First, let me confess that I write this email after doing the following: 1) not reading list posts in three days, 2) coming to find 167 emails, 3) deleting approximately 120 emails not related to "anti-war resolution" (and I offer my apologies for all those who wrote on something else, there's just no reasonable way I'd make it through all of them on my slow little laptop), 4) read through the "anti-war" emails, and 5) have the advantage of posting after taking them all in.
The general concensus among the "anti-war resolution supporters" is that it is a Minneapolis issue, because if funding is going to a war effort, it's not coming to programs Minneapolis needs, etc. By that logic, I could as easily argue for a pro-war resolution, as James Jacobsen somewhat did. If Chicago O'Hare Airport turned into a fireball because of a terrorist attack, then lots of resources will not be coming to Minneapolis because of the need to defend against the attack and also to rebuild. As such, it's in Minneapolis' interests to be proactive to make sure the O'Hare attack doesn't happen. So I could go on and on with this vein. However, a pro-war resolution could be made as in the interests of Minneapolitans, so beware of this double-edged sword you're wielding (hmmm, maybe that isn't the best visual for this discussion). Also keep in mind that the City hasn't gotten down the problems completely within the realm of the city, as R.T. has intelligently pointed out. If we don't have these problems down, it doesn't make sense to take on these resolutions that have much more to do with ideology instead of pragmatism. Then there's the argument of "war only begets war". What should we do? Just sit around and plead with the terrorists, "oh, please don't bomb us! We'll play nice if you do!" However nice such a thought may be, it is simply na�ve to deny that humans behave in certain ways, which includes preying on weaker people. This whole concept of appeasement was tried once before about 65 years ago, and six million Jews paid dearly for it (not counting all those who eventually had to fight Hitler to stop him from continuing his evil ways). Then there's the sentiment that since there's been no 10,000 person "pro-war rally" that apparently the vast majority of Americans are against war but just too stupid to believe they're in the majority. First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even without a specific rally, it's not logical thought to say there aren't 10,000 people in support of action against Iraq just because there hasn't been a specific rally. I would think it more likely that a "pro-war rally" isn't deemed necessary because our President is on the side of most Americans who realize we can't just sit and wait for the next 9/11. Keep in mind 10,000 is less than 3% of the Minneapolis population and less than 3/10th's of 1% of the state population. We really need to get beyond this mentality that only a certain elitist community of citizens are wise and know the answers for the rest of their fellow dumb Americans (or Minneapolitans, for that matter). Such a philosophy is incredibly insulting and should almost certainly be rejected by those being told they're only going to be okay by listening to these elitists. Finally, as James Jacobsen generally pointed out, it's of no surprise that Hussein hasn't explicitly made a terrorist attack against us. If he were to specifically use weapons of mass destuction against us, it would be confession of having them (which he supposedly doesn't). Such an action would be a death-knell for Hussein as all the debating at the UN would quickly end and most everyone would turn against Hussein and his demonstrated desire to use these weapons. Hussein may be an evil, evil man but he isn't stupid. He will logically work in much more clandestine ways. Keep in mind the same Hussein you want to protect through your "Minneapolis anti-war resolution" is the same one who has publicly expressed his -to put it mildly- disdain for Americans and has previously used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. Why do you seem to think he'll just suddenly stop if we all hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya? War is never comforting. Do I wish there were another way to reach resolution? Sure. However, I hope everyone lobbying for this Minneapolis City Council resolution will carefully consider the words of Teddy Roosevelt, "Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace." The peace you are seeking with this resolution is one where we live in fear of the next attack while all sit around and wring our hands. Gary Bowman Audubon Park __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
