When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Grim morning. It has been released that the president intends to first send in a massive air strike which could include experimental bombs such as "the mother of all bombs" and the "e-bomb". However, I would like to know what weapons Iraq might have that could quickly take out so many air troops all in one place? Political scientists, please tell me if Turkey will give the U.S. a feeling of potential alliance but then join Sadaam in defeating ground forces after air troops are gone?
Last night on national tv, President Bush said that he was disappointed in United Nations and that they did not hold up to their responsibility in agreeing with Mr. Bush. Those opposed would easily agree that The U.N. did in fact do their job by not agreeing. What is the political argument to back this up? Local trials also in the news make me think of an analogy. In trial, the courts will not allow a guilty decision for severe cases such as murder unless the jury is in 100% agreement. A 60% majority cannot convict a suspected killer. Would Bush claim that this is different because people believe Sadaam to be guilty and waiting? He suggests a lack of faith in the human condition: once guilty always guilty. He does not consider 12 years enough time to rehabilitate. Perhaps he is right about Sadaam. Perhaps he is right about the human condition. That philosphy, if right, does not lead to a productive, happy life. Love and trust works. It takes a whole lot longer. What government is instore for the future U.S., assuming we have one after this war?
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
tactics: complete air cover
Grim morning. It has been released that the president intends to first send in a massive air strike which could include experimental bombs such as "the mother of all bombs" and the "e-bomb". However, I would like to know what weapons Iraq might have that could quickly take out so many air troops all in one place? Political scientists, please tell me if Turkey will give the U.S. a feeling of potential alliance but then join Sadaam in defeating ground forces after air troops are gone?
strategy: intellectually speaking
Last night on national tv, President Bush said that he was disappointed in United Nations and that they did not hold up to their responsibility in agreeing with Mr. Bush. Those opposed would easily agree that The U.N. did in fact do their job by not agreeing. What is the political argument to back this up? Local trials also in the news make me think of an analogy. In trial, the courts will not allow a guilty decision for severe cases such as murder unless the jury is in 100% agreement. A 60% majority cannot convict a suspected killer. Would Bush claim that this is different because people believe Sadaam to be guilty and waiting? He suggests a lack of faith in the human condition: once guilty always guilty. He does not consider 12 years enough time to rehabilitate. Perhaps he is right about Sadaam. Perhaps he is right about the human condition. That philosphy, if right, does not lead to a productive, happy life. Love and trust works. It takes a whole lot longer. What government is instore for the future U.S., assuming we have one after this war?
Anonymous
7:31 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|