|
i honestly don't see the point to attack iraq. if anything, that will just screw up the situation in the middle east more than it already is. plus, we already have troops in afghanistan. next we'll have troops in iraq. then what, iran? maybe some other country that just so happens to have a majority of muslims and a dictator ruling? if the US was to take any action against iraq, it should be getting rid of the trade embargo, and making nice. then guess what, the iraqis get happy, cause they have food and other things needed for daily life. by doing tht it shows the US might care about more than just freaking oil.
hell, if you really wanted to topple the current regime in iraq, get a bunch of boys who are around 18, bring them to the US, and teach them about democracy. they go home and tell their families about this mythical democracy, and soon enough, you have a revolution. ok, yeah, it assumes that a lot happens, but it's better than going in and blowing up iraq. NO ONE wins in war. take the two world wars for example. the allies "won" both wars, but what did they win? europe was destroyed both times, france took a huge beating, and millions, if not billions, of dollars have been put into the european economy to fix it. take a look at the "bad guys". they all lost, and died. take a look at the innocent people (this is more for WWII), mostly the jews, and the other 5 million people killed (gypsies, gays, etc). they certainly didn't win anything.
i guess what i'm trying to get at here is that i hate war. i hate the idea of going and killing people, just because they are "bad" cause someone higher than you said they were. i see no point in going and fighting someone else's war. i believe that Judiasm has a nice little law on this. i'm not exactly sure, but i do remember from one sermon or another that the Rabbi said that Judiasm states that you shall not attack another nation for any reason, but if they attack you, you can retaliate in self defense. iraq has not threatened us. they have not attacked us. we have no reason, nor right, to go in and blow up everything, again.
another story i remember from somewhere, which also ties into the fact that there is no reason this shouldn't be on chief delphi (i think).
there was these two countries at war. but instead of sending soldiers, they sent the children. the children got to the battlefield, and they walked out to the middle. they saw that the children on the other side were the same as themselves. so, instead of killing them, they all took out their food, and sat down and had lunch, and played, and so on. the adults saw this, and realized that they had nothing different between them, and all because of the children, the war was stopped.
now, i'm not sure where the heck that came from, but i like it. it shows in plain detail why we shouldn't attack iraq, and why there shouldn't be war in the first place.
one more thing i find somewhat interesting. Locke, who's political philosophies make up much of the Constitution, said that it is the right of the people to rebell and destroy the government if the government does not take care of the people's rights. one could see the "homeland security" as just that, thereby making a revolution "legal" according to Locke. now, you can't come and spurt forth Hobbs, cause the Constitution isn't based on Hobbs. so it's another interesting point to think about.
i think i'm done rambling now, if you have any questions interpretting my gibberish, feel free to ask.
|