Why do I support the war? It's a pretty simple explanation, really. But I've finally decided to post something real to this blog. I've heard a lot from my friend over at Mormons for Peace and to be honest, some things used to make sense but no longer do.
My friend is a Ron Paul supporter. I thought he was a conservative that liked Ron Paul's entire message, but he also likes Obama. I can't imagine that, unless the only reason he supported Ron Paul was for his anti-war message. That's sad to me.
So here's why I'm FOR the war.
1) Al Qaida (and other terrorist organizations) is an organized, multi-national non-directly-affiliated military system. They are in multiple countries, and are not controlled DIRECTLY by those countries, but are given a wink and a nod from the governments of those countries, and also receive money under the table from many of them. Why? Because those governments (generally petty dictators) like power, and to them, the terrorists are like having a big brother in the mafia.
2) We were attacked on 9/11/2001. They essentially declared war on us. Who did? Not Afghanistan, not Iraq. No country. They're non-affiliated, but they're HOSTED in some countries.
3) We have every right, and indeed a responsiblity to future generations to make sure that these people are not given more power. How to do that? Take them out. Incidentally, we did not launch the first strike, or the second, or third... etc. It's about time we responded. If we do not, those same dictators will gain confidence; recruitment for the terrorist organizations will increase because they will not fear retribution for their actions. This falls on the very heart of terrorism; it's intent is to foment terror in others, or fear to act, to respond, or to even recognize the evil that it is. Some of the countries over there have already been overrun, or the people cannot respond because the government will not allow it. They've attacked us, we MUST respond.
4) If a country is housing this non-affiliated army, they are also declaring themselves to be in league with the terrorists if those countries do not assist in the eradication of the cells. We have every right to strike the terrorist army.
5) It's what Mormon would do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Please don't misunderstand me. I find Paul's fiscal conservatism, founder Constiutionalism, and general message of liberty and responsibility to be far and away the most attractive and honest message of any Presidential platform. And that is why I voted for him in the primary.
But there is very little chance of a Ron Paul presidency at this point. As I argued in the comments on my site, I believe that Obama is a wiser choice for a fiscal conservative than McCain. Obama's proposals would at least have some discussion in Congress for some chance of checks and balances . . . McCain's most expensive proposals -- such as bomb, bomb, bombing Iran to Beach Boys tunes or staying in Iraq for 100 years would likely be considered some sort of commander-in-chief executive privilege thing where Congress just steps aside and approves going into unimaginable debt to our enemies.
As for social conservatism there are some differences I can see in the voting record. Somehow McCain is trying to portray himself as "moderate" (liberal in my book) and Obama is trying to run more "conservative" (for a national Democrat that's also fairly liberal in my book) but on votes it looks like McCain tends to actually vote more socially conservative than Obama. And that is something that concerns me.
But you're right it doesn't concern me nearly as much as the moral issue of asymmetric military actions against people who had nothing to do with the attack on our land. I believe that the moral responsibility for every civilian man, woman, and child who dies in accidental bombings, mistaken shootings, etc. falls at the feet of us American citizen enablers who are allowing our military might to be mis-used. Those numbers hugely dwarf the number of innocent people killed in the horrific attacks of 9/11 at this point. Even by the most conservative and "government accepted" estimates.
Finally, I don't pretend to know what Mormon would do for sure. But my guess would be that he would go after bin Laden and al queda in Pakistan as only Obama and Paul suggest doing. If you truly support a just and effective "war on terror" you may want to revisit the differences between Obama and McCain.
Now if Billary gets the Democratic nomination then things are quite different. I don't believe there is anything magical about having an (R) or a (D) by your name. This is something I really disagreed with Romney on in his speech. I may have disagreed with his current foreign policy expectations but I saw a Romney as a much different Republican leader than McCain or Huckabee (just as I see Obama as quite different from Clinton).
Obama's record on fiscal conservatism is pretty much null. He has been classified as the single most liberal senator in the senate - his voting record is almost entirely for more governmental power. He may have tempered his message to get elected, but he is as far from a conservative as you can get, possibly even more so than Hillary. So jumping from Paul to Obama makes me wonder about your motivations; it appears to me that your only focus is the war, which you disagree with, and the rest of the message seems very weak.
McCain is more socially conservative than Obama. You nailed that. The reason can't support McCain is because I don't want to send that message to the people at the top of the RNC. I don't want them to send us another moderate candidate, I want a conservative! So I'll make my voice heard any way I can.
As far as the terrorists go, let me say this; I don't understand why people say that nobody in Iraq had anything to do with attacks on Americans. That's a flat out lie. As far as 9/11 goes, they'v even documented that at least one of the hijackers had met with Saddam Hussein. I think saying that Saddam hasn't supported terrorism is blindly disingenuous.
As far as attacking Pakistan now to root out Bin Laden, should we just ignore the rest of Al Qaida to pursue one man? I think not. He's just a leader, but another would step forward if we got him. So why pretend that getting him would solve all of our terrorist problems?
Oh, here's the link.
2007 Vote Ratings
Incidentally, according to this Ron Paul scores as a social moderate....
Post a Comment