Well Put, Sir. So What Now?

Just before the elections, my PED teacher handed out a short opinion on the increasing violence in Iraq to his Current Events class. Knowing I was interested, he gave me the same and followed it up with this email he had sent to someone asking his opinion. I thought it was very well phrased and so I like to make it available for others to read. I plan to get the aforementioned opinion and edit this to put in it here, also. The email goes as follows:

Interesting viewpoint. Good points, but also sounds like a bitter conservative upset that their viewpoints are not appreciated by a majority of people. Again, is it necessary to fight a war in Iraq to fight a war against terror? There are some very interesting points but an equal amount of questions about our choice of foes. Why didn't we keep our strength of force in Afghanistan? This country wants us there. Their country was hijacked by a true terrorist regime that was imported into their country. We liberated them and had a great opportunity for a base of operations to attack terrorist groups. Now we don't have the forces to protect Afghan people, nor ourselves. The Taliban is returning in force and we are unable to effectively convince the Afghan people to remain loyal to us. They feel we are full of empty promises.
We supported both Iran and Iraq during their 2-decade war against each other. We turned out heads when Iran cried foul because Saddam used chemical weapons on them. Several thousand were killed from his use of chemical weapons. We said there was no conclusive proof so we couldn't condemn him. Then we turnaround and make a preemptive strike against his country on allegations of weapons of mass destruction. We supported him when he was killing his own, but when he waged his war of rhetoric against our power brokers, we attacked. Also, who is making these military decisions. It doesn't appear they consulted too many historians on the Crusades. The lesson from the Crusades was that it is much easier to initially take Islamic land than to keep it under Christian control.
I guess the essential question still remains: Should we be fighting in Iraq?
The question is not whether the terrorists are good or bad. BAD. Or, should we be actively fighting terrorism. YES. Should we support our men and women in out military? YES. Can we still be patriots and question decisions that our elected representatives make? YES. Are people cowards just because they disagree with the War in Iraq? NO. What country were the terrorists from 9/11 from? SAUDI ARABIA. What country did the Taliban enter Afghanistan from? PAKISTAN. What country allows the most jihaddists through their border into Iraq? SYRIA. What two countries are providing the most financial aid to all of the Islamic terrorist groups? SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN. In what country was the American embassy bombed and many Marines killed and to this day Marines do not have a force in this country? LEBANON. What countries are supporting the armed, hostile takeover in Lebanon? PAKISTAN and IRAN. The leader of what country and has stated many times that Israel needs wiped off the face of the earth? IRAN. Again, the question is- Why are we fighting in Iraq?
What country was Timothy McVey from, who, in Oklahoma City, orchestrated the 2nd largest terrorist attack in America? And he claimed to be a true patriot.


Again, these were the words of my PED instructor, but I'm proud to display them here.
In light of the recent elections and the events that followed, I'm excited to see how things will play out in the near future. Democrats have swept control of the House and the Senate and promised much in the way of change. Change for the better or change for the worse is open to interpretation. They have stated plans to take action within the first 100 hours to raise the national minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, cut prescription drug costs, lower interest rates for college loans (something my father's very supportive of ;) ) and more. As for whether or not events will change too terribly much in Iraq is left to see. Any change that does happen should not and hopefully will not (and most likely cannot) happen to suddenly or dramatically. Aware of the seemingly racist character of the following statement, it is based in fact so I'll say it anyway: Rarely does any good come from sudden dramatic changes in the Middle-East. Any changing of tactics should be done after careful thought.

At home here in Ohio, the minimum wage has been raised to $6.85 and smoking has been banned by law in all public places, including restaurants, bars, and such. A much-needed school levy passed, and my congradulations go out to Lancaster for that.

But now this entry is becoming more of my ramblings and less of an objective observation. So I quit.