The Xanax Cowboy

Maureen Dowd did another great op-ed for the NY Times. I like the following:

It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

Bush does muddle the waters about why we need to get Saddam. Maybe if he kept it as "He has been in violation of U.N. resolutions and must be made to comply" it would be much more simple. Attaching Saddam to 9/11 or Al Quaeda, or doing the "He could give weapons to terrorists" dance really starts to show his real motive... avenge daddy (who couldn't finish the job when the world was behind us). I think North Korea would give a nuke to some radicals to bomb us before Saddam would. I'd throw China and Russia in that mix as well.

As for world, or U.S. opinion, Bush has taken a "Don't give a shit" attitude. As in, "I don't give a shit what people think.. yeeehaw I'M A COWBOY!" From the polls I have heard, most people do not want a war with Iraq... although most want Saddam out of power. If the war would be unpopular (which it would), then Bush should really start laying low on the topic and stop the mongering (sadly, he is too far in to do this now). He is making the U.S. more unpopular than ever around the world, not helping the stock market with the constant war jitters, hasn't shown any "smoking gun" evidence to the effect that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, isn't very clear (flip-flops) with the reasons behind going in (terrorists? Liberation? In breach of 1441? Avenge Daddy? Help the region?). And, as the quote from above shows, there seems to be more reason to concentrate on other arenas at this time.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think Saddam is a nice guy and Iraq would surely be better off with someone more sane in power. I am also a firm believer that if the people of a country want to be "liberated", they should at least attempt to liberate themselves first. Aside from the Kurdish population, I don't know of this happening in Iraq. Same as Afghanistan.. had some random groups wanting the Taliban out... but no real civil war. Some news reports say that the Iraqis are waiting for us to liberate them. But, I have no idea if this is true since it could be war propoganda. But, Iraq has been shown to be in material breach of 1441. I don't think this can be disputed. And, because of this the U.N. should send in the troops... but I don't know that I think we (the U.S.) should until the majority of the Security Council gives the go-ahead. If we get enough votes.. then do what needs to be done (even if someone comes in with a veto... majority rules!). It's all a bit confusing. I know I care most about the job market and economy right now and giving Turkey billions isn't a good idea in my mind... or having to pay for this war.

When all is said and done I believe Saddam will be gone and a new gov't will be in place. Then, in about 8 years we will be going in to remove that government as well (as we did with the Taliban, Saddam and others we helped get in power).

So, am I pro-war or anti-war? Hard to tell. I am anti-war because I am a pacifist. I am pro-war because Iraq is in violation of various resolutions and should face the proper consequences. I am pro-U.N., and anti-Bush. Again, it gets confusing.

I'd think that the world should be set up like a large corporation, and the U.N. is the Board of Directors. Heads of state are like VPs of various Business Units (and so on, down the line). The Board makes the rules and enforces them... leaders accept that they have to follow the rules. So, when a Head of State decides to kill thousands with Saron/Mustard/XV gas (as Saddam did with the Iranians, Kurds and his own people), invade a small country, burn oil wells and oppress people (sorry China, this would include you) the Board can fire that head of state and replace them (hopefully, with general elections of that country). And Kim in North Korea would be gone since he isn't supposed to have a nuclear weapons program. SORRY, FIRED PAL! If the leader won't leave nicely then U.N. forces would be able to go in and remove them. After all, the world is a business and should be treated as such. If you can't play nice, someone else can replace you who will. Rules are good, and when you control the lives of so many people, you should have some to follow.

Wow.. this turned into quite the long-winded rant. And, if I went back to re-read it, I may even disagree with a few things I have said! :-) Anyways, time for the important things... The Simposons!