War debate's questions still unanswered -- David Sarasohn

[HuckleB]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1067432205231450.xml

The O's one decent columnist does it again...

"A year ago this month, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., stood on the Senate floor and explained why she was breaking with the Democratic leadership and the state's other Democratic senator to vote against going to war with Iraq.

"We will win a war with Iraq decisively, and, God willing, we will win it quickly," Murray forecast. "But what happens after the war? That will have as big an impact on our future peace and security. Will we be obligated to rebuild Iraq? If so, how?

". . . We don't have a clear policy. We don't have a clear path to implementing that policy. We don't yet know what level of assistance we're going to get from our allies and the broader international community. . . Not having a well-defined policy or proper preparations for contingencies that may result from whatever actions we take is a dangerous situation on the eve of the war the administration says we must have."

Very well done, David. Thank you.

[Brucey]

1. Prescient statement.

Why are Americans so quick to use violence?

[ixion]

2. *sigh* it has become the 'Murikan way'

thanks to people like Ray-Gun, PNAC and the Monkey King.

Or perhaps I've giving them too much credit, but I want to believe it hasn't always been this way. We have become an extremely violent society, which doesn't say much for us as a country, or as a species. I always wax cynical, when I hear about the message we're beaming out to space: "We are peaceful"... yeah, right. :-(

[Brucey]

3. Good point.