We are asked- Are we against the war? The majority, being against war, any war, as a general principal agrees. And why not? War is horrific and most civilized people are against it.
So am I. But are we asked whether we support forcing Saddam Hussein to relinquish his weapons of mass destruction and desist from producing nuclear bombs and sharing such weapons with the terrorist organizations he covertly supports?
If we were asked such a question I'm sure the majority would, again, say yes, especially if the result of such intervention could include an end to sanctions and the attainment of freedom, democracy and women's rights for the Iraqi people, an increase in the oil supply (and resultant price drop) greater Middle East stability and a dampener on the ambitions of the
world's dictators avidly watching the outcome.
The consequences of no war can and will be more horrific; more costly in the long term than actionless appeasement. And negotiating, without the very real threat of overpowering force, has proven to be meaningless.
No one is for war "per se". The left does not have exclusivity on pity and morality. Responsibility often involves tough decisions, like parenting, like policing. Who will explain to our children that we gave up the high ground to zealots clamoring like barbarians at the gates of our unique civilization awaiting our destruction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment