« Who's My Accuser?You Can't Be Good At Everything... »

Why Don't We Just Bomb Them

07/18/06

Permalink 06:00:00 am, by andy Email , 680 words
Categories: The World, Middle East, Politics, War

Why Don't We Just Bomb Them

BEY_Lebanon-BombingIf you haven't heard about what is going on in Lebanon now, I am not sure what cave you are living in. The basic summary of the story. The Hezbollah, who is a "political group" (Some call Terrorists, and they certainly reflect terrorists, but it gets tricky because they are also an elected political group in Lebanon. So to make sure I am clearly describing the situation, I will call them a political group.), that is funded by Iran (to the tune of $100 million dollars), kidnapped some Israeli soldiers, so Israel has declared an attack on Lebanon in general, and it has just escalated from there.

This article is not meant to debate whether or not Israel's actions were justified, but rather discuss what the "West's" response to this should be. Israel & its neighbors is a tough situation that few of us can understand with out spending extensive amounts of time there. So what may look like an unnecessary escalation of force to us, is a necessary escalation of force to protect a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by people who want them wiped off the face of the planet. Although, it may not be reasonable either. But I digress.

As I was riding down to the show last night, we (there are 3 of us) were talking about whether or not we should discuss this topic on the air. To my surprise, the other person in the car (not Allen) decided that 1.) this "new" conflict in Lebanon is something "big," and 2.) the answer is to wipe Iran off the face of the planet and that will solve everything. To point #1, I have to say, this isn't any "new big development." Israel has had a war like this in 1948, 1967, 1973, & 1982 - and that doesn't even count the Intifada I or the Intifada II. So to say this is something new, is a bit dramatic.

But it was point #2 that I wanted to punch her in the face for. Keep in mind, as I have posted before, I am for the Iraq war - so I am not "anti-war" per se. However, bombing the "hell" out of Iran isn't going to solve anything - and that's assuming we can actually do this - which we can't. First of all, as I learned while in Israel, West Bank & Jordan, Middle Easterners are people. I know that sounds simplistic, but we need to remember that in the West. I might not of shared the same political beliefs (or religious beliefs) with the guy I had lunch with in the West Bank, but ultimately all he wanted to do was to provide for his family and be able to live "relatively" free. Bombing Iran to smithereens would be wiping out millions of people that are just like our middle class. It would be like wiping out the major US cities for something the "Oklahoma City Bombers Militia Group" did - it just doesn't make sense.

In addition to that, our reputation is already one of "crusadism" in the Middle East, and anymore more war will only surge the hatred and recruit more people into terrorism. I know this is a shock, but the Middle East doesn't trust us. Now I am not going to debate on whether or not they should, but lets just recognize that they don't and start from there. We aren't going to build any trust by wiping out Iran. We will build trust by finishing the job in Iraq, improving the countries conditions, and then the rest of the region will recognize they like the "new-Iraq" more than what Iran offers. That's it!

It sounds a bit ridiculous at this point I know, but I truly believe the Iraq war will be looked back historically as a graceful act. Like Germany & Europe in 1940s, our actions there will bring about an incredible economic and societal change that I believe most Middle Easterners will desire. This change, has the ability to grow through out the region, but not if our answer to everything will be to just bomb the heck out everyone.

2 comments

Comment from: Lissa [Visitor]
As Colbert would say: "Alright, I'll bite."

Here's the problem with the Iraq War (among many):

The ends don't justify the means.

While history may look back upon Iraq and say that it's better to have a democracy, that's not why we went in. And while I'm far from an expert on foregin policy, just because history will perhaps look kindly on the actions we've taken does not make them right to begin with, nor does it make it acceptable to stay quiet about the actions taken to get us into a country just because there will be eventual benefits after we're done.

Also, where do we draw the line? Do we do the same thing for Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and every other government we disagree with? I just have never adhered to the U.S. "world police" philosophy.

And as far as a democracy affecting a change-how does it do that with other sovereign nations? How can the citizens of the countries listed above rise up and begin a revolution any more easily than the Iraqis could?

I surely don't have the solution to the situation in the Middle East, but I just think that Iraq was the wrong decision.

To use lawyerspeak :-) I respectfully disagree with the analogy of the Iraq War to WWII. Hitler had gone out of Germany and intended to spread Nazism into an empire-Saddam went into Kuwait and the Gulf War started, but this time he was just acting like an 8 year old. He was digging his heels in to the UN, but our intelligence was faulty and I think we definitely jumped the gun-the pre-emptive doctrine is just not good foreign policy in my opinion.

Further, Saddam is not the only Middle East leader to do so-look at Iran's reaction to the nuclear situation. A crazy leader doesn't merit nation building.

Anyway, I don't mean to just come to your blog and totally attack you-I always enjoy your opinions and I hope that you'll reply, because I think that whatever you say will be really insightful. Hopefully you don't take offense to this comment-you know I just get excited when politics gets brought up, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents-but you know I think you're fabulous and I'm only debating ideas, not anything personal. :-)
PermalinkPermalink 07/18/06 @ 11:03
Comment from: andy [Member] Email · http://www.2timothy42.org
Ahh Lissa...I love the conversation you and I share. It truly brings joy to my heart.

First off, this post wasn't so much a justification of the Iraq-war (although I have that on other posts), but rather a reason for not going to war with Iran. In addition to that, I brought up the Iraq war because it is just a truth of reality that we are in the war, so given that fact, how can we use that (regardless of our stance on it) to better the world and the region.

Now, you are right. The ends don't justify the means, and I think we all need to be very hesitant on going to war to begin with. In the spring of 03, I was very hesitant about the Iraq war and I was hardly a "supporter." I don't like the fact Bush lied to us. I don't like the fact it is clear Rumsfeld had an agenda and wasn't steering away from that no matter what the intelligence said. But, since deciding to go, I think we should do it whole-heartedly, and not half-assed, so to provide the most amount of security to the Iraqi-people as quickly as possible. I have other internal reasons why I think the Iraq war will eventually yield a better Iraq for Iraqis, but regardless of whether we should or shouldn't have gone, we are there: now lets deal with it. "Bringing the troops home now" (as Shean has suggested) will not correct anything in my mind.

Now, onto another point. You say Saddam was no Hitler, and it is true, he wasn't. And I am not sure if he ever could be. However, to say that he was just an 8-year old is a bit naive. Tell the tens-of-thousands of Kurds he killed within his own country, or the 1.7 million Iraqis & Iranians killed in the Iraq-Iran War in the 80s, or the 2.4 million Kuwaittis he threatened, or better yet, the man I met in the West Bank who fled Iraq and was grateful for the (then new) Iraq-American war because finally someone had taken down the evil dictator, that Saddam was just an 8-year old. Even if you take the 2,553 Americans killed thus far in Iraq, and go with the highest of estimates of 43,575 Iraqis killed (which that number is hardly confirmed), you still would have to multiply that number by THIRTY-SEVEN (37) to get the number of killed by Saddam (or maybe better put, at the current "death-pace" in Iraq, this war would have to continue for 110 years to match what Saddam was responsible for). I think if anything we should have learned from Hitler that we all (and I am including myself in this) have the capability of doing grave things, and those that have exercised that need to be taken out of power. But just for a geo-political lesson, it should be noted that Saddam, like Hitler, did leave his borders when he attacked Iran and Kuwait.

It isn't about not agreeing with "politics." I don't like how Russia does everything, but Vladimir Putin seems like a competent leader (except when he belly-kisses little children). Even Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela, who in my mind are awful leaders, don't deserve to be removed because they haven't killed mass numbers of people. And while I can't logically advocate that we have the ability to take out every leader in this world that is the vilest of dictators, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can. Even Ahmadinejad and Jong-il are nutballs, but to my knowledge they haven't killed nearly as many people as Saddam did (yet).

In the end, my reasons for taking out Saddam and my reasons for not bombing Iran are one in the same: I want what is best for the most amount of people. I truly think Iraq will be a safer place in 10 years, and I truly believe that the average Iranian is just trying to provide for their family and get by, so bombing them off the planet (which was the original "solution" posed in the post) solves nothing. And I think what will work better with Iran and Syria is a positive result in Iraq than bombing them ever could. I will admit that I could be wrong, but only history will tell.

Lis, you know I love our conversation. Don't take any of this as "ill-will" or hateful, ya know I love you.
PermalinkPermalink 07/18/06 @ 14:30

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be displayed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
    September 2008
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
     << <   > >>
      1 2 3 4 5 6
    7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    28 29 30        

    You've heard it before on air, Andy is Allen's young, single, celibate, college-boy producer and he is tired of letting Allen do all the talking. Andy's Blog is where Andy gets the mic and is able to express his views on whatever topic he feels like. However, it should be stated that Andy's views do not necessarily represent those of Allen's or the Allen Hunt Show. In addition to that, Andy's views at times can be a bit for raw, so if you are sensitive to this, please just stick with Allen.

    More information about Andy can be found at www.2timothy42.org or Andy's Virb.

    P.S. As has been mentioned on air, Andy is horrible at grammar and spelling. Please excuse any mistakes, trust me, he's sorry.

    Search

    XML Feeds

    powered by b2evolution free blog software