Re: New monologue
In Response To: Re: New monologue ()

Hi there. I'm what you might call a lurker, so I haven't posted here before. But the emergence of something that I consider interesting caused me to come out of the shadows.

Pete, I'd like to take each of the points you bring up and add my own perspective on each of them.

>No, I do not have faith in the UN. It is a spineless, corrupt organization, which should never be allowed to be in charge of US forces, ever. To do so ,would compromise the safety of this country.

Certainly, I can agree with some of this statement. The United States has such a large personal investment in this conflict that transferring over control to a group that has been lightly involved would be a foolish thing to do. My dispute with this comment is the accusation of the UN being spineless and corrupt. I use a service called LexisNexis, a research tool that archives newspapers nation-wide. A date unrestricted search for United Nations AND corruption AND spineless drew 36 articles, only one of which was related to the UN itself. That was an April 30th editorial in the Augusta Chronicle (Georgia), that accused the UN of ignoring the issues in Iraq over the past years since 1991. Personally, I find any accusation of a group to be "spineless" or "corrupt" when it is ruled by committee to be slightly irrational, because a dissent by only a handful of nations is enough to derail any real motion.

I, being two years old at the time, was not old enough to remember any part of Operation Desert Storm, and as such can't comment on the UN reaction during that time. My current knowledge of the United Nations, however, displayed not a spineless group of cowards, but a ruling body that did not see conclusive evidence as to Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. As these weapons have not been found as of yet, I can understand the unwillingness to enter into a conflict for those reasons. Regardless, I must be moving on.

> Perhaps when, not if, the terrorists attack the US again (which they will); then the majority of Americans will realize that this is indeed a war we are waging.

This statement comes off to me as slightly contradictory. If this war we are waging in Iraq is against terrorism, and the US is now "cleaning up" as government has been turned over to the Iraqi people, then how, logically, does that make us a target for terrorism? In addition, as no conclusive evidence of connections between Al-Qaeda and the former Iraqi government has been discovered, (as multiple LexisNexis searches [in everything from the New York Times to the Chicago Tribune] for Iraq and Connection and Al-Qaeda can attest), how does this make the war in Iraq justified? More importantly, the issue of a "War on terrorism", at least in my recent television viewing, has slipped aside, instead focusing of the "liberation of the Iraqi people". While a noble goal in itself, if this was a humanitarian mission from the start, than why not say so? Ah, I'm getting off topic, but I'm willing to continue discussion of the reasoning behind this at any time.

>President Bush has decided to be proactive towards terrorism. He is doing his best to protect our country BEFORE it is attacked again, and thank God he is.

Most of my opinion of this statement can be derived from my above paragraph, but I'll take a particular note of part of this. Protecting our country from terrorism is a very broad and difficult task. As our government has repeatedly reported (Yahoo! News reported another statement today), we must remain aware and be prepared against the many sleeper cells that are spread throughout the country. With that reasoning, rather than risking American lives and interest in a poor, middle eastern country with only suspected ties, wouldn't it be easier to do searches (with proper warrants, I cannot agree with the violation of privacy and suspension of rights the USA Patriot Act provides) on suspected terrorists in this country? Or if we are to engage in a conflict a middle eastern country, wouldn't it make more sense to deal with a country with a clear connection to terrorism, such as Saudi Arabia?

>You are correct about one thing, Len, you and I will never agree about how to protect this country of ours. Thankfully, we do have the freedom to disagree, eh?

Amen to that.

>The statement, "do unto others AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM do unto you." is not something that terrorists ascribe to. Quite the opposite. Instead, the cowards put on hoods, and behead innocent Americans and broadcast these horrifc acts on the Internet for the world to see.

Obviously the terrorists have no appreciation of the golden rule, but my greatest fear in regards to that is other sovereign nations might ascribe to that doctrine. Terrorism aside for the moment, the fact that we did not continue to pursue a resolution that other European nations found appropriate may become an issue in the future. They might not seek to ask our approval next time they become involved in a conflict, and to which the US may be in a bind when they act without our influence. Back on topic, I also agree that the beheading of American soldiers by these madmen is a heinous act that deserves punishment to the greatest degree. The issue we must understand about these murderers is that for all we know, they may be thinking that they are fighting their own war for independence from the United States. Perhaps they don't realize the joys that come from democracy and equality, and are so lost in their own perception of the world that they think they are fighting for truth. America as a whole must understand why our men and women are dying, because of that grave misconception in thinking ultimately being part of the reason we lose men daily.

>Sorry Len, but I cannot accept a passivist view when it comes to this country. President Bush continues to battle terrorism at its source, and if Kerry were to be elected, I fear his policies will place this country in peril. Perhaps you are willing to take that chance, but not me.

I've expressed my opinion above that I don't think that enough is being done to deal with terrorism at the source by President Bush. I'm then unsure if another president would be better or worse at dealing with the threat. John Kerry's website describes a relatively detailed plan as to how he plans to deal with both Iraq and Homeland Security, available at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/index.html and http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland/orange.html. Pete, just by living in America right now is a chance. We don't know if we are destined for a terrorist attack in the next year or not. We aren't sure if John Kerry would make a better President than George Bush. That's part of our country as it stands now.

Anyway, it's late. I need to get some rest, but I wanted to thank you if you've gotten this far in my writing. If you haven't guessed yet, I lean towards a liberal stance when it comes to politics, but not like it matters much (I'm fifteen, so all I can do is voice an opinion). I don't feel like Iraq was handled responsibly, and question many of the judgment calls regarding the way the war was dealt with, but still keep my faith in America as a nation.

My bottom line? Do like MJ is doing, do your own research, and for God's sake debate! That's what this country is really made of, our own opinions and the right to express them.

Thank you and good night.