HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 29, 2007 Here at the UK corral, one is subject to the consistent droning of the right, who accuse Democrats and war protesters of being “anti-American” and “wanting America to lose the war.” This charade is based on the idea that the left not only objects to the war, but has failed to offer a detailed alternative to it. Such assertions smack of hypocrisy, since they are uttered by the same people who accuse the left of slinging mud and practicing the politics of personal destruction. This past week, the right has jumped all over political has-been John Kerry, who said recently that the United States has become “an international pariah.” While the use of the word “pariah” I find to be extreme, the basic tenor of Mr. Kerry’s comment is true: The current administration’s Middle East policy of “shoot-first, diplomacy later” hasn’t won us many friends in the international community, and America now suffers from a growing disrespect. This includes a rift between America and its traditional yes-men, France and Germany. Some of our NATO friends suggested America engage in diplomatic talks with Iraq, and include Syria and Iran in the mix. The idea was that going to war would be a last resort. While America may not have diplomatic ties with “terrorist states,” what’s wrong with opening such a dialogue if it could avert the loss of thousands of innocent lives? Bush’s policies are a failure, and while Democrats may cheer that fact, they by no means want America to lose the war. I find it hard to believe that anyone would embrace such a philosophy. Those who favor a troop withdrawal believe that the ensuing diplomatic efforts are better than the continued loss of life. However, by withdrawing America would appear weak, and it would be perceived that our soldiers lack the heart to engage in a prolonged battle. Obviously, this would embolden the terrorists. Contrary to the fervent yelping of the right, this DOES NOT mean those critical of the war want such a scenario. Such hyperbole and half-truths are understandable. Over the last quarter century or so, Americans have become tolerant of such mudslinging. Certain buzzwords create certain implications, such as the phrase “the religious right.” It is falsely claimed that such persons who are in that category favor America becoming a theocracy. Now we are seeing the worm turn, and the phrase “liberal” is used to describe someone who is “anti-American.” Those who oppose war are against the death and destruction that war brings. The right would have you believe that Sean Penn, George Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore and Tim Robbins want America to convert to Islam and are pushing for Osama to occupy the White House in 2008. When Bill Clinton ordered U.S. troops into Bosnia, then Texas Governor George W. Bush said, “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”[1] Now that Mr. Bush is on the hot seat and is being criticized for a faulty war plan, the right ignores his hypocrisy, and instead besmirches the reputations of his critics. Republican Trent Lott, the Minority Whip said, “I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”[2] Does that comment make him un-American, or imply that he wants us to lose the war? No, and the comments of a one-time Presidential candidate and Hollywood celebrities should be viewed no differently. It’s simply disagreement. As is usually the case, the best solution probably lies smack dab in the middle of these two extremes. This is not to say that these anti-war activists are “right.” It just means differences aren’t necessarily deficits. Because there are opposing viewpoints doesn’t mean that one side has to be “wrong.” In defense of the right, theirs is a valid point when they challenge Democrats to stop criticizing what they can’t replace or improve, and offer a specific plan of their own; something the American people can debate. Furthermore, the left needs to realize that when a publicity leech like Cindy Sheehan is the face of your issue, something is definitely missing. Missing, mind you, not “Anti-American.” Kerry also criticized the Bush administration for not signing the Kyoto Global Warming treaty. That is merely his opinion, and certainly debatable, but it is not not some anti-American diatribe. As America is the world’s largest polluter, is it not fair to ask the U.S. to do its share to clean it up? Republicans take Kerry way too seriously. In my view, he is like the MAD magazine character Alfred E. Newman. On MAD’s Table of Contents page there is a quote from Mr. Newman. Usually, it is something that makes us chuckle (“Live each day like it’s your last…because sooner or later, you’ll be right!”) Sometimes the joke falls flat, like Kerry’s “joke” about the less educated being banished to the front lines of Iraq. In that vein, we should view Kerry in the same light as MAD’s poster boy—as that of a lovable buffoon, whose words can’t be taken seriously. For it sounds to me like Kerry is saying to Mr. Bush, “The 2004 campaign may be over, but I will continue to bash you.” Maybe his mantra is, “Better late than never.” Either way, the fact that he is not running for President, in my view, is a good thing. I believe the situation in the Middle East is going to be resolved with tactical nuclear weapons, with Israel doing the deed. This will come under the guise of Israel thwarting Iran’s aggressive nuclear program. The U.S. will probably deny all knowledge of this attack, even denounce it in a session of the UN Security Council, but behind the scenes they will be rejoicing. It has been speculated that a “Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran.”[3] This is a reference to a 1964 event where Lyndon Johnson claimed that North Vietnamese PT boats attacked U.S. warships. Declassified tapes later proved that the incident never took place. Writers Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter interviewed several government sources and concluded that, “Conventional laser-guided bombs would open ‘tunnels’ into the targets...“mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout. The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel. However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilize parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.” . Time will tell. . Sources: 1. The Naked Truth, Quote of the Day, August 25, 2005 . 2. Paul Joseph Watson, Gulf Of Tonkin" To Provoke Iran War? Global Research, January 15, 2007 . 3. Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, Israel Plans Nuclear Strike On Iran, January 23, 2007 ------------ About the author: Timothy N. Stelly, Sr. is a 46-year old poet, novelist and aspiring screenwriter who resides in northern California with his three youngest children--Lawrence, Kimberly and Dante. He is a member of various writer's groups and has three novels in print, his most recent, "Like A Straight-Up Sucka," is available at www.lulu.com. website: http://stellbreadO@tripod.com Email: stellbread@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
