eldar1011

All the recent discussions in this forum have prompted me to investigate my motives for being against this war.

It's not that I've been completely convinced and now align myself with the hawks. Instead, I dislike having an entrenched position without making an attempt to understand the opposition.

I am not opposed to this war because I support Saddam. The man is a ruthless despot and the Iraqis have suffered horribly under him. Although, I can't say, with any confidence, that the people of Iraq would be better off without him. After all, it depends on what follows. An new Iraqi government more akin to the Taliban would not necessarily be better for anyone.

I can support this war only so far as to remove Saddam from power. Yes, I know that I am responding to the emotional appeal of relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people. But, on the principle of freeing an oppressed people, I feel that I have to support this war.

However, the New American Century chills me to the bone. I can not and will not support global domination by America. The US dominates the world in so many ways already. But, this does not mean the US should use that power to advance the agenda of a few political ideologues. The neo-conservative movement is abhorrent to me. Their dream of the world is my nightmare. Both internationally and domestically, I find myself unable to agree with any of their policies.

Here's where I began to question if my stance against this war was driven mostly by my disdain with the neo-conservative movement. Would I feel differently if Gore were at the helm? Would I see this war as a humanitarian effort, as some compassionate conservative are claiming?

As an American, I feel the need to rise above political in-fighting and base my opinions on American ideals. (Here's where I might get a little sappy, cue "America the Beautiful" please.) My history textbooks didn't focus so much on the political parties, but on American ideals. As children, we were told consistently that America was a shining beacon of democracy. That our rights and freedoms made us unique in this world. That the *idea* of America was greater than our politics.

As an adult, I know that this is not true. There are plenty of other nations with the same rights and freedoms. And the American ideals are rooted in history far older than 1776. However, I still carry the *idea* of America very close to my heart.

With this perspective, I came to the conclusion that this war is not consistent with American ideals. This war is simply the outcome of American politics.

Even under the auspices of a Democratic administration, I feel that Pax Americana would be wrong. The world is a larger place that just the US. The other nations of this world should be partners and not subjects.

Multilateralism isn't misguided or folly. It isn't anti-American. In fact, it is very American (though, not soley so). After all, what is the nature of a democratic republic if it is not multilateral.

Despite current appearances and the ignorance of many of my fellow Americans, this country is not ruled by the majority. One party, one belief, one culture and one people do not dictate terms in America. Our nation is a coalition of the willing. A coalition of those willing to work with another, to compromise, in order to buid a better nation for all of our people.

How can we not adhere to these same ideals in the arena of global politics? How can we claim that we are promoting democracy by dismissing the will of the greater global community?

This is my conclusion, both in terms of principle and politics, I cannot support this war. Though I beileve that rulers like Saddam should be overthrown, I cannot support the unilateralist actions of my country for the sake of my humanitarian beliefs. Such short-term gains would be overwhelmed by the largely negative long-term consequences of this war.