conflicted

is it possible to prevent violence with violence?

in a perfect world, there would be no need for violence. does an imperfect world necessitate violence?

if this movement against iraq is really the right thing to do, why isn’t the rest of the world behind us? the fact that the UK and spain are the chief allies here does indeed contribute to the feeling of imperialism…

if it’s not the right thing to do, then why do 2/3 of americans support bush?

how absurd is it to use the american public at large as a moral compas?

if the US does not take action, would somebody else?

is there even a need to take action?

exactly how much of this is related to the man George W Bush?

I actually don’t know. I’ve been reading a bit more lately, but I still feel like there’s no way I could ever posses enough information to make what I would consider to be a solid and defenseable decision on the matter. As I talk to both proponents and opponents, I understand and relate to most of the arguments… I have gone back and forth enough times that I’ve stopped trying to have an opinion about it, which is kinda pathetic considering that this is fairly important stuff.

It’s also hard for me to seperate my feelings for Bush from the actual issues at hand, in part because I can’t shake (or positively confirm) the idea that he is part of the problem.

blar.

I guess the one thing I like about the current homeland status is the textual descriptor…

About dre

I like all kinds of food.
This entry was posted in lj. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to conflicted

  1. zip4096 says:

    Very good questions, dre…

    I just know I think Bush is a moron, heh.

Leave a Reply