Those who wage war in pursuit of the name of peace themselves cause the failure of their professed goal.

After listening to Mr. Bush rightly claim that the Iraqi placement of human sheilds in military installations is an atrocity, then assert that we will spare no agression, I can but wonder how one can justify the slaughter of innocent lives as “peacemaking”.

One wonders about the Iraqis, too. If Hussein truly cared about the well-being of his country, he did have ample opportunity to leave the country and at least hinder American plans to attack.

We must also remember that many people in the Iraqi military do not want to be there (just like many people in the American military in VietNam did not want to be there), and would rather not kill. Military casualties are innocent too.

My final thought for tonight: several countries proposed a compromise resolution in the UN spelling out specific conditions the Iraqis must meet in 30 days. Why was 30 days too long for Bush?

3 thoughts on “Peace

  1. Why was 30 days too long for Bush?

    Because I don’t think he ever intended to listen to anyone’s protest in the first place; it was probably just all for show. By extrapolation, I’d say Dubya’s more interested in taking out any candidatory world power than `fighting for peace’.

    They say that fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

    I say Bush is a cowboy; one with his d*** stuck inside his horse’s a**.

    And please; excuse the profanity.

    1. You wrote:

      I don’t think he ever intended to listen to anyone’s protest in the first place; it was probably just all for show.

      I think that is right on. I suspected from the beginning that the maneuvers at the UN were solely to gain a tactical advantage, and that if they said No, that Bush would proceed anyway. It is interesting to note that, as far as anyone can tell right now, a majority of the citizens in each and every country in the “coallition” are opposed to their government’s involvement.

      1. I never did like the idea of having but one person to represent a whole country in things such as this. I’m all for taking out all the potential Saddams and Bin Ladens on this planet, but can we please leave Joe Random Constituent out of the mess?

        Assasinate Saddam; take out his doubles, if need be. A hundred doubles dead is a whole lot better than a hundred thousand civilians, IMHO–I’d still prefer having just one person dead, though.

        It’s also interesting to note that the people who wage wars these days don’t directly join the wars they wage. How convenient, eh?

        (An entry in my quasi-blog expresses much of my sentiment; pardon the shameless plug: `Of Bush-tards and Retards’)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.