He was just trying to toughen the kid up. My parents never sugar coated anything for us.

That's a lesson we should all take on board.

<font color = lightgreen>I cannot stand this sort of blatant emotional manipulation that presents itself as "patriotism". :rolleyes: I am a firm believer in the ideals upon which this country was founded, but I am not a frothing-at-the-mouth super-patriot who shouts "USA!" with a flag painted on my face. *sheesh*

I am also a realist. (or am I a cynic? [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Was the war versus Iraq about weapons of mass destruction? Moderately so; Hussein did have such capabilities and whether he hid them (apparently so well they can't be found) or destroyed them the point is they won't be used against anyone.

Was the war versus Iraq about liberating the Iraqi people? Moderately so; it is always a good thing to remove a government that brutalizes its own people simply because it can. There is plenty of proof that Hussein brutalized his own population.

Was the war versus Iraq about improving our position in the Middle East? Hell yes! I know the lessons of history prove that imperialism--establishing a "puppet" government--results in disaster, but if I can help establish an independent government and have a friendly working relationship with that government then I have gained an ally. This, from a governmental point of view, is always a good thing.

My point is that we Americans shouldn't get overly emotional or delude ourselves about why we are at war or what the outcomes will most likely be. Yes, large American corporations are going to make lots of money during the reconstruction; that is to be expected. No, the government will not be a completely Western democracy; at best it will be a trial blend of Islam and democracy, because many Muslims cannot (or don't want to) conceive of separation of Church and State, a fundamental idea of Western government. No, some allies we have had for many years and other nations around the world won't like us because we didn't do things under the auspices of the UN; I wouldn't worry about that, because many of them didn't like us anyway.

[/verbosity] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

That's a lesson we should all take on board. </font>[/QUOTE]With the amount of whining and crying going on, we most certinly should take that leason on board. Life is tough, mean, and will rip your face off then poop in the hole, sew your face back onn so you taste it for the rest of your days. Life's NOT fair, nice or pretty IT'S LIFE.

The essay is oversimplistic and borderline jingoistic in my opinion.
It also exagerates the situation as no real and imminent threat was knocking on our door from Iraq.

Why teach kids that violence is an acceptable way to solve disagreements. The real blinds here are closed to effective problem solving and conflict resolution skills.

[ 04-25-2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

I agree with the Wookie - well said ya big hairy lug [img]smile.gif[/img]

Would that be the problem solving of the police (UN) for the last 12 years?
The same problem solving that ALLOWED, NO turned a blind eye to the torture and killing of hundreds of thousands of people? Or perhaps the problem solving that makes one "feel" good about doing something, while the problem doesn't stop? What about the problem solving that allows people to justify sitting around and sleeping at night while people are systematicly killed, tortured, mutilated, raped by a burtial regime? Like it or not (I don't really care) the problem solving of the UN and anti-war crowd DID nothing to stop any of the torture, killings, rapes, or mutilations, That was STOPPED by the USA, UK, Australia, and the other coalition members. Yes people died, but here's a news FLASH people were allready dying!!!! while the rest of the wrold set back and palyed wiith their colective navels, complating the ephrix and their passivity (SP?). We have a term here for that they are called "INABLERS".

Don't get me the stuff about other countries doing horrible things, because I'VE ABVOCATED taking any and all regimes out, one way or and nother. Besides that argument doesn't solve ant thing it just makes the arguer "feel" better about their inactivity.

<font color = lightgreen>I agree with Mr. Harris. You will never stop a person--or a nation--from committing acts of brutality by talking with them, no matter how good your intentions might be. </font>

Just my opinion but all this no one will help business and how he is Bush doesnt make me angry or sad it makes me slightly sick at the lengths people will go to promote something.
I'm not trying to take the mick out of America or anything but this is just blatant propaganda about 'Big Brave America' standing up on its own, if everyone had a problem with something everyone would join in, but those who have the problem join in and thats not good enough though is it? I mean i might not believe that beating your wife is wrong but because that man was doing it ill go around with a group of about 20 people and do the same to him... great logic...
Sorry but doing History last year really opened my eyes to how much countries will lie to make their people believe in them...
Felix

Exactly correct. Brutal dictators like Saddam almost never walk away. Almost always they have to be removed by the use of violence at some level. Thus, there tend to be only four options:

1. Assassination
2. Internal Coup
3. (Internal) Civil War
4. (External) War

Arguably, assassination was always an option. But from what I've heard, Saddam was rarely seen in public.

It sounded to me as if Saddam and his 2 sons had a pretty firm grip on power and an internal coup didn't sound likely. Can't say that I've every heard of any failed coup attempts against Saddam in the last 12 years.

Same thing goes for civil war. Saddam had a pretty firm boot on the proverbial throat of the Iraqi people and between his secret police and his military, a civil war seemed quite unlikely to even get started.

It seems like this left only option #4 for removing Saddam from the scene.

The statement that violence never solves anything is nothing but naive foolishness. The American Revolution, the American Civil War, and WW2 are all examples where violence resolved a "problem". The more accurate statement should be that violence least prefered method of solving problems, the solution of last resort, the solution used when the apparant cost of doing nothing is greater than the certain cost of resorting to violence.