Author: Kevin Lawver

If this (warning: not happy stuff. detailed descriptions of chemical warfare against the Kurds in Northern Iraq – view Reid and James) is true, what can we do? Do we let it continue until they decide their chemical weapons are compact and potent enough to travel undetected they attack us here? Do we finally make up our minds that we won’t stand for government-sponsored genocide, and then do something about it?

We waited several years to get into World War 2, and even then, it wasn’t to stop genocide. We did nothing about Stalin, Pol Pot, or the genocide that occured in the Balkans until it was too late to save thousands of lives. We’ve done nothing about Northern Iraq except try to enforce “no-fly” zones. We (what do I mean by we? do I mean the UN, the US, me?) haven’t forced inspections. We’ve dropped some bombs on some suspected facilities, but Hussein has basically done whatever he pleases for ten years backed by lots of oil money and with no supervision.

I’m not sure what the solution is. After reading the accounts in the article, I want to bomb him. But will whoever replaces him be any better? Should we worry about the replacement when he’s still in power? Do we destroy the infrastructure and leave him there like we did the last time, or will he just rebuild and therefore we’ve only postponed the inevitable?

I think we have to go in, with out without Arab support. If the countries surrounding Iraq and in the Arab world don’t see the problem, there’s nothing we can do to convince them past what has already been done. This truly is a matter of national security – and I don’t mean the price of gas. I can’t imagine what it would be like to see my wife and son die in front of me, bleeding from their eyes, choking to death as their bodies convulse and seep out on the ground. I pray it never happens here, and I think we have enough proof that Iraq wants us destroyed and has been experimenting on its own people to find the most effective way to accomplish it. I would like to think I’m a reasonable guy, and anihilating Saddam, his Armies, his infrastructure and his weapons seems the most logical thing to do. The risk is too great and the evidence too strong not to act.

Am I wrong? I would love to hear from anyone on the topic… It makes me wish my cheapy little host supported PHP or any other scripting language so I could add comments. I need feedback on this one. I’ll post responses that I think coherently agree or disagree (and if I get a ton, I’ll post representative ones).

I promised earlier today that I would try to explain my views of the two big political parties here in the US (I say this because an odd amount of my traffic comes from outside the US). I’m going to try to explain it fairly simply, although that’s one of the problems. We have two major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. As I get older and realize that I don’t agree with most of the things my parents tried to teach me about politics, I’ve been trying to find the differences between the parties. On the surface, they look an awful lot alike. They both take incredible amounts of money from corporations. They both seem to be bought and paid for on many issues.

To me, the differences come down to a couple things:

• Republicans are simple. For every problem in the world, there is a simple solution. The economy is in a slump? Let’s lower taxes for corporations and the rich to get it moving again! The airlines (or Savings and Loans or the defense industry) are in trouble because they’re horribly mismanaged? Let’s bail them out using taxpayer money, even though some of the companies we’re bailing out haven’t paid taxes in years! We need a new energy policy? Let’s talk to businesses because they obviously have everyone’s best interests at heart. I’m getting carried away here, but the more I see of the Bush administration, the less I like. From Cheney refusing to turn over the Energy Task Force documents (and now we see why – no meetings with environmentalists? How dare you?), to Bush’s handling of China and the Taiwan issue, to the handling of Israel and the Palestinians, it seems that the administration is incapable of handling complexity. I don’t remember this being a problem with Clinton. For all his failings, the guy was sharp.

• Democrats at least make it look like they care about the middle class. For all the people deluded enough to think that the Republican party cares about anyone other than their largest donors, you’re all crazy. Just look at their actions. They’re reducing environmental requirements on corporations left and right, covering up secret meetings with executives, not meeting with environmentalists and now imposing tariffs on foreign goods. Again, I don’t remember anything like this happening during the last administration. The Clinton Administration and the Democratic representatives at least maintained the appearance of caring for the common man. They met with consumer groups, environmentalists and at least made the effort. I’m not seeing the same effort now.

• Don’t worry, the Democrats suck too. Don’t think I’m going to leave the left out. They’re beholden to their big donors too. Unions are the heavies behind the Dems. The DNC also seems to be the party of “causes”. Groups with “issues”, like the environmentalists, Abortion rights activists, women’s groups, etc, all flock to the Democratic party. It can make them seem a little schizophrenic sometimes, and it becomes hard to join them if you have a problem with one of the pillar issue groups within the party. It also has the effect of moving the party to the middle, meeting a lot of moderate Republicans in the process, and watering down any single group’s position. Add to this the fact that the same corporations that donate to the RNC also fill the coffers of the DNC, there are also the same “who’s really in charge” questions with them.

I have to go with the Democrats for the moment, though. I have a thing for opposition parties anyway. Also, for the most part, Democrats don’t try to go for the easy answer. They’re willing to discuss the complexities of a problem and go for the painful solution. Republicans, as a party, don’t seem willing or able to do that. Now, if the whole party was comprised of John McCain, I’d be all for it. He seems like one of the only reasonable people within the party – and they’ve come close to pushing him out on several occasions.

It’s just so hard to decide when candidates are so “handled” now that it’s impossible to get to their real views on an issue. I would love to say that I could vote for someone because they were honest – but how do you know that now either? I have to go by the party, unfortunately, even if I don’t agree with everything. Now that the Republicans are in power, it’s now pretty obvious who’s in charge of the party. It ain’t you and me, and right now, that’s really all I need to know.

There’s more I want to say, and well, I should probably edit this. I’m sure I’ll come back to this topic again and again and again as I refine my point of view. It’s still kind of raw, and now I freely admit I don’t know everything and am still just trying to figure it out.

You know, in the old days, if you didn’t agree with the other side, you at least made the appearance of trying to hear both sides. I have a real problem with a completely pro-business administration. I mean, at least make it look like you care about the rest of us. Read if for yourself.