War & Terrorism
Are there really that many differences between America's cause and the terrorists' cause?
Now, as you know, I have very strong feelings on GWB and his cronies. For starters, they were not legitimately elected. It is widely accepted now that Al Gore received more votes than George in the 2000 election. And Gore won the popular vote by over 500, 000 ballots. But five judges on the Supreme Court, fulfilling their roles as loyal friends to the dear Bush family, ruled that George would become president-elect. Worth acknowledging though is that four judges voted in favour of Gore. There was a one-vote difference. So, in effect, the result of the 2000 US Presidential election did not come down to votes from the public, but votes from the bench.
I was genuinely devastated when John Kerry failed to win the 2004 election. He would have brought intelligence back to the White House. Kerry is a deeply intelligent man. He actually fought in war (in Vietnam) and won two (or three?) Purple Hearts. He then, after returning home, joined the anti-war protests and spoke out about the despicable behaviour of the US Government and some US soldiers in their treatment of the Vietnamese (and the constant violations of the Geneva Convention.........very interesting...Abu Ghraib springs to mind). He sees complexities in all issues. Learning about him throughout his campaign, it became clear that, for him, nothing is simple. Everything involves thought and analysis and time. In other words, an intellectual. And yet, this was one of the key factors resulting in his election loss. The Republicans painted him (successfully, as it turned out) as a wishy-washy liberal who wasn't clear and straight. In other words, Kerry didn't say simplistic things like "you are either with us or against us in the war on terrorism" (GWB, 2001). He would have made a truly great leader. What a contrast a Kerry Administration would have been to the current one.
Of course, the Democrats' loss in 2004 also meant another four years of George. And I was, and am, so concerned about what that means for the world and its future. I am keeping a constant hope that the right thing is done, and George is impeached before too long. After all, Clinton was impeached... And his mistake didn't involve fraud, money laundering or death. In fact, we can argue that it didn't even concern the public.
I want to put this question out there... Is launching a war/invasion more morally acceptable than committing a terrorist act? When the White House launches a military invasion, it knows that innocent human beings, as well as their own soldiers, will be slaughtered as a result. And even though terrorists carry the actual intention of killing the innocent, it occurs in both acts of terror and acts of military action. I think this question is particularly relevant in a time of pre-emptive strikes.
Now, as you know, I have very strong feelings on GWB and his cronies. For starters, they were not legitimately elected. It is widely accepted now that Al Gore received more votes than George in the 2000 election. And Gore won the popular vote by over 500, 000 ballots. But five judges on the Supreme Court, fulfilling their roles as loyal friends to the dear Bush family, ruled that George would become president-elect. Worth acknowledging though is that four judges voted in favour of Gore. There was a one-vote difference. So, in effect, the result of the 2000 US Presidential election did not come down to votes from the public, but votes from the bench.
I was genuinely devastated when John Kerry failed to win the 2004 election. He would have brought intelligence back to the White House. Kerry is a deeply intelligent man. He actually fought in war (in Vietnam) and won two (or three?) Purple Hearts. He then, after returning home, joined the anti-war protests and spoke out about the despicable behaviour of the US Government and some US soldiers in their treatment of the Vietnamese (and the constant violations of the Geneva Convention.........very interesting...Abu Ghraib springs to mind). He sees complexities in all issues. Learning about him throughout his campaign, it became clear that, for him, nothing is simple. Everything involves thought and analysis and time. In other words, an intellectual. And yet, this was one of the key factors resulting in his election loss. The Republicans painted him (successfully, as it turned out) as a wishy-washy liberal who wasn't clear and straight. In other words, Kerry didn't say simplistic things like "you are either with us or against us in the war on terrorism" (GWB, 2001). He would have made a truly great leader. What a contrast a Kerry Administration would have been to the current one.
Of course, the Democrats' loss in 2004 also meant another four years of George. And I was, and am, so concerned about what that means for the world and its future. I am keeping a constant hope that the right thing is done, and George is impeached before too long. After all, Clinton was impeached... And his mistake didn't involve fraud, money laundering or death. In fact, we can argue that it didn't even concern the public.
I want to put this question out there... Is launching a war/invasion more morally acceptable than committing a terrorist act? When the White House launches a military invasion, it knows that innocent human beings, as well as their own soldiers, will be slaughtered as a result. And even though terrorists carry the actual intention of killing the innocent, it occurs in both acts of terror and acts of military action. I think this question is particularly relevant in a time of pre-emptive strikes.
posted by Anthony Stoddart @ 10:57 AM
3 Comments:
At Sat Oct 29, 02:06:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
better be careful A, with the new laws you'll end up in jail for 7 years for writing stuff like this.......
K.
At Tue Nov 01, 07:25:00 PM,
Sarah said…
Did you catch this article earlier in the week? John Kerry wasn't smart enough to take a stand during the election campaign and say the war was WRONG. He wasn't prepared to say he supported gun control- instead he took a photo op with a dead bird that he supposedly shot. Just like Beazley did with Howard at the 2001 election, he tried to out-Bush Bush while thinking he could keep the traditional, principled democratic voters onside. The only good reason to vote for the guy was that he wasn't Bush. It was his own fault he lost the election. It's a terrible thing that he lost, but it was a loss he deserved (not that the world deserved to suffer the consequences!).
As for answering your question... I believe it is completely unjustified to kill innocent people in the pursuit of supposedly saving innoent people as the US has done with its 'War on Trrr'. When self-professed 'Christians'like Bush and Howard -supposed followers of a man who preached poverty and humility- "do unto others (etc)", living lives of wealth and power claim that it is perfectly ok to maim and kill innocent people in pursuit of their 'peaceful' agenda, you know you are witnessing the ultimate height of hypocrisy.
At Wed Nov 02, 10:33:00 AM,
Anthony Stoddart said…
What you've said (about JK) is true. I suppose the reason I was (and still am) shattered by the loss is that, despite the idiotic things he did during the campaign (like going hunting and showing off his shooting skills, as well as stopping short of utterly condemning the Iraq decision), I honestly had come to believe that John Kerry was a well-intentioned man who genuinely wanted to create some good and earn back some respect for the world's lone superpower. Was this a naïve view? I guess we'll never really know for sure.
I still have doubts that JK was the Democrats' absolute best option. I actually would have liked to see Al Gore run again. Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Richard Gephardt... I think they certainly would have been better campaigners.
Post a Comment
<< Home