![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You know what? I'm going to write about the war after all. I'm not hugely interested in sharing my personal opinions about it at this point, but since it will shine through, I'll just say that I'm more against than for, but I don't feel that I'm in either camp absolutely. And for the freaking morons (Bill O'Reilly) who can't tell the difference, that doesn't mean I'm not in support of the troops or that I'm not rooting for my country. Now that's out of my system, I'll refrain from personal insults as well. ;) And for the purpose of this entry, I'm not going to question the arguments for and against. That part of the war, in my opinion, is over. You don't have a chance in hell of getting someone to change their minds now, whichever side they're on.
The problem is not that (in most cases) there are two sides disagreeing on the war. There are two sides arguing over what the question is. My best friend from college is hugely pro-war--she's married to a Marine. I, on the other hand, feel more than halfway at home in an European country. Even my real-life friends, other than her, are not from here. So we're coming at this from two completely different directions. I think the tendency in the military is to look purposefully at what is best for the US. I, on the other hand, look at this in terms of what's good for the world. Neither of those things is bad, but very very different. The main goal of this war is presumably to protect ourselves from that crazy bad guy, who might want to use his illegal weapons to attack us, or sell them to terrorists who will. It is not, as much of a bonus as it is, to protect the Iraqi people from a dictator. And ridding the world of Hussein is good for the world. The next major terrorist attack might not even BE in the US. We're not the only people to ever piss someone off, you know. In a general sense, what's good for the US is good for the world, if indirectly. At the same time, what's good for the rest of the world is also good for the US. The proportions are just quite different.
Other things I've been dying to say about the war debate:
The problem is not that (in most cases) there are two sides disagreeing on the war. There are two sides arguing over what the question is. My best friend from college is hugely pro-war--she's married to a Marine. I, on the other hand, feel more than halfway at home in an European country. Even my real-life friends, other than her, are not from here. So we're coming at this from two completely different directions. I think the tendency in the military is to look purposefully at what is best for the US. I, on the other hand, look at this in terms of what's good for the world. Neither of those things is bad, but very very different. The main goal of this war is presumably to protect ourselves from that crazy bad guy, who might want to use his illegal weapons to attack us, or sell them to terrorists who will. It is not, as much of a bonus as it is, to protect the Iraqi people from a dictator. And ridding the world of Hussein is good for the world. The next major terrorist attack might not even BE in the US. We're not the only people to ever piss someone off, you know. In a general sense, what's good for the US is good for the world, if indirectly. At the same time, what's good for the rest of the world is also good for the US. The proportions are just quite different.
Other things I've been dying to say about the war debate:
- This is not a war about freedom. I'm getting mightily sick of the people saying that our troops are fighting so that every American has the freedom to voice their opinion, even if that opinion is asinine. America has already fought a war for freedom, and this ain't it. And while I'm at it, remember who helped us win it? Hmm.. could it be the people being bashed in the media--the French? This war is about a lot of things, but freedom isn't one of them. And leave the French alone.. it makes you like a petulant child.
- What are the people still staging peace rallies hoping to accomplish? I agree with the sentiments, but really, do they think that someone is going to say, "My God, man! Some people don't agree with us! Maybe we should just pack up and go home!"? The time for protests was before the war. Now.. well, it's a cute idea, and approximately as effective as writing your Congressman. Oh, wait, that doesn't work, either. Hmmm..
- If you're going to have an opinion, have your OWN opinion. I can respect that even if I disagree with everything you say. I don't, however, care too much to talk to people about the opinions of their friend/brother/cousin/son-in-law/spouse/alien kidnapper/sister/president. Come up with your own and then call me back.
- This whole thing is not black and white. You can agree with parts of one side and parts of the other. You will not implode from the strain of this, I promise.
- Hussein is not Hitler. This is not World War II. Nor is it Vietnam. It's not even Desert Storm. Enough with the parallels already.
- And finally, the only thing people who say things to the effect of "If you don't like the way things are done in America, then why not move to Iraq or France and live with them?" accomplish is proving irrefutably that they don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about. Try calling up France to say that you don't much like what's going on and want to move there for no good reason. See what they say. I would advise you not to sell the farm before you have a permission slip signed, though.
