Saturday, April 10, 2004
Reader Email
The "D" Word
From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com
09 Apr 2004
I'm amazed at why the opinions of those who at first supported the Iraq war haven't been turned around when confronted with the Bush follies consisting of: "bring 'em on", "mission accomplished", non-existent WMD, misrepresented tales of Iraqis greeting our troops with bouquets of flowers, no Iraq connection to 9/11, jokes about missing WMD, the phony notion that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, and the ugly deteriorating conditions in Iraq? How could anyone still believe in this war? Who can't see that we just lashed out at Iraq because it was an easy target for a concocted and trumped up rationale for a war that could be sold to the American public? Is there any price that war supporters aren't willing to pay just because Saddam was an evil tyrant and despot? Where's the outrage?
Where are the non-stop protests and torrents of public anger that called for policy change during the Vietnam War? Relentless protesting and lobbying by opponents of that unjust war were effective enough to convince Lyndon Johnson that it was futile to run for another term, and pressured Nixon into bringing an end to the war. Where's the national indignation now? Why is this ill-conceived war different?
I ask my questions in the rhetorical sense, of course, because I think I know the answer.
The answer is simple: No "D" word. There is no military draft. Unlike the Vietnam War, the war in Iraq is being fought by a volunteer military. As a consequence, a sort of "not in my backyard" mentality sets in, whether or not anyone is inclined to admit to it. As long as millions of American families are not asked to sacrifice, and are not subject to the prospect of having to face the possibility of losing sons & daughters, husbands & wives, brothers & sisters, and mother & fathers, there will be no overwhelming pressure brought to heavily tip the scale against support of this war, and the idea of preemptive wars to come.
True, the brave and courageous men and women who volunteered to serve in the armed forces did so with the knowledge that they might be called on to engage in combat to defend our country. I assume that for most of them, however, having America striking out first with a preemptive war policy was not part of the enlistment package that attracted them to serve. But now the burden and cost is strictly on their shoulders alone.
It's frightening to think that as long as most American families aren't at risk to pay for and share in the deadly costs of this war, or other preemptive wars, the Bush Preemption Doctrine could just keep rolling merrily along, unchecked.
Richard
Fairfield, CT
From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com
09 Apr 2004
I'm amazed at why the opinions of those who at first supported the Iraq war haven't been turned around when confronted with the Bush follies consisting of: "bring 'em on", "mission accomplished", non-existent WMD, misrepresented tales of Iraqis greeting our troops with bouquets of flowers, no Iraq connection to 9/11, jokes about missing WMD, the phony notion that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, and the ugly deteriorating conditions in Iraq? How could anyone still believe in this war? Who can't see that we just lashed out at Iraq because it was an easy target for a concocted and trumped up rationale for a war that could be sold to the American public? Is there any price that war supporters aren't willing to pay just because Saddam was an evil tyrant and despot? Where's the outrage?
Where are the non-stop protests and torrents of public anger that called for policy change during the Vietnam War? Relentless protesting and lobbying by opponents of that unjust war were effective enough to convince Lyndon Johnson that it was futile to run for another term, and pressured Nixon into bringing an end to the war. Where's the national indignation now? Why is this ill-conceived war different?
I ask my questions in the rhetorical sense, of course, because I think I know the answer.
The answer is simple: No "D" word. There is no military draft. Unlike the Vietnam War, the war in Iraq is being fought by a volunteer military. As a consequence, a sort of "not in my backyard" mentality sets in, whether or not anyone is inclined to admit to it. As long as millions of American families are not asked to sacrifice, and are not subject to the prospect of having to face the possibility of losing sons & daughters, husbands & wives, brothers & sisters, and mother & fathers, there will be no overwhelming pressure brought to heavily tip the scale against support of this war, and the idea of preemptive wars to come.
True, the brave and courageous men and women who volunteered to serve in the armed forces did so with the knowledge that they might be called on to engage in combat to defend our country. I assume that for most of them, however, having America striking out first with a preemptive war policy was not part of the enlistment package that attracted them to serve. But now the burden and cost is strictly on their shoulders alone.
It's frightening to think that as long as most American families aren't at risk to pay for and share in the deadly costs of this war, or other preemptive wars, the Bush Preemption Doctrine could just keep rolling merrily along, unchecked.
Richard
Fairfield, CT
