?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
13 February 2003 @ 11:28 am
I'm a dork. A dumb dork...  
Yeah. Two of the Darren Shan fanarts don't go straight to the picture. Damn frames on websites fucking me up... >__> I am short, red-headed, firey-tempered, and pissed off. Sort of.

Seriously, the only reason I'm for war is because everyone else in this fucking school is against it. It's not that I want to be different, exactly, it's just that I'm so sick of Bush-bashing. Okay... let's think this through: where is the evidence that Gore would ever have been able to do a better job with this, especially handling September 11th? If you have some, I'd like to see it. And do you think we wouldn't be going to war if Gore was president? How do you know? How. Tell me how, people.

I don't think we should go to war unless we are being threatened. And guess what... we are! Vietnam was a mistake, but this... is... different. It's... I don't know. A dictator issue as well. Hitler v. Saddam. Who would win? Is it moral, or even sane, to stand by passively and let someone who could be a serious threat to us as a country continue to gain power and weapons. I don't know.

I hope I don't come off as being too terribly ignorant here... though I know I probably do. I'm not really for or against war, mainly because I think we should probably go to war, but I'm not "willing to put my precious fluids on the line" for it. So... hypocrisy that I'd rather not think about. And thus, it's simply not an issue that tugs me seriously in either direction. But I think there are a lot of freedoms currently being violated, in the US and elsewhere, and if war will help to lessen these violations, then so be it. Because I'm starting to not see another logical and or viable option.

Callous, cold-hearted me.
 
 
Current Mood: predatorypredatory
 
 
 
Kemayo: Suspiciouskemayo on February 13th, 2003 09:43 am (UTC)
Is it moral, or even sane, to stand by passively and let someone who could be a serious threat to us as a country continue to gain power and weapons. I don't know.

So why is the US ignoring North Korea? It recently restarted its nuclear weapon program, it has non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction much more advanced than Iraq has, it has committed numerous human rights violations. And Bush, strategic genius that he is, called off the peace talks that were ongoing at the time he came into power -- I suspect because he wanted foreign tension to distract attention from the economy. I'd be more likely to support war against North Korea; unlike Iraq they actually look like a potential threat, after all.

Yes, Saddam is not a nice person. But I have yet to see any evidence for Iraq supporting terrorists. Besides, if one wanted to attack a country in that area for support of terrorism, Saudi Arabia would be #1 on my list. So, why Iraq? I think it's because Bush wants a foothold in the middle east ("Don't give me no shit about blood, sweat, tears or toil / It's all about the price of oil" -- Billy Bragg, Price of Oil), and Saddam is the only person who has Evil (tm) brand recognition to the American public.

Yes, I can be cynical.
DrWorm: sighdrworm on February 13th, 2003 03:02 pm (UTC)
So why is the US ignoring North Korea?

Hell if I know. I think you're right, a lot of it has to do with public opinion and the US's current focus on the Middle East due to September 11th, rising oil prices, and our frustration at not being able to find/destroy Osama and core members of Al-Queda. After all, your average American would probably say, on the subject of an attack on North Korea, "... What does North Korea have to do with anything?" It's not in the public eye quite enough, whereas the fairly legitimate perceived threat of Middle-eatern countries, including Iraq, which has been making us a bit edgy for years, has taken center stage. And Bush wants to be reelected. So it's political on the homefront as well. Mostly on the homefront. (I can be cynical too.)

But... I don't know whether Saddam is in league with terrorists, or whether he has any concrete plans to mount an attack on America. I don't know whether Osama supports Saddam or vice versa. What really concerns me is how individual people are being affected, both here and overseas, by the "War on Terror" and Saddam's regime. The situation isn't getting better and for years the US has been encouraging it to get cheap oil. So instead of doing fuck-all, for once I'd like to see us doing something that might actually change things. It's a gamble whether they'll be for better or for worse... but that's part of life. I wish we could settle these differences without bloodshed; I wish we didn't have to resort to war. But sometimes that just isn't how the world works and think that this is one of those times.
Classy kinda sassy: chibisimmysim on February 13th, 2003 11:29 am (UTC)
And do you think we wouldn't be going to war if Gore was president?

i think we'd definitely be going to war -- i mean, clinton bombed sudan and afghanistan to get attention away from monica, saying it was because of "terrorist threats" and everyone was peachy keen with that-- of course, i am assuming that gore would follow in clinton's footsteps.

i think we'd be going to war, and it wouldn't be as well-run, and i would be terrified. because al gore looks like some sort of rat king.

and if i haven't told you before, i love that icon.
DrWorm: brightdrworm on February 13th, 2003 02:28 pm (UTC)
i mean, clinton bombed sudan and afghanistan to get attention away from monica, saying it was because of "terrorist threats" and everyone was peachy keen with that

I think Clinton could have declared war with no problems and very little backlash. Which bugs me to no end. Stupid country and stupid perceived ideas about certain people...

it wouldn't be as well-run, and i would be terrified

I have to admit, the Republicans have a better grasp on how to run a fucking war.

And... yes! That icon is one of my favorites, though I got rid of it to make room for something else. Still like it though. And John Bergstrom... *sighs* His cartoons are awesome. My favorites are here, here, and here.
I'm Ellen "Scrunch" Lyle.hortonhearsawho on February 13th, 2003 12:42 pm (UTC)
where is the evidence that Gore would ever have been able to do a better job with this, especially handling September 11th? If you have some, I'd like to see it. And do you think we wouldn't be going to war if Gore was president?

There isn't any. We have no way of knowing what Gore would have done had he been president during all of this. However, I certainly can see how many diplomatic relations Bush has, for lack of a better word, totally fucked up. Honestly, is the best way to try to get a country to cooperate with you calling it an Axis of Evil? I can look around and see the countries that should be allying with us, those countries that now hate us, and Canada, to name one, that doesn't want anything to do with Dear Mr. Bush. Obviously, I have no idea what Gore would have done, I can't say I'm "pro-Gore", but I do know what Bush has done and it repulses me.

As for the war, obviously Saddam is not exactly nice. Something does need to be done, because we have no idea what else he has and what he is doing to his citizens. Standing by and not doing anything is one of the worst things we could do. Right under violently attacking the unknown. The reason Bush wants to attack in the first place is because we don't know what he has. It just doesn't make sense to me to place a country and it's citizens in a position of total unknown. Granted, war isn't planned out. But when we've seen "The tip of the iceberg", is the best thing to provoke his use of the rest of the iceberg? War may very well be the only option left, because something does need to be done, but when we go to this war we will be going to it sans some of our best allies and not knowing what to expect, except, as far as I'm concerned, a lot of violence on our soil. Saddam has not openly said, "Look. See this war head? It's coming for you." The threat from him is no more than him having these weapons, which we do not, no matter how many experts comment, know his plans for. Why then, give him cause to use those weapons now?
DrWorm: sighdrworm on February 13th, 2003 03:15 pm (UTC)
However, I certainly can see how many diplomatic relations Bush has, for lack of a better word, totally fucked up. Honestly, is the best way to try to get a country to cooperate with you calling it an Axis of Evil?

Admittedly, the man needs some serious work on his interpersonal skills. And I have to point out that I'm not much of a Bush fan. I'm simply sick of people in this town assuming Gore would have done a better job. Because I don't see it. And the Democratic fervor and arrogance, I think, sometimes goes a bit far. I'm sick of being pressed metaphorically against a wall and told why all my opinions are wrong. And that's more of a dig on Kent than anything else. I mean I'm arrogant, politically... sure. Just... not to that extent.

Standing by and not doing anything is one of the worst things we could do.

As we did so well during much of World War II. As did the Catholic Church. It doesn't matter until you're the one being attacked.

Why then, give him cause to use those weapons now?

And this is where it gets sticky. Does he already have cause to use the weapons? If we don't attack, will he use them without us even having a fighting chance? Will another country take this course of action? We don't know. It seems unlikely, in a practical sense, but we still don't know. And in a lot of ways, this war and the "War on Terror" preys like a vampire on our nation's fears. Not a good thing and something that particularly disgusts me. And, sad as it is, I think a lot of fears will be reduced if we went to war and replaced them with blind patriotic anger. Not everyone, obviously, but a damn good chunk of us. Is that any better? No... I don't really think so. But sometimes we come to a point where things have escalated so far that I'm not sure how we can turn back. "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice" but everyone isn't. How do we handle that? There's no right answer.

However... sometimes the hypocrisy of our nation stuns me. As the only country to actually use nuclear weapons on other people... we are the one's ordering other nations to surrender them? Well, whatever.