Pro-Diplomacy

I’m getting really sick of the relationship that the anti-diplomacy crowd is trying to continually drawn between this current war and 9/11. Does anyone really think that this is a justifiable part of the war on terror or that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind our homefront attacks? Have they all been that duped by the PR campaign our government has been running? Defending our nation against those who attacked us or pose an imminent threat is justifiable by force. The opposite is true here, where the CIA openly admits that attacking Iraq increases our likelihood for homeland attacks and that unprovoked Saddam is unlikely to use weapons of mass destruction in the “foreseeable future”.

Fuck this attitude that if you’re not for the war you’re somehow pro-Saddam. Nobody is defending him, they’re defending the diplomatic process of peacefully resolving a problem through an international community. Us being being attacked does not make us the world’s renegade police force.

Below are some recent pro-war posters that use the nonsensical slogan “We gave peace a chance and we got 9-11”. WHAT?

View Comments (16)

# March 21, 2003 08:48 AM

Comments

It just goes to show the simple-mindedness of the majority of Americans. Feed us “patriotism.” Yum. Eat it up. That’s the “right” thing to do. I mean really!! Since when is it that you can’t question an administration’s actions and policies??? Oh, that’s right… always. I’m obviously an America hater because I oppose war.

Posted by: Eric on March 21, 2003 9:57 AM

I don’t think it’s that simple. The simple-minded attack could go both ways. I don’t think Hussein was that involved w/ al Qaeda, but I suspect some indirect links. But getting rid of him is a good idea. I’ve spelled out my reasons on my blog. As to diplomacy. Politics and war go hand in hand. I also hoped for diplomacy, but that required a stick. So long as you wield a strong stick, you can make good diplomatic demands. The French took away our stick, making war more likely. Finally, what about the Iraqi people? So far, we’ve not killed many at all. Iraqi TV only tells of one dead in Baghdad. And reporters w/ the troops are dumfounded that the troops rolling north are greeted by waving Iraqi citizens. Huh? Could it be possible the Iraqi people DO want to be liberated?

Posted by: miguel on March 21, 2003 11:18 AM

I am playa hatin’ on America. Word. I would like to imagine the blond lady above is singing Stars and Stripes Forever. Oh, please tell me she is, that would just be so spectacular. Simple minded majority—I have been known to utter such pretentious words before.

Posted by: ivo on March 21, 2003 2:54 PM

One of the chefs at work today kept quoting all these polls & statistics saying that 70% of Americans support Bush’s decision to attack, with some 10 or 15% against the war and 5% very opposed to war. I must know a hell of a lot of people of that 5%- I was with 10,000 of them last night downtown. Where do these statistics come from? It seems so implausable that there are that many supporters of the war, what with everything going on. Maybe I live in a bubble, I don’t know.

Posted by: vanessa on March 21, 2003 5:08 PM

your chef friend isn’t entirely wrong or right. go to the gallup.com polls. the split is more like 60/30 or so. i’ve seen some has high as 75/25. part of the reason why it “seems” that anti-war demonstrations are a majority is that it’s probably a very active minority. after all, people don’t go out to the streets to support the status quo. however … polls don’t make a position right. it could be 99/1 or 1/99. it would be irrelevant. every one of us is entitled to make up his/her own mind on the issue based on the evidence - regardless of the consequences. the only sad thing is that much of the anti-war movement is made up of young people. they don’t tend to vote very often. had they voted two years ago, maybe bush wouldn’t be president. just my two cents. btw, i voted socialist.

Posted by: miguel on March 21, 2003 10:20 PM

Miguel I find it interesting that you continually flaunt your socialist standpoint when the Socialist Party of this county is officially against the war. http://www.sp-usa.org/

Posted by: meredith on March 22, 2003 10:05 AM

I no longer count myself a socialist, for the record. Though I still have tendencies. I posted an article before by a life-long British socialist who supports the war. She spells out her reasons on socialist lines. The kind of socialists I like (e.g. the ones that volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War and kept urging the US to enter the War from 1939 on) would, I think, support a war to liberate an oppressed people. I voted Socialist, but I’m still entitled to make up my own mind. Oh, and I’ll probably never vote Socialist again.

Posted by: miguel on March 22, 2003 11:59 PM

I didn’t want to vote anything other than democratic last election, because the race was too close. I voted against Bush. Voting for any other party would have resulted in less support for the democrats, which are the only other party that would have been voted in who are better than republicans.

Posted by: allison on March 23, 2003 8:56 AM

Miguel, if you don’t consider yourself a socialist and you will never vote with that party again, why do you keep mentioning that you voted socialist. I’m not sure I understand you motives here.

Posted by: meredith on March 23, 2003 10:41 AM

the point was just to point out that i’m not a bush supporter. but i also don’t trust democrats (i wasn’t about to vote for a white southerner whose wife founded the pmrc). it’s also simply a statement of fact. if you prefer, i’ll stop mentioning it. but i’m tired of people assuming that just because i support this war i must’ve voted for bush and love the republican party.

Posted by: miguel on March 23, 2003 2:13 PM

Miguel, Do you really think we’re getting all of the facts when it comes to the number of Iraqi people that are killed? The Iraqui people who were waving us in could definately be Shitte Muslims who have absolutely no love for Saddam. We definately don’t seem to be waltzing in without resistance, especially the closer we get to Baghdad.

Posted by: Eric on March 23, 2003 2:29 PM

the number of dead i reported was from the iraqi press briefings. they claimed (the first day) 3 dead and some hundred or so wounded. so that’s where i got my numbers from. if anyone was going to inflate the numbers, it’d be the iraqi propaganda officer. i’ve been watching cnn every night and he gives daily press briefings. mostly he launches into tirades against the “zionist international oil mafia”, but he also does things like tell us how many civilians (he claims) were killed/wounded and also introduce tapes of our pows being tortured and executed.

Posted by: miguel on March 23, 2003 11:40 PM

i find it sick and appalling that anyone could support this “war.” what is really interesting to me (if the mainstream press isn’t all propaganda) is the great lengths that we are supposedly going to in order to help iraqi troops surrender, or even to try not to bomb buildings that might have personnel inside them. it makes me feel like america isn’t quite the evil that i’ve been thinking we are for quite some time. but i really like what simon has to say—that dimplomacy may have worked, and that the threat of attacks here at home would be increased by this war. i’m planning to live in chicago proper for the first time in my life this fall and it is scaring the fuck out of me that people might be running around with nerve gas or dirty bomb or some such thing just waiting for an el train full of people coming back from a cubs game.

Posted by: jim on March 24, 2003 11:15 AM

jim, i support this war in part to eliminate that very fear. i can understand that people don’t support a war. war is never an easy thing to support. but to say it’s “sick” does a diservice to the many reasons for it. even iraqi tv reports only a few deaths and injuries last night. i think we are definitely going well out of our way to avoid killing civilians and doing unecessary damage. i hope we learn from this that we are indeed a civilized people. unlike some of the jackals we’re fighting.

Posted by: miguel on March 24, 2003 1:29 PM

This site keeps an account of all Iraqi civilian dead: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm Right now, it is probably over a 300, and since this war isn’t even half over with the worst yet to come, it seems very likely the total will be very high in the end. I do not support this war. From what I have seen on TV, very few Iraqis seem to either, I don’t know what everyone else is looking at. In the rare cases where our troops do get a wave as they pass by, I think Iraqi civilians are just being nice to the people with the big guns. Please read what a REAL Iraqi has to say at this journal: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/ That site is considered to be authentic. If you value knowledge, read the entire thing. While they do want a regime change they sure as hell didn’t ask for a war.

Posted by: Thoughty on March 29, 2003 12:40 AM

yep, i’ve been reading salam pax’s website for months now. read the WHOLE thing. he’s not pro-us by any means. but read it and see that he points out: 1) that hussein is a brutal tyrant that must bo and 2) the us war has limited civilian casualties (he’s been impressed by that on more than one occasion). it’s a great blog. and i hope salam pax (not his real name, of course) is ok. but read the WHOLE thing.

Posted by: miguel on April 1, 2003 1:51 PM

As Far As I Can Tell

Pro-Diplomacy

Comments

Micro Updates

Archives