So I happened upon a great political website this week... the "Vote by Issue Quiz". It presents you with on-the-record opinions by candidates on several key political issues, but it does so anonymously and allows you, based purely on the issue at hand, to express agreement, disagreement, or ambivalence. When you've read all the issues and marked your feelings on them, then it "reveals" which candidates you agreed (or disagreed) with. It takes some time to get through, but I found it worthwhile.
If I could add one issue to the quiz, though, it would be to add a question like: "If you were president, and you obtained credible intelligence that Iran was very close to a breakthrough in developing nuclear (or other) weapons of mass destruction, and that they planned to deploy those weapons against U.S. interests, would you preemptively attack that country to prevent those plans?" The quiz already contains a question about whether the candidates agree with President Bush's so-called "Doctrine of Preemption," but this issue is, to me, important enough that I want to know more about where a candidate might draw that line where they believe preemption is justified.
I think the danger with pre-emption is that it could easily become (if it hasn't already) a thinly-veiled excuse for unbridled imperialism: If some nation does not kowtow to U.S. interests, we simply discover some "credible threat" coming from that country, and bomb them into submission. The interesting thing about this is, attacking another country often has the uncanny effect of (1) making people in that country not like you, and (2) stirring up retaliatory aggression. So in some twisted way, in the end, the means seem justified.
None of the leading candidates seemed to have opinions on pre-emption that seemed very "safe." This is the most important issue to me in the upcoming election: we need someone in office who will not lead us into another unfounded war of aggression. If we're really sincere about helping the downtrodden peoples of the world that can't help themselves, there are enough examples of unjust oppression in areas already being ravaged by wars. In my opinion, we don't need to go creating new ones.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
So, Lowell...here's the thing about this preemptive strike talk: when the decision to go to war was made they thought there was a threat. At that point the choice was ignore the intelligence they had received and endanger the lives of US citizens or make a preemptive strike and hope to protect as many American lives as possible. If they had chosen not to strike and we had another 9/11 situation everyone would have wanted his head on a platter for that. The man was in a 'no win' situation. In saying that I must also reiterate the fact that I'm no George W fan but that is just because he can't read or write...
George W. definetly skipped geography class one too many times
Okay, I'll grant you that the man (W) and his team were in a tough situation. And naturally, hindsight is 20/20, so although we now know that there was no credible threat to American lives, of course the administration didn't know that at the time. But in my view that only reinforces my point: clearly we had not exhausted all diplomatic options before we went in with our bombs and tanks. Nor had we even exhausted all the research and intelligence-gathering we could have done. One must assume, given the level of resources this country has managed to come up with in support of the war ($4.7 billion per month so far), that we could have figured out that they didn't have WMD... couldn't we?
What reason, then, could we have had for going in before these critical find-out tasks were completed? I can think of two possible answers to that question (fear of the political fallout from losing American lives in another attack, or oil), and neither of them seems like a good reason for starting a war and ending tens of thousands of lives.
Peace out. ;-)
Dear Schnitz,
This election year is going to be very interesting. I have to say I really hate politics because it gets me so revved up. In the best of all worlds we all want tight national security and no wars. Unfortunately that doesn't always go together. I agree with you that it would be best to know in advance what the candidates stand on these preemptive measures would be. I hate violence and killing and think it is the dumbest thing ever. I believe it should only be done to protect our homes, families, and freedom of religion as we are taught in the Book of Mormon and only as a defensive measure.
No matter who is elected by the end of their term they will be hated by most of the world no matter what they do. That is politics. Some of them lie openly about what they will do if elected and some of them don't have a clue what they will do until everything is laid out on the table, they have been advised by the "experts, etc.
Regarding the election this year..there is only one thing I know for sure at this time...If things don't go the way our president wants I do not want to see him or her shedding a few tears to get their way or gain sympathy from the other powers that be. Just like Tom Hanks said in "A Leaguer of Their Own" to the girls..."There is no crying in baseball!" I have to say to Hillary...There is no crying in public office! Yikes that was scary!!
Here I am...cracking up on yur crack down on the W- Bush Jr, mainly. I ahve to say- I agree that he was in a baad position. Would he have been re-elected if he hadn't opted for war? Me thinks not.
Great post, Great comments. Disagree with the "war of aggression" characterization, though. Looking at the record of the Husseins, we saved tens of thousands of lives and restored hope to tens of millions who had none. Very few Iraqis wish the Americans never came there. Was our interference in Kosovo a "war of aggression"? How would you characterize our non-interference in Rwanda? Passive-aggression?
The quality of the prosecution of the war, with all its mistakes and their motives, is a whole separate discussion. Yet another discussion is how the UN missed this last, best hope to restore its credibility by enforcing its own Security Council's resolutions. They are now ineffective and irrelevant to everyone except petty tyrants who need a soap box.
While the timing and reasons for starting this war are still debatable, we are in it and so long as we do not desert the Iraqi people we will have done the world much good. Discussions about how exactly to do that are important, and even fun sometimes.
Lowell....sheez, you're moving so far left you're going to fall off! I agree with Jen. At the time we acted on the information we believed we had...and don't forget we weren't alone in our beliefs. Many many other nations also believed it. Regardless, I think we did the right thing. Of course, Bush isn't out of the White House yet, but I think it is a great thing that we haven't been attacked on our soil again since 911. We may never know the terrorist plans that were thwarted but I have felt safer with Bush/Republicans in the White House. I think because they have a more realistic view of human nature. I for one don't believe there will ever be peace in the world until Christ comes. We can't even settle disputes amoung ourselves much less people whose ideals and concepts of life are so different than our own.
My first priority in a canidate/party is to KEEP AMERICA SAFE. If that means to preemptively strike...so be it. Life is not for the weak of heart. Freedom is NOT FREE.
PS So many said the Iraqi war was about oil.....well, when the heck are we going to get some???? The Iraqi's were supposed to pay us back in oil for some of the costs of this war....that sounds like a great plan to me....if we get it.
Post a Comment