i guess i'm just trying to make sense of this whole war... the reason the nation agreed to go to war was because of WMD. 9/11 had just happened and the specter of a terrorist with a nuke/bio/chem weapon was raised over and over and perhaps even legitimately so; because of that fear we decided that it was the responsible thing to do to remove a dictator who wouldn't cooperate with disarmament.
i know there are still some skeptics out there--my father in law for one--who believe that there really were WMD in Iraq that were hidden or something like that, but the overwhelming facts say that there were none. now, did they have the capacity to make them after we stopped watching... perhaps.
but the rationale for the war has morphed so many times. what is the objective? do we want to militarily defeat the extremists and empower the moderates so as to help establish western style government and economics? if so, won't that require a force much larger than 150,000? 200,000? 500,000?
and i understand the ramifications of withdrawal. i'm not advocating that... we have gotten ourselves into a royal mess. meanwhile, north korea is testing nukes and iran is building their program with increasing power and prestige--whatever message the iranian voters may have sent to ahmenidijad was probably undermined by the overt threats that have been made byW. and the gang.
we may need to do something about Iran... but what credibility is there to carry something out like that? with what forces do we carry out such an action? and what happens after we take them out as well? do we not think that more and more extremists will be bred out of these clashes? just like the britons fighting the romans--people don't like to be occupied.
the only solution, in my view, is to make a real effort to end our dependence on their oil. we pay their governments money that goes to fund the people who want to kill us... how logical is that? it will take real sacrifice. it will probably cause significant pains in our economy as we adjust to whatever innovation or innovations will be used to replace the "black gold." but that's where this country is great, isn't it? don't we talk about the sacrifice of the founding fathers, and the brothers in the civil war, and the great depression and the great wars... that was sacrifice. we are urged to continue to shop. i understand the sentiment behind that request, but we are made of more than that. we are--or should be--about more than personal comfort and increased ease of life.
let's remove our dependence on their oil, allow them to establish their own natural balance of power--and then if they want to fight then we can fight as a unified nation. then we can take all of this energy,blood, and treasure and spend it on figuring out education, health care, poverty here at home and in the world. i don't mean just throwing money at those problems, but engaging in a genuine, statesmanlike, dialogue that will help to ensure that our kids and grandkids can talk about our generation the way we revere the "greatest" generation. not because we desire fame in history, but because by doing so we will be doing what is right.
whew... sounds like a sermon.
dt
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Reflections on my life's journey as a husband, father, educator, and a human.
5 comments:
wow. that did sound like a sermon. you have it in your genes I guess. It was, however, a sermon i like hearing.
btw, you been involved/up on the whole Cliffside Utility Plant that Duke Energy is trying to build? I've been talking with folks from both sides and reading as much as I can about it. I will say the Shelby Star doesn't hide it's feelings about the issue, claiming it's "outsiders" who are opposing the facility. Who the heck uses that term anymore? Side of xenophobia with that burger, Mr. Star?
Is this the lede you're speaking of Josh?
"SHELBY — Duke Energy’s Cliffside expansion plan continued to get local, bi-partisan support while outside environmental groups voiced opposition at a N.C. Utilities Commission public hearing held in Shelby Thursday."
If so, I don't think the reporter or The Star is taking a side by calling them "outside environmental groups." Simply, the groups at the hearing were from "outside" the county.
I'm not a huge fan of the wording either ... I probably would have just said, "environmental groups," but to claim a news reporter and the paper is taking a side on an issue because of one word in a lede is a bit much.
In an editorial or an opinion piece and if he would have really said "Outsiders," sure, but not in a report on a public hearing.
Resident.Media.Defender.
BTW ... my ugly mug shouldn't show up on posts from now on.
well i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. (except that it was a bad choice of word. we agree on that.) Yes that was the paragraph in question.
And to me, to say the locals support it and those who oppose are outside groups is a really sweeping generalization. And while the writer didn't say that all opposition was from the outside, that's how the intro reads (to me at least).
Is it really the case that EVERYONE in Cleveland County supports this new facility? And that all who oppose are from outside the county? I find that really hard to believe (and really troubling if so). Frankly, i don't know if the plant should be built or not, but if there is no opposition inside the county to such a big and expensive proposal that's problematic. Or maybe i'm just tainted by "big city" politics. We couldn't get 100% agreement on whether the sky was blue, much less on a topic involving public health and $3billion.
"Dude, isn't the secret to a troop surge or any change in tactics not to tell the guy your going after? Shouldn't the terrorists just wake up one morning and realize the ballgame has changed?"
- Pat Murphy
Post a Comment