Hi Sarah. Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been away for a few days.
Sarah wrote: But the Pentagon says this will be a new type of warfare - a war against infrastructure, not people. I can't know whether that's true, but their descriptions make sense, and it does seem possible. How can one destroy infrastructure (buildings and roads, for example) without destroying the people in or on them? Sarah said: The aim is to take over the country with virtually no loss of innocent life, rule it for one year, then hold elections. Democracy requires education. From what I understand, the country (Iraq) is not at a point politically or socially where democracy would succeed. As for this being some sort of "smart war" in which no one gets hurt, if that were the case, why have we amassed 160,000 troops in the area? To watch? Sarah wrote: Our intentions, unlike theirs, are decent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's not the intention that's important. It's the impact. If you drive drunk, but don't mean to hit the little kid crossing the street, well, hey, your intentions were good, right? Sarah wrote: Those of you who say 'it's about oil' should spell out what you mean. It has turned into a chant that no-one understands. I reiterate that the U.S. interest in the Middle East is based primarily on petroleum. I can't find the exact quotes, but this comes directly from Donald Rumsfeld, who has offered the prospect of Saddam Hussein controlling 10% of the world's oil as enough reason to attack. (both now and back in 1991) I've seen videotape of interviews on PBS in which he states this unequivocally. Sarah wrote: What is it about the Iraqi people that makes them unworthy of being liberated? How many of you who are anti-war have spent time with one single Iraqi in your entire lives? I've heard various people from Iraqi exile groups interviewed. I do get a sense that they want Saddam Hussein gone. And, yes, I am sure that his is a reign of fear and torture. BUT to be honest, I don't see signs of revolt in Iraq. Perhaps this sounds harsh, but if someone isn't willing to stick their neck out for freedom, why should we send in troops to do something we're not entirely sure the people want in the first place. In the American Revolution, people were willing to take up arms, and die for freedom. Yes, we got assistance from France. But they joined the colonists who were already committed to their cause. I just don't see anything like that happening in Iraq. I value Iraqi lives equally with American, or French, of German, or whatever lives. Sarah said: If George Bush wants oil, let him have it. Who cares? Oh, so it IS about oil after all? Sarah wrote: Those of you who oppose this war should suggest a viable alternative. In a word, education. If I had my way, every U.S. citizen would enlist for public service for 2 years, much like the former draft, although pretty much everyone (except those with disabilities) would be required to do this. One could serve within the U.S., or abroad. Instead of sending soldiers, we'd send teachers, also people in trades, that sort of thing. Instead of destroying, we'd build, farm, and learn and do so alongside any given country's people. We would be careful not to subsume a culture. Sarah wrote: They [Iraqis] deserve to be liberated, and I honestly can't see why anyone would deny them this for the sake of anti-war rhetoric. It's not for the sake of rhetoric. It's for the sake of saving lives. It's also for the sake of finding a true, long term solution, one that the Iraqi people can support and sustain. lots of love Anne
