I'm new to this whole blog thing, but my mind was racing as it usually does (angst can suck) so I decided to make one. I hope someone reads me.

Anyway, I write a semi-political column for my school's paper. It's fun. It's a good stress reliever. And I love the feedback I get too---even when it's not from my side of the fence.

Here's my column for this week: Unedited. I think that's what I'll be doing from now on: putting my unedited columns up on here before they get read.


With war with Iraq looming, which could possibly commit hundreds of thousands of troops, I am shocked to hear almost no national debate on this topic. 12 years ago last month, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The next 6 months were swollen with a furious national debate not seen since Vietnam. Even the House Resolution authorizing force in Iraq, in that case, barely passed with almost 200 Congressional leaders voting no. This time around, there's barely nothing. And it's wrong. And it will blow up in our face.
First, last week, President Bush pleaded his case before the United Nations in New York, using some unbelievable falsehoods to further his warmonging goals. I'd like to clarify many of those falsehoods, because you won't get to read them anywhere else, or hear them any place else.
President Bush's first argument was that Iraq attacked Kuwait without provacation. However, it's a well known and well established fact that Kuwait was drilling into Iraq's oil fields using a method known as slant drilling. Imagine the uproar that would occur if Mexico drilled into our Gulf of Mexico oil fields, or if Canada slant drilled into our Alaskan oil fields. We would feel invaded and our national soverignity violated. Thus, Iraq acted although it's speculative whether slant drilling is a case for invasion. Thus, Bush twisted the truth in a classic Orwellian fashion.
Bush also mentioned that Iraq was poised to march across the Arabian Peninsula. False. Satillite photos proved in 1990 that this was not going to happen. The St. Petersburg (Florida) Times proved this in January 1991 in a series of articles. In addition, Bush also stated in his speech that Saddam hadn't been appeased over these last few years and that Saddam brutalized and repressed the Iraqi people in the period since the end of the Gulf War. First of all, we bomb Iraq almost weekly, and we've been doing so for many years. If that's not appeasement or even containment, I do not know what is.
Human rights was big in Bush's speech to the United Nations, where he cited the UN's own report on President Hussein's brutal repression of the Kurds, the pervasiveness of the Iraqi government, and the supression of free political thought. Bush conviently left out the same UN report where they cite the horrors of the sanctions that have blocked shipments of water purification systems and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Why punish the kids if we're after the leader? It makes no sense. Bush also ignores the fact that many Middle Eastern governments are just as repressive. I can name Saudi Arabia, Turkey (who declares the same Kurds we look to as freedom fighters in Iraq as terrorists), Pakistan (where the current leader changed the constitution so he would be leader-for-life), and our favorite, Israel (who is currently mounting a campaign of ethnic cleansing against a people who were clearly there first.) Bush loves that "gassing of the Kurds" argument. The gassing of the Kurds occured in 1988. The US provided the technology for Iraq's chemical and biological weapons program because in 1988, Iraq was an ally with us against our enemy, Iran. Of course, in 1988, we stood by while Iraq gleefully used those weapons, made by American technology, against the Kurds and then the Iranians. Bush, of course, would deny that we were ever allied with Iraq---more Orwellian tactics. Bush's final insult to the UN: The argument that Security Council mandates must be upheld. Currently, Israel is in violation of Security Council Resolution 242, which called for an end to their occupation of Palestinian lands. They've been in violation of this resolution for 35 years. Why the double standard?
So Bush fabricated and twisted the truth to the UN. Why?
Meanwhile, here at home, there has been very little debate on sending troops to Iraq. And worldwide, most countries have remained indifferent to a pre-emptive strike or outright hostile. But I wish to concentrate at home.
Vietnam and even the Gulf War bought out strong anti-war movements. It wasn't that people were too scared to fight, although perhaps some were. Most of the movements were based on the fact that some wars are simply wrong. It seems that these days,to have a politcally dissenting opinion makes you unpatriotic. Some have even argued that being a pacifist makes you a terrorist.
We have absolutely no buisness in Iraq. It is not America's place to "replace regimes" that are distasteful to us. If the argument that he has weapons of mass destruction and he's gonna use them is our case for war, then we need to then move after India and Pakistan, who came deadly close to starting their own version of Apocalypse Now. If the argument that he is brutal to his people is our case for war, then we then need to go after Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, India, China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, North Korea, Nigeria, and a host of other countries. And if the argument is that we're America, and the world does what we say, then I feel sorry for us.


That's my Snapper column, unedited, for this week...I guess I'm trying out this blog thing...it seems cool and I read a lot of them on the web.