Fanatical,
First of all, the story linked is an op-ed column, not a news story if that means anything to you. The difference being that a news story should not contain statements of opinion left unsupported with hard evidence. Also, the use of the first person "I" should also not be used. A news story is, in theory of course, report the accounts/events as witnessed by the reporter(s). It should also, in theory, present the other side(s) or offer different perspective of the accounts/events. Reading the linked article, the writer was trying to persuade his readers that 1.) chem weapons have been found, 2.) the U.S. mission is justified based on his assumption that chem. weapons have been found, and 3.) those who disagree with his argument are not experts at all.
The writer, furthermore, failed to show exactly why the one round of chem. weapons capable shell was a threat to the entire United States prior to the March '03 invasion.
While the shell was employed against U.S. forces, the writer ignored the fact had U.S. forces not invaded, the shell would not have been a threat to any American.
The writer did not mention the fact the U.N. voted down the invasion, yet the U.S. embarked upon a policy of war based on resolutions from a body the U.S. considers untrustworthy.
An op-ed piece, on the other hand, takes liberty with the news events, current events, policies, etc. of the times. The prime responsibility of the op-ed piece is to argue for a position, policy, or to discredit other positions and policies. It's goal is to convince people to change their minds, or support whatever the argument is or concerns.
One shell does not constitute massive amounts of "threatening" material, that is, threatens the U.S. How is this more threatening and urgent compared to the North Koreans? Compared to other evil dictators in the world who may possess Sarin?
Now, no doubt Saddam had chem. weapons, had WMD's and until we sieze all of these, to avoid threats, as the Bush-junta calls them, we are still at danger--if the Bush-junta platform is correct. Therefore, the military has utterly failed and responsibility lies with the president and the main planning to go into Iraq and get these weapons before used against us (and how they could use these weapons against us, before our military was in-country, is a mystery).
Duke, I don't think you've offended anyone. I consider your attempt at sarcasm to be a very bad attempt indeed.
This is not something offensive at all and I don't see how you could claim me or anyone else was offended. I was not offended the first time I heard about the military's outreach programs so many months ago. I, moreover, did not take offense when learning about the U.S. military setting up hospitals to care for the diseased of South Vietnam during our first years of warfare with those peoples.
It's common to feed the local population when invading another nation. You don't want mass unrest from hungry folks after an invasion, and invasion will certainly lead to that because it disrupts the day-to-day normalcy.
I think what bothers most about civilian casualties is that it is a normal part of war. Until warfare can be isolated from the civilian community (which will likely be never) then warfare is a really bad aspect of life.
Humanitarian concerns are wonderful and that would have made a wonderful justification for war. The Bush-junta, however, pushed the "threat" issue and contradicted their policy in the process. Iraq, they said back in Jan-March '03, is a threat that must be stopped immediately, but the war will be effortless because the Iraqis want us to intervene in their nation's affairs.
What Bush should have done is argue for war based on a dire humanitarian need in that nation as the ONLY reason for invasion, and hopefully in the process would have ousted Saddam (a given) and siezed is stockpile of WMDs that he chose not to use against the invading forces.
But Bush did not do that. Bush, instead claimed that we needed to pre-empt an attack they were planning against us that would put a "mushroom cloud" over an American city. The Bush-junta argued the "threat" version because the same argument will be used to wage war against another nation after the re-election. The Bush-junta policy set a precedent.
Now I pose this question to you who think Iraq is getting better and the U.S. military is there solely for benevolent reasons.
1. If this is so, then why do so many Iraqis dislike us to the point they take up arms against our people over there?
2. If the Iraqis were waiting for our intervention, then why do they continually hold massive displays against our forces?
3. Why did we discredit the man (Chilabi) who said the Iraqis wanted us to intervene?
4. If the Iraqis love our humanitarian aid, then it would serve to reason that they would not bomb our folks, not shoot at them, not demonstrate against our soldiers, not intimidate them, etc. How do you explain all of these actions on the part of the Iraqis?
5. Why did it take the U.S. military to set up schools and give out food? Why couldn't the Red Cross have done that to begin with, prior to invasion?
Look at this analogy:
Suppose you and your family lives in an area with absolutely deplorable conditions, such as no schools, no food, no jobs and daily some armed bands come by your shanties and shoots rounds of bullets at you just to scare the b'Jesus out of you and your family.
You wish things were better, but you and yours are absolutely powerless to change things.
One day, without much explanation, it stops. Then a new group comes in. A man approaches you and you are at first scared. He gives you some food. It's different from what you are accostomed to, but it's damn good. You and yours soon develop a taste for it.
Several weeks later, after the men come back repeatedly to do things for y'all. The same man comes back to you and says he has set up a school for the little ones and asks you if you care to send your kids there. You are elated and your kids begin going to school.
Obviously things are getting better, right? No more bands of thugs come shoot at you just to scare you, right? Then, it is logical to assume that you and your family isn't going to act against the new group, right? It would be counter productive to do so, right?
If our military guys are so good, our intentions so benevolent, then someone has to explain why so many Iraqis are shooting, bombing and intimidating our people over there!! What conditions could possibly lead to this action on part of the Iraqis given that Americans are so benevolent toward them?
|