Don't read if you are anti-war....

[La Huesera]

Someone sent me this in my email. Dennis Miller is the one who said it..or so says the email I received.



ALL THE RHETORIC ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAQ HAS GOT MY INSANE LITTLE BRAIN SPINNING LIKE A ROULETTE WHEEL. I ENJOY READING OPINIONS FROM BOTH SIDES BUT I HAVE DETECTED A HINT OF CONFUSION FROM SOME OF YOU.

AS I WAS READING THE PAPER RECENTLY, I WAS REMINDED OF THE BEST ADVICE SOMEONE EVER GAVE ME. HE TOLD ME ABOUT THE KISS METHOD ("KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!) SO, WITH THIS AS A THEME, I'D LIKE TO APPLY THIS THEORY FOR THOSE
WHO DON'T QUITE GET IT. MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN SIMPLIFY THINGS A BIT AND RECOGNIZE A FEW IMPORTANT FACTS.

HERE ARE 10 THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN VOICING AN OPINION ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE:

1) BETWEEN PRESIDENT BUSH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN ... HUSSEIN IS THE BAD GUY.

2) IF YOU HAVE FAITH IN THE UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE RIGHT THING KEEP THIS IN MIND, THEY HAVE LIBYA HEADING THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IRAQ HEADING THE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE

3) IF YOU USE GOOGLE SEARCH AND TYPE IN "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES," YOUR REPLY WILL BE "DID YOU MEAN FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS?"

4) IF YOUR ONLY ANTI-WAR SLOGAN IS "NO WAR FOR OIL," SUE YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ROBBING YOU OF THE
EDUCATION YOU DESERVE.

5) SADDAM AND BIN LADEN WILL NOT SEEK UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL BEFORE THEY TRY TO KILL US.

6) DESPITE COMMON BELIEF, MARTIN SHEEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE PLAYS ONE ON T.V.

7) EVEN IF YOU ARE ANTI-WAR, YOU ARE STILL AN "INFIDEL!" AND BIN LADEN WANTS YOU DEAD, TOO.

8) IF YOU BELIEVE IN A "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" BUT NOT IN THE DANGER THAT HUSSEIN POSES, QUIT HANGING OUT WITH THE DELL COMPUTER DUDE.

9) WE ARE NOT TRYING TO LIBERATE THEM.

10) WHETHER YOU ARE FOR MILITARY ACTION OR AGAINST IT, OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS ARE FIGHTING FOR US TO DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT. WE ALL NEED TO SUPPORT THEM WITHOUT RESERVATION.

 

[70/30]

Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda are slight. Not so slight with the people we'll piss off. They have a point, if it is not a war against Islam--why not invade North Korea first. They threaten with nuclear holocaust. They sell weapons systems to whoever has the cash.

1.3billion Muslims is a lot of Muslims. If we do it wrong: 250,000 soldiers won't be able to make a dent in the opposition we'll face.

 

[La Huesera]

Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda are slight. Not so slight with the people we'll piss off. They have a point, if it is not a war against Islam--why not invade North Korea first. They threaten with nuclear holocaust. They sell weapons systems to whoever has the cash.

1.3billion Muslims is a lot of Muslims. If we do it wrong: 250,000 soldiers won't be able to make a dent in the opposition we'll face.

While I see your point on North Korea, there is a BIG difference between NK and Iraq. Iraq has had 12+ years to follow the terms they agreed upon...12+ years of this cat and mouse (inspectors in..inspectors out) bullshit. Also, don't ever think that Saddam would not sell/give weapons to anyone who asked. While NK needs to be watched, I believe that there are still many deplomatic steps to be taken... there does not appear to be any left with Iraq.
Besides...I told you not to read this thread...

 

[Azwed]

Hmhh its in all caps that makes the argument 29348730987543204324398275932 times better then if it was in normal letters.

 

[70/30]

Who gives a shit about convincing me. GWB has to sell it to 6billion people that really are unAmerican. He's doing a piss-poor job, even with the hints the unAmerican Americans have given him.

 

[Azwed]

I am pretty sure I have heard several different administration officials say we are going to liberate Iraq. Maybe not in so many words but thats pretty much what they have been saying.

 

[La Huesera]

well, seeing as though I just c/p from the email...you can take it up with whom ever sent it to me. Other wise, keep the eye rolls to yourself. Thanks Seems funny that the only people to post in here are anti-war, when the title clearly reads not to read if you are.

 

[La Huesera]

Who gives a shit about convincing me. GWB has to sell it to 6billion people that really are unAmerican. He's doing a piss-poor job, even with the hints the unAmerican Americans have given him.

I was not trying to convince you of anything. You have clearly made up your mind..as I have mine...and in the big picture, neither one of our opinions means jack shit. Just thought we could have a dialog going. As for President Bush trying to sell it to 6 million others.. I really don't think he cares at this point if they buy or not. He is going to do what he feels is right..what he feels is needed. At this point, I can't say I disagree.

 

[Azwed]

well, seeing as though I just c/p from the email...you can take it up with whom ever sent it to me. Other wise, keep the eye rolls to yourself. Thanks Seems funny that the only people to post in here are anti-war, when the title clearly reads not to read if you are.

Then whoever originaly sent the email is a dumbass too.

I never said i was anti-war now did I???

I am still split on the whole issue I think in the end we will go to war and it may very well cause a whole host of new problems. I do think that the Bush admin has been doing a piss poor job of selling this war to the american public and the rest of the people on earth.

 

[Nathon_88]

I'm sorry......

Not to you, but to the person that sent you that, and to the education system that apparently DIDN'T teach them how to reason.

"Support our troops"

As I am Canadian, my support goes to the people of Canada. The Canadian support should be to the WORLD, not to the big bully below our bottom.

Again, my apologies....Too many little people piss me off.

We should all just get in line, without thinking, because the president of the United States says so.

Fuck that.

 

[70/30]

Many reasons. To Bushies liberation means free market access. We consume 25% of the world's oil, we need more access. Several other reasons...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wotiraq/Ulterior_Motives.htm

Like I said, who cares about convincing me. Deterring 100's of millions that may consider turning this into a real Jihad is the task. They don't see all the evidence presented. However, they might be told the US government used forged documents as proof Saddam is close to obtaining nukes. They might see GWB is afraid to even slightly disagree with Sharon. Trouble, big trouble.

 

[Azwed]

Again, my apologies....Too many little people piss me off.

We should all just get in line, without thinking, because the president of the United States says so.

Fuck that.

but of course he went to harvard, yale(he did pass with gentelman C's though) and owned a baseball team he fucking knows all of course.

 

[p_p_man]

Seems funny that the only people to post in here are anti-war, when the title clearly reads not to read if you are.

Probably because the pro-war crowd haven't much of a leg to stand on any more...

Oh, and thanks for giving me yet another reason why we're going to war to add to my list:

"OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS ARE FIGHTING FOR US TO DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT."

I've never seen that reason before...

ppman

 

[LukkyKnight]

Does this mean that there are really people who are, in fact, pro-war?

 

[La Huesera]

Then whoever originaly sent the email is a dumbass too.

There is no need to start calling names.. we should all be over the age of 18 to post here..lets act as such. Besides, IF we do have apposing views, that does not make one of us an dumbass...it just means we don't think alike. As for you being anti-war..I am sorry that I made that assumption.

 

[CarolineOh]

I was not trying to convince you of anything. You have clearly made up your mind..as I have mine...and in the big picture, neither one of our opinions means jack shit. Just thought we could have a dialog going. As for President Bush trying to sell it to 6 million others.. I really don't think he cares at this point if they buy or not. He is going to do what he feels is right..what he feels is needed. At this point, I can't say I disagree.

If you wanted a dialogue, why did you ask people who wouldn't agree with you to not read the thread?

 

[La Huesera]

I'm sorry......

Not to you, but to the person that sent you that, and to the education system that apparently DIDN'T teach them how to reason.

"Support our troops"

As I am Canadian, my support goes to the people of Canada. The Canadian support should be to the WORLD, not to the big bully below our bottom.

Again, my apologies....Too many little people piss me off.

We should all just get in line, without thinking, because the president of the United States says so.

Fuck that.

FYI, the person that sent me the email would be glad to know that she waisted thousands of dollars on her MS. As for getting in line behind the big bully..seems to me that you need to email/write whom ever it is that represents you in your govt. and tell them your feelings. Getting involved is the only way you can change things...not bitching about them on a message board.

 

[kotori]

You didn't really believe that disclaimer would work, did you?

Originally posted by La Huesera

Let's just look at this, point by point.

1) BETWEEN PRESIDENT BUSH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN ... HUSSEIN IS THE BAD GUY. Nobody ever said Hussein is good. He's a butcher. But there are a lot of them in the world. Why him, why now? 9/11? There's no link, it's the McGuffin.

2) IF YOU HAVE FAITH IN THE UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE RIGHT THING KEEP THIS IN MIND, THEY HAVE LIBYA HEADING THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IRAQ HEADING THE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE. Got a better alternative? We could drop out of the UN, it's the dream of the John Birchers since the late '40s. That'll show 'em. We can give up our seat on the Security Council to um, Bardados.

3) IF YOU USE GOOGLE SEARCH AND TYPE IN "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES," YOUR REPLY WILL BE "DID YOU MEAN FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS?" Yeah, let's vilify and demonize anyone who has the audacity to disagree. It's a successful tactic here at Lit.

4) IF YOUR ONLY ANTI-WAR SLOGAN IS "NO WAR FOR OIL," SUE YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ROBBING YOU OF THE EDUCATION YOU DESERVE. I agree with this one. Of course it's about oil. There wouldn't be a foriegn policy for the middle east if they didn't have oil. I don't mind that. I like driving my car--just for chirssake admit that's the reason. Middle eastern oil is a vital national security and economic issue. It's the goddamn smokescreen that burns my R.I.A.

5) SADDAM AND BIN LADEN WILL NOT SEEK UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL BEFORE THEY TRY TO KILL US. Bin Laden isn't a government. Hussein's already started a couple of wars. Aren't we supposed to be better than that?

6) DESPITE COMMON BELIEF, MARTIN SHEEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE PLAYS ONE ON T.V. No, he's not. Just plays the President we wish we had.

7) EVEN IF YOU ARE ANTI-WAR, YOU ARE STILL AN "INFIDEL!" AND BIN LADEN WANTS YOU DEAD, TOO. We're not going to find bin Laden in Iraq--what's your point?

8) IF YOU BELIEVE IN A "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" BUT NOT IN THE DANGER THAT HUSSEIN POSES, QUIT HANGING OUT WITH THE DELL COMPUTER DUDE. You're right, that's simplistic. It's hardly a conspiracy at all when it's so out in the open.

9) WE ARE NOT TRYING TO LIBERATE THEM. Resident Bush claims we are. But we don't do nationbuilding either. What happens the day after Saddam?

10) WHETHER YOU ARE FOR MILITARY ACTION OR AGAINST IT, OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS ARE FIGHTING FOR US TO DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT. WE ALL NEED TO SUPPORT THEM WITHOUT RESERVATION. They're certainly going to be fighting for us to keep our lifestyle, but really, I don't think you'll find anyone who's not in support of the people in the military.

 

[La Huesera]

Does this mean that there are really people who are, in fact, pro-war?

Can't say I am pro-war, but I support the President. I am sure there is a group of people out there that can't wait for all hell to break. I for one, am not one of them.

 

[La Huesera]

If you wanted a dialogue, why did you ask people who wouldn't agree with you to not read the thread?

I did not want one..I thought it was a neat email. I responed to 70/30 as such because he seemed to want to have a dialong with me. I did not want the name calling that seems to get started in these threads(as has already started). I also gave it as a warning so people that did not want to read such a thing did not have to open the thread.

 

[Nathon_88]

FYI, the person that sent me the email would be glad to know that she waisted thousands of dollars on her MS. As for getting in line behind the big bully..seems to me that you need to email/write whom ever it is that represents you in your govt. and tell them your feelings. Getting involved is the only way you can change things...not bitching about them on a message board.

1) It's wasted....no i.

2) I did not nessecarily say that they wasted money on their degree, I'm sure they have a well paying job because of it. I merely noted that the "enthusiasm" of their statements has allowed their reasoning skills a slight lapse. Always double check what you say to make sure you want to say it.

*duly notes the fact that his MP (Member of Parliment) Has been rather busy lately, what with the university students in his office asking to see him with petitions.....*

*chuckles* And as far as I know, I have made my feelings CRYSTAL clear on this matter before to my MP....Silly goomba actually came to the University to give a speech, and decided to let me ask a question.

"Sir, how can you justify voting to ratify an accord that would allow the President of the United States to simply walk in and "protect" Canada, while ignoring any possibility that the Canadian military, even in the shape of affairs it is in, could handle it?"

Stunned silence from the MP, while he tries to figure out how to keep his job next year.

 

[LukkyKnight]

Can't say I am pro-war, but I support the President. I am sure there is a group of people out there that can't wait for all hell to break. I for one, am not one of them.

So, if not pro-war, are you not then anti-war by definition?

I oppose war. I am of the age when people were drafted to go fight in Viet Nam, and the people who listened too unquestioningly to the U.S. government then made a lot of the same noises people are making now. This does not mean I want Hussein to remain in power, subjugating the citizens of Iraq and terrorizing his neighbors.

Bombing the fuck out of his people and infrastructure so we can then go in and spend even more money rebuilding it doesn't strike me as an enlightened approach to regime change, let alone a cost-effective solution. When it's time for my allies to remove a single insect's nest from my yard I hope they can do so without using a single daisy-cutter.

 

[La Huesera]

Re: Re: Don't read if you are anti-war....

In case you did not notice...I DID NOT WRITE THIS! That being said, I will respond in kind.

1) BETWEEN PRESIDENT BUSH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN ... HUSSEIN IS THE BAD GUY. Nobody ever said Hussein is good. He's a butcher. But there are a lot of them in the world. Why him, why now? 9/11? There's no link, it's the McGuffin.
Who is to say why now. Why was it not taken care of during the Clinton years...hell, why not during GWB years?

2) IF YOU HAVE FAITH IN THE UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE RIGHT THING KEEP THIS IN MIND, THEY HAVE LIBYA HEADING THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IRAQ HEADING THE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE. Got a better alternative? We could drop out of the UN, it's the dream of the John Birchers since the late '40s. That'll show 'em. We can give up our seat on the Security Council to um, Bardados.
I think that the Security Council has run its course. It is no longer able to stand behind itself, or its members. I don't think it would matter one way or another if we stayed or left.

3) IF YOU USE GOOGLE SEARCH AND TYPE IN "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES," YOUR REPLY WILL BE "DID YOU MEAN FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS?" Yeah, let's vilify and demonize anyone who has the audacity to disagree. It's a successful tactic here at Lit.
Once again.... I did not write this!

4) IF YOUR ONLY ANTI-WAR SLOGAN IS "NO WAR FOR OIL," SUE YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ROBBING YOU OF THE EDUCATION YOU DESERVE. I agree with this one. Of course it's about oil. There wouldn't be a foriegn policy for the middle east if they didn't have oil. I don't mind that. I like driving my car--just for chirssake admit that's the reason. Middle eastern oil is a vital national security and economic issue. It's the goddamn smokescreen that burns my R.I.A
On this point I agree with you..to a point. While I think some of this..maybe 20% or less..is about the oil, I also feel as though that a bigger part is about human rights and our feelings security. I believe that Iraq would sell of give weapons to anyone if it would help bring us down.

5) SADDAM AND BIN LADEN WILL NOT SEEK UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL BEFORE THEY TRY TO KILL US. Bin Laden isn't a government. Hussein's already started a couple of wars. Aren't we supposed to be better than that?
Agreed about Bin Laden...however, the point still stands. He does not care one ounce what the UN thinks...unless it would help his ass our of harm. Hussein needs to be taken out..if not now..after two wars..then when? Or should we leave him there to see what he pulls next?

6) DESPITE COMMON BELIEF, MARTIN SHEEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE PLAYS ONE ON T.V. No, he's not. Just plays the President we wish we had.
That is your opinion...it a good thing we are all allowed to voice ours.

7) EVEN IF YOU ARE ANTI-WAR, YOU ARE STILL AN "INFIDEL!" AND BIN LADEN WANTS YOU DEAD, TOO. We're not going to find bin Laden in Iraq--what's your point?
Once again, the point stands. Also, I think Dennis Miller was getting at the fact that there are/were several people who think that we should not be going after Bin Laden.
8) IF YOU BELIEVE IN A "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" BUT NOT IN THE DANGER THAT HUSSEIN POSES, QUIT HANGING OUT WITH THE DELL COMPUTER DUDE. You're right, that's simplistic. It's hardly a conspiracy at all when it's so out in the open.
I have one word for you...MEDIA. Enough said.

9) WE ARE NOT TRYING TO LIBERATE THEM. Resident Bush claims we are. But we don't do nationbuilding either. What happens the day after Saddam?
From what I have heard, they will be able to run the county with how they see fit. I have not heard, but I think that there is already a "body" ready to go...one from Iraq.

10) WHETHER YOU ARE FOR MILITARY ACTION OR AGAINST IT, OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS ARE FIGHTING FOR US TO DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT. WE ALL NEED TO SUPPORT THEM WITHOUT RESERVATION. They're certainly going to be fighting for us to keep our lifestyle, but really, I don't think you'll find anyone who's not in support of the people in the military.

While I agree with people being able to speak out against the war, I think that once it starts people should support our troops. The war and our troops are two different things. My husband was in Nam.... when he returned, he was called names and spit on because of where he had been. He also had a hard time getting a job. Employers would ask him why there was a gap of time he did not have a job. When he told them, he was told he was not needed. This happened to lots of vets. So the people in the war do get confused with the war..it happens.

 

[LukkyKnight]

Re: Re: Re: Don't read if you are anti-war....

...The war and our troops are two different things.

Indeed they are, and I support our military fervently - that is why I've no desire to see them squandered in the thousands waging a war which seems destined to harm even more Iraqis who have no quarrel with us whatsoever. That's really precisely the point, you see? If our objective is to piss off Muslims and swagger around the globe like nobody else's opinions are worth shit then we're on a fine course. If our objective is to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, the chance of Hussein unleashing weapons we fear I'm certain war is the not the most efficacious approach even though it will, undoubtedly, answer the question of where at least some of them were being stored.

 

[70/30]

Dennis Miller isn't a full-fledged Bushie, so he thought he'd be able to effectively paint the peace crowd. I do agree with AZ--I'm not altogether against ending Saddam's reign. However, I would rather Blair be leading the coalition instead of GWB-he can talk in complete sentences. I also wish GWB had the slightest shade of moderation--I have not witnessed one instance. I also wish Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Inhofe, Ari, and McCain (on this issue) had their jaws' wired.

Since I've posted probably 1500 messages about this topic, I feel it is justified to sum it up in Sen Chuck Hagel's (Neb-Repub/Vietnam War hero) words---Read or don't

http://hagel.senate.gov/Press/pressapp/speeches/report.cfm?id=190490
Feb. 20, 2003
“America's Purpose in the World” by U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel Alfred M. Landon Lecture, Kansas State University:

"I would like to thank President Wefald and the students, faculty, and alumni of Kansas State University for this invitation to speak to you today...

Allow me to begin my lecture by recalling a speech at a mid-western college at another critical time in our history. Almost 57 years ago, on March 5, 1946, at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, not far from here, Winston Churchill, with President Harry Truman at his side, gave one of the greatest speeches of our time. The speech’s power and majesty are not limited to time and place, although Churchill’s warning of a Soviet “Iron Curtain” in Europe vividly captured the Communist threat of that era. That day in Fulton Churchill also conveyed something unique and special about America’s role in the world. He said:

“...The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American democracy. For with this primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future. As you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty done, but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement. Opportunity is here now, clear and shining, for both our countries. To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will bring upon us all the long reproaches of the aftertime.”

With new eras come new challenges, and today America again stands at a pinnacle of power and again bears a heavy burden for securing a better tomorrow, for our citizens and for all the peoples of the world. At this critical juncture, the success of our actions will be determined not by the extent of our power, but by an appreciation of its limits. America must approach the world with a sense of purpose in world affairs that is anchored by our ideals, a principled realism that seeks not to re-make the world in our image, but to help make a better world.

We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that comes with great power. Our foreign policy should reflect the hope and promise of America tempered with a mature wisdom that is the mark of our national character. In this new era of possibilities and responsibilities, America will require a wider lens view of how the world sees us, so that we can better understand the world, and our role in it.

Just as Churchill pointed out in 1946, when historic opportunities for leadership are before us, they cannot be rejected, ignored, or frittered away. There would have been grave consequences for the world if America had shrunk from her responsibilities in 1946, as there will be grave consequences if America shrinks from today’s challenges. We stand today on the verge of military conflict in Iraq and a long-term engagement with the Middle East that offers as much peril as promise. We also face an urgent threat from North Korea, and the potential for nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The AIDS epidemic in Africa, Russia and Asia poses one of the most deadly and urgent threats to all humanity. And we cannot overlook our own hemisphere, where Colombia and Venezuela face continued violence and instability.

The complexities of an interconnected world give us little margin for error in dealing with these great international challenges. The first priority for America and all sovereign nations is to protect its citizens. But to do so we must build and sustain global institutions and alliances that share our interests and values. Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior under President Franklin Roosevelt, put it powerfully in a speech on May 18, 1941, when he said, in response to those who urged America to stay out of World War II, that American support for Britain was,

“the sort of enlightened selfishness that makes the wheels of history go around. It is the sort of enlightened selfishness that wins victories.

Do you know why? Because we cannot live in the world alone, without friends and without allies.”

Then as now, the serious obligations of world leadership come with a price. Bearing the burdens and costs of leadership in defeating global terrorism, countering proliferation by nations and terrorist networks, and ending poverty and hunger in the world are investments in our own security, as well as in the stability and security of the world. Security at home cannot be separated from dangers abroad.

The war against international terrorism and its sponsors is a war unlike any we have ever known. There is no battlefield, no clash of armies. It is a war fought in the shadows and recesses of the world. Terrorism breeds among the hopeless and the alienated, in societies where democracy and economic opportunity are out of reach for most people. Military power alone will not end this scourge of mankind. Victory will require extensive international cooperation in the intelligence, economic, diplomatic, law enforcement and humanitarian fields. It will require a seamless network of cooperation between America and her allies.

Terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are the enemies of all peoples- not just Americans. We must build relationships upon this common denominator of common interests. America cannot defeat terrorism alone.

America’s ability to build lasting and flexible coalitions will be the measure of our success, the only assured means of long-term security for future generations. As we consider our next steps in Iraq, we cannot lose sight of the wider lens view of what is before us, that this is about much more than Iraq. We are setting the tone for America’s role in the world for the next decade and beyond. At this critical time, our policies and our rhetoric should not create distance between America and her allies. If that is the price of waging war in Iraq, then victory, in the long run, in the war on terrorism, in the Middle East, on the Korean peninsula, and against weapons of mass destruction, will not be ours. And as Churchill reminded us, the “aftertime,” the long run, is what measures victory.

America must remain on a steady course and turn the Saddam Hussein threat into an opportunity to empower alliances and institutions committed to disarmament in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere. Today, America stands nearly alone in proclaiming the urgency of the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein. In Europe and in many corners of the globe, America is perceived as determined to use force in Iraq to the exclusion of world opinion or the interests of our allies, even those allies who share our concerns about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. America must balance its determination with patience and not be seen as in a rush to war. As David Ignatius wrote in a recent Washington Post column,

“A nation heading into war needs prudence and good judgment. America’s best generals, people such as Grant and Marshall and Eisenhower, were at once cautious and decisive. Their greatness lay in the fact that they never lost sight of the long-term interests of the United States.”

America must steer away from actions that could produce the unintended results of fracturing those very institutions that have helped keep peace since World War II. Allowing a rush to war in Iraq to create divisions in those institutions and alliances that will help sustain American security and world stability is a short-sighted and dangerous course of action.

In order for America to address the differences between ourselves and our allies, we must understand those differences. We don’t enhance our relationships and bridge differences by impugning the motives of our friends. Let us not forget, they too are democracies. They too are accountable to their people and respond to the judgment of their citizens. Isn’t that the essence of our noble purpose as democratic governments? We must listen and learn, then forge a coalition based upon our common interests.

The diplomatic challenges before us should not weaken our resolve to obtain a second UN resolution that threatens serious consequences for Iraq’s continued defiance of UN resolutions. While time may be short, the diplomatic option has not yet played out. It will take more hard work, and the military option should remain on the table. The world has additional time, and we should not short-circuit what has begun through legitimate United Nations channels. This responsible course will maximize the force of world opinion and bring it to our side.

American purpose requires more than the application of American power to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, although that will be our first priority. War, if it is necessary, should be a means, and not an end, to achieve a plan of action to encourage conflict resolution and peaceful change in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

Iraq cannot be considered in a vacuum, detached from the politics and culture of both its region and the Muslim world. Using military force to disarm Saddam Hussein will bring change to Iraq and to the region, but we cannot foresee the nature of that change. What comes after Saddam Hussein? The uncertainties of a post-Saddam, post-conflict Middle East should give us pause, encourage prudence, and force us to recognize the necessity of coalitions in seeing it through.

America will need to remain in Iraq and the Middle East to help lead this post-Saddam transition. This will require adroit diplomacy, long-term commitment and dynamic coalition building. There is no other way. Regime change in Iraq will not alone be the endgame for a region devoid of democratic institutions, economic development, and effective regional organizations. It must be seen as only the beginning of a long transitional period towards stability, development, and individual freedom for millions who have never known the hope and promise of an open and free society.

How do we meet these opportunities and challenges now before us? Allow me to suggest five priorities for US policy towards Iraq which will be critical to helping support and sustain stability and prosperity in the Middle East in the years ahead.

First, a post-Saddam transition in Iraq must focus on security, economic stability and creating the conditions for democratic change. We should put aside the mistaken delusion that democracy is just around the corner. Or that by force of arms we can remove Saddam and simultaneously place Iraq on the path to democracy by overlaying a blueprint for democracy on the region. . .a so-called “Democratic Domino Effect.” The spade work of building a free Iraq will take time. General Anthony Zinni, Special Advisor to the Secretary of State and former Commanding General, U.S. Central Command, reminded the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that, with regard to Iraq, “there will not be a spontaneous democracy so the reconstruction of the country will be a long, hard course regardless of whether a modest vision of the end state is sought or a more ambitious one is chosen.” The end of Saddam Hussein’s regime will be all to the good, but building nations and democracy in the Middle East or anywhere is complicated and difficult, and success is never assured. We can try to help create the conditions for democratic change. But we must assume that it will not come quickly or easily.

Second, the United States should place its operations in a post-Saddam Iraq under a United Nations umbrella as soon as possible. A conspicuous American occupation force in Iraq or in any Arab or Muslim country would only fuel anti-Americanism, nationalism and resentment. By working through the United Nations, America will neutralize the accusations that a war in Iraq is anti-Muslim or driven by oil or American imperialism.

Third, America should encourage the convening of a regional conference to deal with outstanding Iraqi and regional security issues. The Middle East has a lack of regional political institutions to deal with conflict prevention and resolution. The end of Saddam Hussein’s regime will not necessarily mean the end of long-standing border disputes between Iraq and its neighbors -- Turkey, Iran, and Kuwait -- disputes that predate Saddam Hussein. Stability in northern Iraq is not assured, given the potential for conflict between Turkey and Iraq’s Kurdish parties. A regional conference, arranged under United Nations auspices, would play an important role in building confidence among the states of the region so that future conflicts can be prevented.

Fourth, America must act immediately to re-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. There will be no lasting peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors without America taking the lead to broker a settlement. As President George H.W. Bush did after the first Gulf War, any military action in Iraq should be accompanied by a renewed American initiative to help settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The road to peace in the Middle East does not end in Baghdad. Long-term stability in the Middle East depends on progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. There is no other way. We must work with our Quartet partners -- Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations-- as well as Israel, the Palestinians, and our Arab allies, to put the peace effort back on track. Every day that passes without active American mediation contributes to the radicalization of Palestinian and Arab politics, and the likelihood of greater terrorism visited on Israel.

Fifth, America should create partnerships with the governments and peoples of the Arab world to take the necessary steps to help them open up their political systems and economies, such as the Middle East Partnership Initiative proposed by President Bush to encourage democratic, educational, and economic reforms. Senator Joseph Lieberman and I will soon introduce legislation to promote private sector development and educational reform in the Middle East. For too long the governments of this region have deferred or opposed governmental and societal reform.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, paraphrasing Bismark, once said that, “Modern politics too often produces an orgy of self-righteousness amidst a cacophony of sounds.” If we do not complement our disarmament efforts in Iraq with a program of peaceful change in the Middle East, our policies may encourage the perception of a hard-edged American security doctrine that offers little more than self-righteous ideology. That would result in many in the Arab and Muslim worlds seeing their interests as being compromised to American power. Instead of contributing to stabilization and democratization in the Middle East, just the opposite could occur. A war in Iraq could intensify the radicalization of the region’s politics.

America’s purpose in the world requires a commitment to a kind of principled realism that promotes our values, strengthens international institutions, builds coalitions, and recognizes what is possible. The opportunities for helping create a better world are as real today as any time in our history, just as they were when Churchill spoke at Westminster College 57 years ago.

Opportunities for moments of reflection during times of great decisions are fleeting, but they are crucial, in order to place the events of today in an important perspective. Churchill, Truman, Marshall and other world leaders understood the magnitude of challenges the world would face in the second half of the 20th century. We face comparable challenges today, and we can learn from history.

It was America’s investment in international institutions such as the United Nations, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, NATO, and other institutions which helped maintain world stability and prevent world wars. These and other multi-national institutions have given structure and force to global consensus and commitment to face the challenges of our time. America has helped build and reinforce these institutions with a judicious use of its power. All nations and institutions are imperfect, but the world today is more hopeful and more just because America and our friends took this responsible and far-sighted course of coalitions of common interest and multi-lateral institutions.

What distinguishes America is not our power, for the world has known great power. It is America’s purpose and our commitment to making a better life for all people. That is the America the world needs to see. A wise, thoughtful and steady nation, worthy of its power, generous of spirit, and humble in its purpose.