Remember Viet Nam? Tens of millions of Americans opposed the war and created a whole culture of peace. There were, however, reasons for the American presence in the war.
1. North Viet Nam was committing naked aggression against the South.
2. The communists were using national liberation movements to install pro-Soviet regimes around the world. The ultimate goal was to isolate the United States and the West. This strategy was apparently working. Well into the 1980's, Nicuragua entered the Soviet sphere of influence and the fall of Mexico was not unthinkable.
3. Communist takeovers frequently resulted in genocides. The tens of millions of innocent dead in Russia, China, and Cambodia show that such a result was likely.
Now consider Iraq. What is the Amerrican rationale for attacking Saddam Hussein's regime?
1. He's a vicious dictator. Of course, if you throw a dart at a globe, you have a very good chance of hitting a country ruled by a vicious dictator. Dictators, of one sort or another, rule dozens of countries.
2. Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction. So are Pakistan and India. If we could find out all the nations' secrets, we would probably discover that half the nations that don't already posses weapons of mass destruction are busy developing them.
3. Oil. If we lifted all the sanctions on Saddam and even threw in Kuwait, the price of oil would probably continue to decline. After all, the purpose of the international monopoly OPEC is to keep oil prices high, and it doesn't work.
4. Saddam is a threat to Israel. So are all the other nations of the Middle East. If Iraq installed a democrat goverrnment, it could easily be even more aggressive toward Israel.
There seem to be no very good reasons for spending American money or risking American lives to oppose Saddam Hussein; but
"The times, they are a changing."
With the fall of the Soviet Union, most Republicans cast around for a new enemy, but what happened to the war protesters and the intellectual opposition to violent solutions? We live in a country impervious to attack. We have no need to maintain troops overseas or contain overly ambitious countries (with the possible exception of new ally China). The only threat to Americans comes from those terrorists fighting back against American aggression with the only tool they have.
[By the way, why does every American president call terrorists cowardly? Do our presidents have the nerve to drive around in a car filled with thousands of pounds of exposives in countries hostile to them? American soldiers sit on ships 500 miles from their enemies and push buttons that launch missiles that kill innocent people. Does that require courage?]
We could have peace and security now without war. Certainly we should see the flowering of the 1960's peace movement.
"War! Uh! What is it good for?
The Viet Nam protesters are portrayed as heroes in TV dramas and given the status of prophets by liberals. Why then does the Democratic Party rubber stamp every reflexive bellicose action that the President undertakes, however ill thought out. By the way, this same man, who so casually lobs Patriot missiles into Africa and the Middle East was himself a Viet Nam protester. If possible, the population itself is even more blood thirsty.
"If you come to San Francisco,
You're going to meet some gentle people there."
These same gentle people are now celebrating the detonation of each million dollar missile as though they were the audience at a wrestling match. [Meanwhile, Saddam's war machine suffers $3000 worth of damage and some janitor is killed.] Could the hawks have been right when they declared the peace movement was a communist plot? Where are all the cries for peace and love today? What happened to the doves?
"Where have all the flowers gone?"