|
|
| Obama's 2002 anti-war speech | | |
|  sparkster | Jan 15, 12:26pm | By way of the Lessig Blog:
Good afternoon. Let's begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars.
And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what Im opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not, we will not travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
|
|
| 
| |
| 
| | Goatboy77 | Apr 11, 11:12am | 1. What a bunch of bullshit. The war in iraq was executed through lies but it's necessity was never in doubt for those in the know. It has nothing to do with terrorism (no formal charges have ever been filed against Osama bin Laden for the events of 9/11/01, FYI) and it has nothing to do with weapons of mass destrution. It has nothing to do with tyranny or human rights. It's about one thing. Persain sweet.
Americans have told our leaders, through our actions not our voices, that the one thing we will not tollerate is an interruption to our convenience.
The way we live our lives speaks louder than our votes ever will.
Sure, the military industrial complex has made billions and so have the politicians and the contractors. War profiteering has exsisted ever since man was first inspired to slay his fellows in the name of a 'greater good'. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's fact.
My question is this:
What would you be doing right now if the war in iraq had never happened and you couldn't buy bread or milk because diesel is over $10 a gallon and the truckers are all either on strike or out of work because the freight companies are going bankrupt?
Would you be protesting? Rioting? Killing eachother for food?
Make no mistake. Our country runs on diesel. You can't even imagine a life without modern convenience. Who are you to judge the thieves and killers who are willing to tell you comforting lies while they murder and steal so you can have what you want? |
|
| | | Grouchoo | Apr 11, 11:37am | | tewats |
|
|
| | Goatboy77 | Apr 11, 11:41am | | 4 I'm sorry? Please post in english. |
|
| 
Sponsor |  kundrol | Apr 19, 8:42pm | Obama is OTL. Much glib talk, no substance. He's also either confused or just plain ignorant re: The Civil War. Hillary is just as bad, or probably worse. The chance of our actually getting an honest presidential candidate with their head screwed on right went out the door with Kucinich.
3- Goat's got a point. |
|
| | | Grouchoo | Apr 21, 6:13am | My point is: Obama v Clinton v McCain - what choice do you have?
Same as the UK - who never got to vote for Brown. |
|
|
Sponsor | | kundrol | Apr 21, 8:05am | | Right - No choice - Same choice. |
|
| Obama's 2002 anti-war speech | | |
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Anti-War Movement → Discussion