FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 01/13/2003 9:17:40 PM PST by supportnospin.com
I’ve been relatively quiet on the possibility of war with Iraq. To be honest, I’ve found myself torn between traditional conservative values of our Forefathers (meaning not meddling in foreign affairs until they reach our border or are an exceptionally rare case) and the possibility of someone like Saddam Hussein acquiring nuclear weapons to terrorize the region and the rest of the world.
Apparently, I’m not the only one torn. Conservatives have found themselves at odds regarding the issue, as have liberals. Pat Buchanan, rare as it is, has found himself agreeing with Alan Colmes of Fox News while Senator Lieberman among other Democrats has made it clear that the Bush doctrine is necessary for stability in the long run.
There are a few legitimate arguments at hand:
(a) If Hussein acquires nuclear weapons, a crusade much like Adolf Hitler’s is sure to follow with blackmail and threats within the region. A war with Iraq will prevent Hussein from acquiring these weapons and although it may contribute to the already unstable Middle East region, it is mandatory if long-term stability is to ever occur. With this theory, war is inevitable; it’s just a matter of when and on what terms. If we wait, we’ll be combating the same enemy but he will pose a greater threat. Be it alone, or with a coalition, a war with Iraq is in the best interest of all Americans as well as the rest of the free world.
(b) All preemptive war is bad. Until Hussein acquires weapons and uses them as blackmail or terrorism, we are unjustified in attacking a regime with intent to topple and form a democracy. In this scenario, one would assume the problem would stabilize itself. If Iraq acquires nuclear weapons, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons to balance the threat. If this were to occur, Hussein would be armed, but not dangerous knowing both friend and foe were armed as well. Eventually this would lead to a stalemate among all regions meaning countries with nuclear weapons would never be a threat because we all have nuclear weapons.
(c) War is justified, just as long as an international coalition has been formulated and approval is granted by the United Nations. The world is a global democracy and what one “citizen” (country) declares law should be voted on and approved like any other “community” (democracy). Since the war in Iraq may indeed have an effect on surrounding countries and we are the furthest in terms of distance, consulting and winning approval from Iraq’s neighbors is not only ethical, but also necessary. After all, how would you like some “out-of-towner” blowing up your neighbor’s house because he was building a methamphetamine laboratory and felt his child was at risk of addiction? Sure, he intends on rebuilding the house with better neighbors, but in the meantime your real estate value decreases while traffic and noise levels increase with construction next door. And who’s to say the new neighbor will be any better? Now, if the entire community had an opportunity to express their concerns, the operation would have been run much smoother, quicker, and with much better attitudes by all neighbors alike.
(d) This is purely political and the only interest at heart here is the special interest big oil companies. If not for oil, this is strictly a strategy to increase the Republican voter block come 2004. No evidence has been published in regard to possession of nuclear weapons in the hand of Hussein and Hans Blix says there is no “smoking gun”. Germany has expressed dissent, as has Russia, China, France, and Canada. Clearly with all these nations publicly admitting they disagree with the Bush doctrine, something is wrong with the doctrine, not the entire world. The only support we have, we’ve bought, which is an obvious sign that Bush’s agenda – though up for sale – is not accepted my even 1/3 of the free world. Evidence to this argument is the comparison between our agenda with Iraq and how we are dealing with North Korea – who is similarly dictated by a madman with an absolute need for absolute power. We are doing nothing in North Korea and focusing only on Iraq, which leads many to believe that oil is the key element, not nuclear weapons.
Most other arguments are ignorant, misguided souls being swayed by some form of media bias or reluctance to discover the truth. So what’s the right answer? All four arguments present legitimate concerns and ideas that should be truly listened to before forming your final opinion as to whether we should attack Iraq or not.
Clearly nuclear weapons in the hands of someone like Hussein (or Hitler) will lead to disaster in the future. To believe anything else is simply naïve. Hussein is not trying to balance the force of the US military by acquiring weapons of mass destruction; he is attempting to acquire a tool that will allow him to threaten, blackmail, and invade surrounding nations. Hussein’s mission is not to protect his citizens like the US nuclear weapons do, nor is he using nuclear weapons to liberate millions of innocent people from an oppressive dictator. To try and predict what Hussein would actually do with weapons of mass destruction would be foolish because the possibilities are endless. Give the weapon technology to Al Qaeda or attack Israel are two ideas that come to mind, but it’s the things I can’t even imagine (like airliners being used as missiles to bring destroy our Twin Towers in NYC) that actually scares me.
Of course, there are conservatives that point to our Forefathers for guidance and understand that our Forefathers did not want us to ally permanently with foreign countries and sought to temporarily ally ourselves only in exceptionally rare circumstances. But our Forefathers understood the necessity for force in those rare circumstances – and the current Iraq situation is most definitely rare. Indeed, our Forefathers fought on numerous occasions to provide what we have today. As a realist, I understand that we sometimes create a utopian idea of our Forefather’s time, but times was no more peaceful than they are today.
Contrary to some beliefs, the perception of the international community is important. It is important to contribute to what can be salvaged of serenity and peace in this world and make every attempt to not disrupt a foreign region, country, or even community. We are not, as many have already pointed out, an empire. We do not have the liberty to pursue liberation to any means because we disagree. People are oppressed across the globe. To liberate Iraq exclusively on humanitarian means would mean liberation is also necessary in Iran, China, and scores of other countries on this planet. We neither have the honest passion nor resources to pursue this crusade. World peace is an imaginary goal that will never, and has never been achieved. We will never accomplish absolute serenity, but to contribute to the chaos simply because we do not accept a foreign countries domestic policy is selfish, unjustified, and dangerous. This is not to say that our foreign allies and foes will determine whether we pursue a war in Iraq, but careful consideration ought always be taken into account when preemptively sending the US military onto foreign soil.
But this is no ordinary situation. The question of oil being a concern is of course reasonable. The answer, though, may be hard for some to admit, but even harder for others to accept. This war has more than one variable. An oppressive dictator, nuclear weapons, the rape, murder, and torture of innocent people, and funding of terrorism all play a crucial role in determining whether our war on Iraq is justified or not, but the factor of oil cannot be overlooked. Yes, oil is a contributing factor in this war because oil fuels the economy that feeds more starving people and helps of sufferers than any other country in the world – that is the American economy. Oil lubricates this economy in more ways than most of us care to consider and SUVs are the least of our worries.
Carefully consider a “Hilterlike” dictator with weapons of mass destruction that he uses to threaten and offensively attack his surrounding neighbors concurrently funding the terrorism that results in thousands of innocent lives each year. Now consider that “Hitlerlike” dictator sitting on the world’s 2nd largest oil reserve in the world with oil being the most important product to fuel the largest force in his way of whatever he intends to conquer or threaten. Oil – like it or not – is a source of energy that we are highly reliant upon foreign sources for and a source of energy we cannot live without. Without oil this great nation could very well be put to a halt. Now, Hussein may not have the power to actually put a restraint on the US just yet, but by acquiring nuclear weapons he is that much closer. This will never be admitted publicly by the Bush administration because of his Texas oil ties, but oil is a factor in this war – and rightfully so. If the decision to pursue diplomatic methods of negotiation were the wrong decision, it could mean the end of the US economy, as we currently know it. The risk isn’t worth taking and though it may only provide a short-term solution in preventing the collapse of our economy for fuel efficiency reasons, there is currently no other solution that will provide immediate and absolute results.
As you may have picked up, I understand that war with Iraq is controversial and respect all legitimate concerns. I also believe, like our Forefathers did, that force is occasionally necessary. And although North Korea may pose a diplomatic headache and nuclear threat in the near future, Hussein’s regime poses a threat to humanity, his neighbors, our security, and our economy, while providing aid to our enemy. There is more than one factor involved and as a combination of many factors, I believe that Iraq poses enough of a threat to Americans to launch a preemptive strike to topple Hussein’s regime and aid in rebuilding a form of government the people of Iraq would like to have. I believe that although our temporary allies voice significant concerns and their wishes should be heard, our mission to protect our nation and interests are more important. Though some may be reluctant to admit it, but the security of this nation aids in the security of every country in the world. If America fails, economically, socially, or militarily, the rest of the world is at risk.
There is a desperate need for comprehensive energy legislation, but at the pace Congress moves and the results legislation generally achieve, we cannot rely on energy legislation to immediately cure our oil dependency. Legislation is need now for future crisis prevention, but action is needed now to prevent a man who has shown his will to use offensive military force to achieve his selfish means from acquiring nuclear weapons.
We have to find ways to attack Islam where it is most vulnerable, we picked the beach at Normandy instead of the German heartland for our retaking of Europe for sound reasons. Better to attack Iraq now, then the revolutionary governments that will subsequently spring up throughout the Islamic world, so that we can run this war on OUR schedule, not that of our enemies.
The Founding Fathers, for all their profound wisdom, had no possible idea of nuclear weapons or plagues being carried by rockets from half a world away, they also believed that Americans would remain rightfully suspicious of people who did not share our values, when they came over here purportedly to share in the dream of freedom, but instead were planting themselves for violence.
You wrote, "If their domestic policy is still correct, it's hypocritical to believe their foreign policy is outdated."
I disagree with your statement. Why must their domestic and foreign policy beliefs be either both right or both wrong? Why can't one be right and one be wrong? I believe that they were right on domestic policy and wrong on foreign policy, if we go by your characterization of it.
"When you discredit any beliefs our Founders had because too much time has gone by, you leave real conservatives vulnerable to liberals discrediting everything else..."
I did not make the case that the Founders are wrong, by virtue of too much time going by. I mentioned that they lived in a vastly different age. It is because they lived in a vastly different age that they did not take into consideration the technology and cultural conflicts that we have today. That was okay for foreign policy in the 18th century. Today, the situation has changed and our foreign policy must evolve to meet the new threats. You gave your perspective on the Founders' viewpoint, "meaning not meddling in foreign affairs until they reach our border or are an exceptionally rare case". That viewpoint was likely formed by assuming that no enemy would ever acquire a weapon that could kill thousands of people at once; that we could afford to wait for an enemy to come to our shores. Those are deadly assumptions.
"... after all, if conservatives can scrap the foreign policies, liberals will have no problem scrapping domestic policies and who can blame them if we don't abide by our own traditions ourselves?"
First off, I don't understand your point. Are you saying that we should not point out philosophical or political errors, because liberals will take advantage of that for political gain? Second, liberals have no problem scrapping or creating any domestic policies, for any reason, in their pursuit towards a communist utopia - so how does my above criticism aid them?
"So on one post you say our Founders lived prior to globalization and their policies shouldn't be applicable today, then you say their policies 'still largely remain applicable and correct.' So what is it?"
You are lumping two different ideas that I expressed into one. My first statement said, "Their views regarding foreign policy made sense in their era. They do not apply today." When you asked about their intentions on domestic policy, I wrote that "... they still largely remain applicable and correct." I explained why their domestic policy intentions are still applicable, when I wrote, "Government has always been a threat to the rights that it is tasked with defending." You ask an "either or" question for a situation in which "either or" does not apply. As I said at the beginning of this post, I think that one is right and one is wrong - I do not understand your reasoning for assuming that it must be either or.
"You can't pick and choose conservatism based on our Founders beliefs."
I'm not sure what you mean by "pick and choose conservatism".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.