do not end war and bring lasting peace. Never have, never will. What King and Gandhi did were legendary, and I admire both men, but do not confuse what they did then with what is going on now in the world's current political climate. Lefties fundamentally don't understand the Middle East situation. This ain't Cops And Robbers, okay?
To answer Libertad - Hezbollah has an edict in its charter to destroy Israel. Iran's President has on multiple occasions recently stated that the destruction of Israel is the only thing that will bring peace to the region. Recent estimates calculate the amount of "radicals" in the Muslim world at 300 million. 300 million! These people are well armed, well funded and are complete zealots. They do not only want to destroy Israel, but us and Europe as well. When the well armed and funded Arab leaders directly involved with this conflict explicitly state that they want to see millions of Jews dead and the destruction of the Jewish state, we had better take them seriously. Its not a matter of if, but when. Do pacifists really believe that Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda can be *talked out* of one of their most fundamental and religiously tied beliefs? I hate to say it, but this one is going to end badly. I don't think the bombs in the ME are going to stop for a long time, as if they ever really did.
Thanks Ajay, you covered my examples. Ghandi had the moral highground because of the peacefull means used, and so did MLK. That's the point, you can beat the crapout of someone to get your way, but noone will think you're right. If you are right you can always proove it through non-violent means.
And Carter was definitely the one who brought peace to Israel and Ejypt, one of the only agreements to last. And he was smart enough to put people in his cabinet from opposite ends of the political spectrum so he could understand those in opposition and support of different policies.
I have had it wrong all the time. We have to bomb our way to peace! Duh! What was I thinking?!
This is worse than shooting fish in a barrel. Where do I start?
"The UN has been ineffective and inefficient for a LONG time without our help."
.... and yet poor Colin Powell was forced to go out and outright lie to build a case for war. If UN is so irrelevant, why bother?
"No peace movements have EVER stopped violence or bloodshed from happening,"
... tell that to Rev. Martin Luther King, Mahatama Gandhi, etc. And dare I point out Vietnam?
"Carter proved that liberals don't understand the nature of the Middle East crisis"
.... and yet Carter was the one who got Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, bringing an end to decades of wars.
The UN discredited itself a LONG time ago - watching several hundred thousand Rwandans get murdered while twittling their thumbs didn't do them any good... and that is just a start. The UN has never done any palpable good for humanity. No "Bush doctrine" or whatever else the crunchy granola kooks have themselves believing has never affected the credibility of the UN. The UN has been ineffective and inefficient for a LONG time without our help.
Secondly - "People are not pacified through violence." You know what? People have never been pacified through peace movements either. No peace movements have EVER stopped violence or bloodshed from happening, and that does include the hippies and radicals in the 1960's as well. Not that the pacifist path is pointless, but what liberals like yourself have never figured out is that there are some problems that can only be solved by a man with a gun. Fuck Iraq, do you actually think that Iran or North Korea are two problems that are going to be solved through non-violent means? To believe so is to be naive.
Thirdly - the Iranian regime currently in power has clamped down on its own population for a LONG time. Much of the Iranian people didn't want to live under religiously set laws? Laughable.
The truth is, you and your fellow anti-war folk are not convincing the American people that you are a reasonable alternative. You people are feeding into the propaganda that is being fueled by people like Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Carter proved that liberals don't understand the nature of the Middle East crisis, and there is nothing going on right now on the Democratic/liberal/radical side that is convincing the American people that Democrats have a plan to handle terrorism. The reason Kerry lost is that Americans don't trust liberals when it comes to national security, and with great reason - liberal controlled Congress chipped away at our military effectiveness for 20 years until Reagan came along.
Your rhetoric was lifted straight off of Air America. I'm not even getting into the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, which the radical left has gotten dead wrong from the start. The truth is, Democrats don't have the guts to handle the terrorism issue effectively for a myriad of reasons I'd be happy to detail for you or anyone else, which is why despite (if you believe the polling, anyway) alot of Republicans having problems that you aren't going to see a Democratically controlled branch of Congress in '06 or for absolutely sure the White House in '08.
I feal no safer and I don't feal any more in danger. The US has been hated for a long time for its hypocrocy. We do stuff like saying tourture is bad and not to do it, but the CIA has done it for years, We where aganst chemical weapons then Napalmed the shit out of Vietnam. We are the great melting pot where everyone is treated equally but yet look at the ghetto and all the racial seperation and it used to legal and women couldn't vote. I know that may be in the past but other countries remember shit like that. Plus we tend to stick our buisness into places where it isn't wanted. We supported evil dictators who where opposed to communism. Basicly most of our presidents have made a lot of enemies around the world.
Believe it or not, there are many people, and I actually know some of them, who will say "I'm glad Mr. Bush is president because he has stood up to the terrorists" no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.
After all, over 50 percent of the people in a recent survey believe that Iraq had WMD's.
But, to answer your question directly, no, I don't feel safer.
And I don't feel safer having Mr. Bush in the White House.