02-24-2003, 08:53 PM
Not all of them. Most are too stupid or ignorant to think.
Why are people ridiculed, when they protest against a war? Is it fair to do so, just because some of them mistake themselves in the motivations of politicians? How many of those in favor of a war, can claim to truly understand why we will have it?
Those who protested against this war might not always give you a perfect reasoning for it, but at least they tried to stop it. In fact, they did't need good reasons for themselves at all, because they cared about the wellfare of other humans.
And why is it, that the pollution of coal power plants makes nuclear power plants safer? How does being against nuclear power make you in favor of pollution? Don't we have other energy sources to explore? Is cutting down on our energy use (waste, rather) out of the question?
Catching your opponent on a badly chosen statement might win you a discussion, but does it help to solve the conflict?
Like everything else in the modern world, this war is about money. No, they don't plan to rob Bhagdad of its oil. The war is needed for one thing only: to keep the ever expanding Western economy going. You see, the biggest problem of modern economy is finding customers to sell the growing amount of products to, and wars increase demands like nothing else. The more destructive a conflict is, the more it will cost, and the more profit can be made. That's why nobody really cares about bombs costing half a million, for example. In particular the industries in the USA have become increasingly dependent on the production of high tech goods for the military. This has drawn America into many conflicts before, and it will get worse. But we Europeans are no better. Without a decent war every few years, our combined Western economy could easily loose its worldleading position, and we don't want that. Without our healthy economy, we will lose everything. At least we think we will.
Btw, the USA is not the first to benefit from wars. Here in Europe, it gave Germany and France their powerful economy, and that is why the governments of those countries are now against this war. They actually know what it is all about, and view upon this matter as an unfair move from an economic adversary, at their expense. Ofcourse, politicians are not going to admit that in public.
So, we won't fight this war because of the oil (In fact, marketingwise it would be better for the West if the sources in Iraq dried up today), not because Hussein is a 'evil' dictator and supressor (Do we really care so much how he treats his subjects, that we would spend billons for them?), not because Iraq has mass destruction weapons (They will never be able to compete with the USA in this, will they?), not because of terrorism (We are still bombing Afghanistan for this, with continued negative result), not because Iraq ignores UN resolutions (Who doesn't? The USA even reserves the right to attack member countries like mine, if we ever dare to arrest an American for crimes of war), not because of Human Rights (Many countries have death penalties, and deny thousands of prisoners a proper trial. On both sides), and not because of crimes against the ecology (It wasn't Iraq who opposed the Kyoto Treaty, was it?). No, it's because we don't mind becoming rich at the expense of others. At best, we wonder how long we can go on like this.
Why are people ridiculed, when they protest against a war? Is it fair to do so, just because some of them mistake themselves in the motivations of politicians? How many of those in favor of a war, can claim to truly understand why we will have it?
Those who protested against this war might not always give you a perfect reasoning for it, but at least they tried to stop it. In fact, they did't need good reasons for themselves at all, because they cared about the wellfare of other humans.
And why is it, that the pollution of coal power plants makes nuclear power plants safer? How does being against nuclear power make you in favor of pollution? Don't we have other energy sources to explore? Is cutting down on our energy use (waste, rather) out of the question?
Catching your opponent on a badly chosen statement might win you a discussion, but does it help to solve the conflict?
Like everything else in the modern world, this war is about money. No, they don't plan to rob Bhagdad of its oil. The war is needed for one thing only: to keep the ever expanding Western economy going. You see, the biggest problem of modern economy is finding customers to sell the growing amount of products to, and wars increase demands like nothing else. The more destructive a conflict is, the more it will cost, and the more profit can be made. That's why nobody really cares about bombs costing half a million, for example. In particular the industries in the USA have become increasingly dependent on the production of high tech goods for the military. This has drawn America into many conflicts before, and it will get worse. But we Europeans are no better. Without a decent war every few years, our combined Western economy could easily loose its worldleading position, and we don't want that. Without our healthy economy, we will lose everything. At least we think we will.
Btw, the USA is not the first to benefit from wars. Here in Europe, it gave Germany and France their powerful economy, and that is why the governments of those countries are now against this war. They actually know what it is all about, and view upon this matter as an unfair move from an economic adversary, at their expense. Ofcourse, politicians are not going to admit that in public.
So, we won't fight this war because of the oil (In fact, marketingwise it would be better for the West if the sources in Iraq dried up today), not because Hussein is a 'evil' dictator and supressor (Do we really care so much how he treats his subjects, that we would spend billons for them?), not because Iraq has mass destruction weapons (They will never be able to compete with the USA in this, will they?), not because of terrorism (We are still bombing Afghanistan for this, with continued negative result), not because Iraq ignores UN resolutions (Who doesn't? The USA even reserves the right to attack member countries like mine, if we ever dare to arrest an American for crimes of war), not because of Human Rights (Many countries have death penalties, and deny thousands of prisoners a proper trial. On both sides), and not because of crimes against the ecology (It wasn't Iraq who opposed the Kyoto Treaty, was it?). No, it's because we don't mind becoming rich at the expense of others. At best, we wonder how long we can go on like this.