Well, I have started reading "Passionate Declarations" or as it is also called "Declarations of Independence." The book is amazing, and it is by an even more amazing author: Howard Zinn. I also listened to a talk he gave at Boston College (on CD). It was sooooo good. I say this as a precursor to my one-man discussion on war because Howard Zinn is a pretty major proponent against the war in Iraq. Anyway…

I have not heard an argument from either side that would convince me to go or to not go to war. My problem is that the "warmongers" (as I will call them to give them a label) seem to have a pretty high opinion of the threat to the united states; they feel that our doom is nigh if we don't strike today. The peaceniks feel that there is never a case for war, even if it were to be dropped in your lap (that is to say if one were attacked: though not our present situation, but I am simply playing devil's advocate). I do wonder what Howard Zinn would have said about WW II (in reference to the Germans…not Japanese) because us stepping into Europe could be compared to us stepping into Iraq (albeit loosely...but in the sense that we stepped into someone else's problem because we felt it could be ours inevitably). I don't mean what has he said about it now...I mean what would he have said then had he been so prolific in those days as he is today.

Going to War:

I have a hard time condemning war because I have no idea what would happen as an alternate. Human beings are not all of the same mind when it comes to peaceful resolution, and so they do not all have the same feelings about dealing with their perceived problems. For instance, practically on the eve of an election, Al Qaeda detonates several bombs in a crowded train station in Madrid. Almost immediately, the residents, struck with grief from the hundreds dead and countless injured, cave to the terrorists and vote in a new leader that promptly does the bidding of the terrorists by leaving them alone. When exactly does it become "just" to strike back? How many have to die before the source of fear is put to rest? Is the United States allowed to make a war on Terrorism? Or are they to only be condemned for starting a war in Iraq on shaky ground for an obvious outcome (oil)?

Is war ever justified? Or is peace always the practical answer? Because although peace may always be the cookie cutter easy answer, I think the more realistic and difficult decision could be war. Mind you, sending your troops into battle to find an elusive tyrant who seems to have even more elusive weapons of mass destruction (that should be easier found than him, given the weight and mass ratio when you compare the two) is probably not on the right track to a just war; just stabbing at that one, but I think I'm right. Bottom line is this: There are some that would have it no other way than to make their presence known by flying planes into buildings, and at these people I would retaliate. If you don’t stop them now, what would it take to stop them later?

For Peace:

All of that being said, I would still love to believe that every thing can be resolved over tea and sympathy. That at the end of the day, mother can sit both parties down and tell them that they aren’t leaving the room until matters are resolved. Unfortunately, this is not always the case; if it were, there would not be such a colorfully drawn, war-ridden textbook in schools today. Some people refuse to sit and talk by our standards of civility. So what do you do for these people? Nuke ‘em. Alright, so I’m kidding, but as I said before I want to be able to do something for these situations without having to escalate them to ridiculous proportions. I don’t want war. Jumping into war every time we see a “tyrant” might just be a little hasty, and detrimental in the long run. War is also so obviously devastating, that it is blatant that maybe…just maybe…we were never meant for war in the first place.

Conclusion:

So what do I think? I’d like the peace…but I still have a hard time fully releasing the idea of war. I think if you put a peacenik into a room with a warmonger and said one person is allowed to come out alive, one of two things would happen: 1) they settle their differences and live in that room together for the rest of their lives or 2) that peacenik kicks some serious ass or dies trying.

Basically, let’s not be so quick to condemn either war or peace. There is a time for both. That being said, my present thoughts on the war in Iraq are kind of negative. I feel like Jr. picked up where his daddy left off; the Bush Administration is a pretty good example of the top wealthiest twenty running the Government (and in this case trying to run the rest of the world as well). Everything that continues to come out about this war, and it’s inception, simply affirms my beliefs. The Bush Camp is the only one to say anything positive about all this, and that is understandable because they are the only ones that have something to lose if things look bad.

In short, when I am king…there is a line of people that will go before the firing squad and Bush is fast working his way, with wanton lust, to be the first against the wall.

Thanks for stopping by…I know I sure enjoyed it.

-Luke Snyder