low_delta | (no subject)

You're viewing

low_delta's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

A conservative acquaintance of mine says he'd love to send the military into Iraq, but he still hasn't heard Bush give a convincing argument for doing so.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There's not a convincing argument for BUSH.

I'm in the same boat. I know, in my heart, that Hussein needs to be removed (I'd prefer it if his own people would take care of that, but I know the problem of massive oppression exists, so I'm not holding my breath). I know that he's a dangerous and demented man. I know that he's just ...."bad".....

But, we signed onto an agreement to play by rules. We've got to live by them. The only argument I need is "UN Security Council authorizes force to compel Iraq to allow complete weapons inspections and disarmament verification". But, without that, it's just us, and a few friends, being playground bullies.

The hell with that. We're supposed to lead the world, not push it.

If we don't (at the very least) have UN backing for our use of force, we're in big trouble. We will be rightly seen as bullies, and the Arab world already sees our interference in their affairs as our biggest transgression.

> We're supposed to lead the world...
Who says?

I'm English. For centuries, English people thought they had this role. They were of course wrong, but didn't realise it until they had done a lot of stupid and bad things. I'd suggest that the world doesn't need anyone to lead it.

As to removing an objectionable leader of a foreign country, why this one among so many?

(I've just read back what I've written, and it sounds a bit harsh - I don't intend any sort of attack on you or your country)

I can't speak for Dwivian, but when I think of our leadership role, I think of it in terms of setting the example. We are in a higly visible position, and have a lot of power and influence. We need to do the right thing.

As far as removing a foreign leader from power, this one says he wants to destroy us (I think) and has the power (or so they say).

But he plainly *doesn't* have the power to destroy America. He certainly doesn't have nuclear weapons. If he has chemical and biological weapons, how will he get them to the US? He doesn't have ballistic missiles to fire them across the Atlantic.

I see what you're saying about leadership. The problem is deciding what is the right thing to do. I expect that Bush *does* think he's doing the right thing. I don't.

Well, yeah, that's what we've been saying all along, but the pro-war camp has been trying to convince us that if we dont' act now, then Saddam will eventually get them.