The State of the Union
My post-election depression is officially over. The Chinese have a curse that says “may you live in the most interesting of times”. I see that once again, we indeed have the most interesting of times ahead. The current State of the Union is that we are close to a civil war. That would certainly be interesting. Fortunately, we are still several steps away from the actual killing phase and will most likely never get there. However, passions are running as high today as they must have in the mid 1800’s, when the debate over slavery dominated politics.
The war in Iraq is about so much more than the war in Iraq. Why is there so much dissention about the war? There are deeply passionate feelings on both sides. How can that be, regarding a war fought with minimal casualties, with clear signs of victory, against an enemy in a distant land, with an all-volunteer military? Let’s see.
The side in favor will note that an ideology has declared war on Western Civilization, particularly the United States. The US has removed 2 hostile governments from power. The US has taken the fight to the land of the enemy, an enemy that killed 3000 civilians on US soil.
The opposition argues that any US casualties are too many. Iraq has no specific link to the specific murderers of 3000 civilians. The ideology in question is only a fringe group and is not a legitimate threat to the United States.
What is each side really saying?
Those who support the war believe that Islam is on the offensive. Islamists are building an army and attempting to find the most devastating weapons possible, in order to inflict the most damage possible. Those who oppose the war believe that only fringe groups, with legitimate grievances, have expressed their anger.
Again, why the vast disparity in perspective? What are the goals of the opposing sides?
The pro-war side has explicitly said that this is a war against terrorists and any country that harbors or supports them is fair game for retaliation. The anti-war side has said that it does not support acts of terror and wishes to prosecute any individuals responsible for doing so. The pro-war side wants to promote freedom in places that freedom currently does not exist. The anti-war side wants to let sovereign countries decide their own fate through democratic processes. The pro-war side wants to protect the freedoms of people in places where it does currently exist. The anti-war side says that there is no threat to anyone’s freedom, other than from the pro-war side.
Is it possible for any group from the same sample pool, to look at the same facts and draw this dispersion of conclusions? Only if one side is intentionally delusional.
The pro-war side typically believes in America as the land of opportunity. The anti-war side typically believes in socialism. The pro-war side typically believes in fighting for what is right, regardless of the cost. The anti-war side typically believes in avoiding confrontation, regardless of the cost. The pro-war side is typically optimistic about the power of free people making decisions for themselves. The anti-war side is typically cynical about people making good choices and believe there should be safeguards to keep people from doing the wrong things.
Which side is more likely to be delusional?
President Bush showed great optimism in his address to Congress. Despite predictions that he and the pro-war movement were defeated, lame ducks. The Democrat opposition refused to stand or applaud when Bush mentioned victory in Iraq. Despite the 60 plus standing ovations for innocuous issues such as health care reform or a balanced budget.
The Democrats showed more than disinterest in victory in Iraq. They showed opposition. These people currently represent more than half of American voters. We are indeed living in the most interesting of times.
The war in Iraq is about so much more than the war in Iraq. Why is there so much dissention about the war? There are deeply passionate feelings on both sides. How can that be, regarding a war fought with minimal casualties, with clear signs of victory, against an enemy in a distant land, with an all-volunteer military? Let’s see.
The side in favor will note that an ideology has declared war on Western Civilization, particularly the United States. The US has removed 2 hostile governments from power. The US has taken the fight to the land of the enemy, an enemy that killed 3000 civilians on US soil.
The opposition argues that any US casualties are too many. Iraq has no specific link to the specific murderers of 3000 civilians. The ideology in question is only a fringe group and is not a legitimate threat to the United States.
What is each side really saying?
Those who support the war believe that Islam is on the offensive. Islamists are building an army and attempting to find the most devastating weapons possible, in order to inflict the most damage possible. Those who oppose the war believe that only fringe groups, with legitimate grievances, have expressed their anger.
Again, why the vast disparity in perspective? What are the goals of the opposing sides?
The pro-war side has explicitly said that this is a war against terrorists and any country that harbors or supports them is fair game for retaliation. The anti-war side has said that it does not support acts of terror and wishes to prosecute any individuals responsible for doing so. The pro-war side wants to promote freedom in places that freedom currently does not exist. The anti-war side wants to let sovereign countries decide their own fate through democratic processes. The pro-war side wants to protect the freedoms of people in places where it does currently exist. The anti-war side says that there is no threat to anyone’s freedom, other than from the pro-war side.
Is it possible for any group from the same sample pool, to look at the same facts and draw this dispersion of conclusions? Only if one side is intentionally delusional.
The pro-war side typically believes in America as the land of opportunity. The anti-war side typically believes in socialism. The pro-war side typically believes in fighting for what is right, regardless of the cost. The anti-war side typically believes in avoiding confrontation, regardless of the cost. The pro-war side is typically optimistic about the power of free people making decisions for themselves. The anti-war side is typically cynical about people making good choices and believe there should be safeguards to keep people from doing the wrong things.
Which side is more likely to be delusional?
President Bush showed great optimism in his address to Congress. Despite predictions that he and the pro-war movement were defeated, lame ducks. The Democrat opposition refused to stand or applaud when Bush mentioned victory in Iraq. Despite the 60 plus standing ovations for innocuous issues such as health care reform or a balanced budget.
The Democrats showed more than disinterest in victory in Iraq. They showed opposition. These people currently represent more than half of American voters. We are indeed living in the most interesting of times.
posted by BoiseJag at 4:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home