What's the difference?
March 24, 2003 ~ 9:08 a.m.
To those of you not only against this war, but calling for Bush�s head, let me ask you a question�how did you feel about marching into Haiti to deal with Aristide? What about the wars in the former Yugoslavia, the first as it split up and the second to oust Slobodan Milosevic? What about the ill-fated excursion into Somalia to deal with the warlords there?
You see, I lived through all of these wars; Clinton was in power and while, granted, there were the small peace protests, they were by no means the majority. A few Clintonites did mutter under their breaths, �this is not what I voted for,� but did they turn the streets upside down in protest? With this war, you are safer on the streets of Baghdad than you are in San Francisco.
The ironic thing is that, in 1993, I expressed with other college students in The Boston Globe that I was against the war in the then rapidly breaking up state of Yugoslavia. I was coming into my conservative own and argued that since Europe does not learn from its lessons, then we had no right to risk our lives there. But I didn�t go mental, I didn�t squawk about how much I hated Clinton and I certainly didn�t protest. As the war went on, I thought, maybe some good can come of this. And for the record, I supported the 1999 war against Milosevic.
Haiti was certainly a far from perfect conflict and the image of four American boys getting their dead and beaten bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu remains the most telling legacy of the Clinton administration. That, for me, summed up the blundering military under Clinton�a Commander-in-Chief who hated the institution he assumed control of and sought to downsize and degrade. Even then, those of us who questioned these actions kept the faith that all would go well, though common sense told us otherwise.
But now, I am convinced, due to a media pumping anti-war lies to people all across the globe and with a conservative president in office, it is easy to be anti-American. I know some liberals who thought the Afghanistan war was a must because we were liberating the people from the Taliban. But the Afghans had voted them in democratically, didn�t they? Just like the Iraqis �democratically� voted for Saddam by a figure of � oh, 100% or damn close to it? And yes, Saddam treats the women of his state so much better than the Taliban did.
Some please explain, and soon, just what the difference between Clinton�s escapades and Bush�s attempts at world stability is for me. Because I�m massively confused.
� M.E.M.
|
[Sign My Guestbook]
[View My Guestbook]
|
Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!