jonalvy44
03-15-2003, 11:12 AM
The international community continues to be blessed with wisdom dispersed by political pundits such as former MASH surgeon Mike Farrell, TV president Martin Sheen, and now the intellectual trio known as the Dipsie Chicks. These entertainers claim to know how our current government should handle the Iraq crisis. Maybe their cries of "listen to us, we know what we're talking about" should be heeded? So let's play the "what-if" game.
<Your screen is now getting all wavy like on Gilligan's Island when they had a dream sequence>
Let's listen to our new political leadership in the anti-war movement. Say we surrender our autonomy, our defense, to the UN. We allow the French to dictate policy, that being to continue inspections and sanctions. Iraq is grudgingly complying only in allowing 100 or so inspectors to search a country the size of Texas because we have an army of 300k troops on their border, poised to strike at any moment. The US cannot sustain an army of this size in the Gulf for an extended period of time. So naturally, we will begin to send the troops home, thus easing the pressure on Iraq to comply. If you examine historical trends, Saddam will then claim he is disarmed, will call for an eventual end to inspections and sanctions, kick out the inspectors, and continue the same patterns we've seen since 1991. We will then be back to square one, with an Iraq allied with terrorists that would then be even more of a threat to the US than ever. This is not acceptable, the anti-war crowd fails to realize the short-sightedness and flawed reasoning behind their strategy. They believe Saddam can be dealt with politically, and we've seen time and time again that is not true. Containment and inspections won't work unless threat of force can be used. To be unwilling to follow thru with use of force sends the wrong message not only to Iraq, but other rogue nations as well.
So let's get back to examining the anti-war movement and whether or not we should listen to the advice of political sages like Janine Garafolo and the old guy that starred in a pig movie called "Babe". They claim President Bush isn't willing to listen to them. This is true, thank God. Active protesters in the US represent less than 1% of the population, most of whom don't work or even vote...college kids, hippies, artists, homeless...These people would prefer we listen to the leaders of the entertainment world. They support the flawed strategy of containment and inspections. Should we then replace our current government with SAG, the screen actors guild? I think not. To be unwilling to discipline an unruly child is to invite further misbehavior in the future. As someone pointed out to me today, it's a good thing the patriots of Flight 93 did not wait for UN authorization before taking on the terrorist scum that sought to destroy the White House. Imagine if that plane had been loaded with actors and entertainers. The terrorists would have had their way.
Jon Alvarez
Syracuse, NY
Why we fight:
http://home.attbi.com/~sept11/
In Our Name- Pledge of Support to President Bush
http://inourname.insignific antthoughts.com/
Visit Alvy's forum: http://groups.msn.com/AlvysForum
<Your screen is now getting all wavy like on Gilligan's Island when they had a dream sequence>
Let's listen to our new political leadership in the anti-war movement. Say we surrender our autonomy, our defense, to the UN. We allow the French to dictate policy, that being to continue inspections and sanctions. Iraq is grudgingly complying only in allowing 100 or so inspectors to search a country the size of Texas because we have an army of 300k troops on their border, poised to strike at any moment. The US cannot sustain an army of this size in the Gulf for an extended period of time. So naturally, we will begin to send the troops home, thus easing the pressure on Iraq to comply. If you examine historical trends, Saddam will then claim he is disarmed, will call for an eventual end to inspections and sanctions, kick out the inspectors, and continue the same patterns we've seen since 1991. We will then be back to square one, with an Iraq allied with terrorists that would then be even more of a threat to the US than ever. This is not acceptable, the anti-war crowd fails to realize the short-sightedness and flawed reasoning behind their strategy. They believe Saddam can be dealt with politically, and we've seen time and time again that is not true. Containment and inspections won't work unless threat of force can be used. To be unwilling to follow thru with use of force sends the wrong message not only to Iraq, but other rogue nations as well.
So let's get back to examining the anti-war movement and whether or not we should listen to the advice of political sages like Janine Garafolo and the old guy that starred in a pig movie called "Babe". They claim President Bush isn't willing to listen to them. This is true, thank God. Active protesters in the US represent less than 1% of the population, most of whom don't work or even vote...college kids, hippies, artists, homeless...These people would prefer we listen to the leaders of the entertainment world. They support the flawed strategy of containment and inspections. Should we then replace our current government with SAG, the screen actors guild? I think not. To be unwilling to discipline an unruly child is to invite further misbehavior in the future. As someone pointed out to me today, it's a good thing the patriots of Flight 93 did not wait for UN authorization before taking on the terrorist scum that sought to destroy the White House. Imagine if that plane had been loaded with actors and entertainers. The terrorists would have had their way.
Jon Alvarez
Syracuse, NY
Why we fight:
http://home.attbi.com/~sept11/
In Our Name- Pledge of Support to President Bush
http://inourname.insignific antthoughts.com/
Visit Alvy's forum: http://groups.msn.com/AlvysForum