Replies

Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying.

And remember Mr. Brooks, the real beneficiaries of this evolution (should it go as planned) will be the narrow business interests who will receive contracts based on the reconstruction of Iraq and the extraction of it's oil. All of this will be paid for of course by US Taxpayers, either directly or through front organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc.

”Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying. “

A vacuous comment. And typical leftist drivel and moral posturing. Given the size of the military, not one person in 100 is involved in the military. The idea no civilians can support the use of armed force is bizarre.

But to make you feel better; it’s entirely possible that American civilians will die in this war. About 3000 have perished already. If we allow it, thousands – perhaps millions - more will join them in death. The enemy has brought the battlefield here. Try, please, not to think in clichés.

”And remember Mr. Brooks, the real beneficiaries of this evolution (should it go as planned) will be the narrow business interests who will receive contracts based on the reconstruction of Iraq and the extraction of it's oil. All of this will be paid for of course by US Taxpayers, either directly or through front organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc.”

Evolution??? David Brooks was writing about YOU!

The real beneficiaries of this new war will be the men, women and children not murdered in the next terrorist attack. The real beneficiaries of this war will be the Iraqis freed from the tyranny of the megalomaniac running that blighted land. The real beneficiaries will be the citizens of the other countries in the Middle East who will have an opportunity to overthrow their own oil glutted oligarchs and mad mullahs.

All that drivel about “narrow business interests” reminds me of the tree hugger who, as millions of acres were blackened by fire, took comfort in the fact that no lumber company had made money by thinning the forest and preventing the fires.

"Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...ad infinitum."

Your comments proving, once again, the old adage: you can lead a liberal to the truth, but you can't make him drink.

Brooks was writing about you, y'know. Perhaps, a little introspection would be in order.

This time around, the question of war and peace is clearly a case of "you bet your life" -- whether you're in the military or a civilian. But you can't really see yourself dying for...well, anything, can you? Not for freedom, certainly. Nor for "peace"...

"Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying."

Actually, we will likely be doing the dying. Most of Saddam's or the Islamist's countermeasures , be they anthrax dispersals or Scud missiles or suicide bombs, will be directed against civilian targets. In the war to date, there have been more than 3,000 civilian deaths as against a handful of uniformed military casualties. This ratio is likely to continue in any forseeable scenario.

We are noncombatants in the same sense that the people of Dresden, London and Hiroshima were noncombatants.

Mr. Brooks' question remains relevant, because it amounts to this: 'will the danger to my son increase or decrease if the Peace Lobby has it's way?' You seem to argue that it will decrease if nothing is done. John Pilger says, "don't fan the flames". Noam Chomsky warns, 'they will retaliate if we fight back'. Still others have suggested that we overwhelm terrorists with love. Seriously.

I guess that nonresistance or surrender is an intellectual position which should be debated on its merits in a fair and honest way. However, it is not accurate to say that Mr. Brooks is exhorting others to risks he would not run. Anyone could have been on Flight 93. Anyone could have been in the World Trade Center towers. And anyone could be the next suicide bomb or anthrax victim. We have a right to participate in the debate over whether we should live or die. The Peace Lobby has no real right to tell everyone to shut up.