" I don't oppose all wars." -- Barack Obama

[MohRokTah]

Good afternoon. Let me 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 Sept. 11, 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 armchair, 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 through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm 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 U.S. 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-Qaida. 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-Qaida, 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 U.N. 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.

Barack Obama, October 2, 2002 in Federal Plaza, Chicago

I trust this man when it comes to using military force.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. So do I, MohRokTah. I just hope we don't go to war and only do so as a LAST resort.

There's still so much we can do to avert having to put boots on the ground, and we can start with shutting down the funding to ISIS.

DU member, gratuitous, wrote a nice post about how to start: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5457739

ISIS doesn't have a lot of friends in the region; I discount a lot of the fear-mongering coming from the usual quarters that ISIS is some kind of super-predator terrorist group. They're a desperate bunch of people using the most extreme methods to advance their cause. I think they're doing it for a couple of reasons: First, the aforementioned desperation. They don't have many choices. Second, they think they can count on the United States overreacting to their brutality. We've done it before, for sure. Part of their plan is to look like martyrs dying for a noble cause, pushed to the brink by the American Empire.

A united front with Europe is a very good start. ISIS is probably not walking around the deserts of Iraq with millions of dollars hanging out of their pockets. Find out where their money is, who is providing them banking services, and explain to them (whether it's the Swiss, the Saudis or whomever) that it isn't in their best interests to do business with these people. ISIS's funding would dry up overnight if its

Yes, some people will undoubtedly die at the hands of ISIS. But that's going to happen no matter what we do. We can minimize the death and destruction by proceeding as if Iraq was a crime scene instead of a war zone. Identify and apprehend the criminals. Try them in open court. Convict them. Incarcerate them for a long time. Wasting away in a prison cell isn't quite as sexy and attractive as dying young while striking a blow against the empire.

We really need to exhaust all other options before we even think of declaring war. I mean every other option.

[GeorgeGist]

2. I don't.

[MohRokTah]

3. Your loss.

[Laelth]

4. I think he has handled this issue fairly well.

More of my thoughts on this subject can be found HERE.

-Laelth

[freshwest]

5. Agreed.