More About Patriotism & Principles
“I think that by far the most important bill in our whole code is
that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure
foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and
happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public.”
Theodore Roosevelt
Effective democratic government is critically dependent upon the
informed input of those being governed. But in today’s hectic world
we too often rely on brief sound bytes to get our information. One
way to encourage thoughtful consideration about important issues is
to combine information or opinions about those issues with business
advertising.
Leave behind beliefs, which hinder democracy, such as:
- Religion and politics are unfit for discussion at the dinner table.
- Most national policy is too complicated for individuals and must be left to government’s experts.
- Criticism of governmental policy is unpatriotic.
- Viewpoints differing from our own deserve to be censored.
Encourage thoughtful consideration about important issues, civilized debate, and “the diffusion of knowledge among the people” which is so essential to democracy.
- Embrace the opportunity to talk to those with whom we disagree, learn why we have differences and see how much we have in common.
- Discover to what degree an honest, open, widespread, and robust dialogue can contribute to solving the problems we face.
- Promote honest and open business and government.
These are our goals in sponsoring Patriotism & Principles.
Roger Beck,
President
Beck Equipment, Inc.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
servile and unpatriotic, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
Theodore Roosevelt
President Bush based his case for invading Iraq on the assertion
that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Iraq
was linked to the 9/11 attacks.
- Most intelligence agencies believed Iraq possessed WMD because,
before 1998, when UN inspectors left, Iraq's records showed that
they had them and there were no records showing that they had been
destroyed. This was evidence for grave concern, but NOT proof that
WMD were there in 2002.
- In late 2002 and early 2003 the US was preparing to invade and UN
inspectors were searching Iraq for WMD. No WMD were found, nor were
weapons which might launch an attack on the US. The UN asked for
more time. President Bush ignored these findings and their request,
attempted to discredit the inspectors, and we invaded Iraq in mid
March 2003.
- There has been no credible evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11
attacks.
- In late 2004, after an intense search, President Bush said that no
WMD had been found in Iraq and that there was no evidence that Iraq
was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
The President either drew conclusions which the intelligence did not
warrant or deliberately misled us about going to war to rid Iraq of
WMD. It seems unclear why he believed Iraq was involved in 9/11, if
in fact he did actually believe it.
The use of WMD is unarguably far, far worse than possessing them.
Invading may have caused Saddam to use WMD if he had had them. In
this case, one has to ask, how many US troops and more or less
innocent Iraqis would have been killed and injured? Maybe in the
tens or hundreds of thousands.
So, it seems that President Bush chose to trade a controlled search
for possible WMD wherein he could have insisted on many more
inspectors for the chaos of war wherein, if ready to use WMD
existed, they would likely have been used, possibly resulting in a
massive loss of life. This seems like an extremely unwise decision.
Now, over a thousand Americans have died there, many thousands have
been wounded, and many thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed
and wounded. Iraq has become a haven for terrorists, more people
hate us worldwide, making more terrorism likely, and our credibility
has been greatly diminished. Whether terrorism, war, murder,
kidnapping and corruption will continue, possibly for decades, or
peace and democracy will come to Iraq is now very much in question.
If this reasoning is flawed, I would be grateful if someone would
point out the flaws to me. If not, let’s subject every action of our
government to the critical analysis of the people so essential to a
strong democracy and a safer world.
Some Things a Wise President Could Have Done
- Compel Iraq to allow UN weapons inspections with a wide coalition of
troops if necessary.
- Keep these troops at ready, train and have at ready many more to
preferably monitor or take over if necessary, policing and all civil
functions in the event of war. Probably would require about 500,000
troops.
- Carry out intensive WMD inspections monitoring borders and ports as
much as possible.
- When no WMD were found, pressure Iraq to allow UN human rights
inspections keeping many troops at ready.
- Expose, clean up, and punish those responsible for UN Oil for Food
program corruption.
- Offer incentives for human rights improvement, pressuring toward a
solution perhaps similar to Quadafy in Libya. (This was underway
long before 9/11.)
- Ask advise from world leaders who were instrumental in peaceful
transition of repressive governments. Nelson Mandela, F. W. de Clerk
(S. Africa), Mikhail Gorbechev (Soviet Union) (Remember, most
predicted that widespread bloodshed would accompany the transition
of either of these governments, but it was avoided.)
- Explore the possibility of something like "Truth and Reconciliation"
as in S. Africa for Iraq.
|