Bookmark Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Go-Jamaica Gleaner Classifieds Discover Jamaica Youth Link Jamaica
Business Directory Go Shopping inns of jamaica Local Communities

Home
Lead Stories
News
Sport
Commentary
Letters
Entertainment
The Shipping Industry
Mind &Spirit
The Star
E-Financial Gleaner
Overseas News
Communities
Search This Site
powered by FreeFind
Services
Weather
Archives
Find a Jamaican
Subscription
Interactive
Chat
Dating & Love
Free Email
Guestbook
ScreenSavers
Submit a Letter
WebCam
Weekly Poll
About Us
Advertising
Gleaner Company
Search the Web!

Control, not democracy
published: Tuesday | April 8, 2003

THE EDITOR, Sir:

THIS WAR instituted and injected by the United States could have been handled with diplomacy, despite Saddam Hussein's hard line defence. Was this war ethical? No! This war has no precedent for ethics and morality; to be ethical requires that you act with good intent. In the eyes of the world largely, the war is unnecessary, and the anti-war protesters do believe that both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair's sole purpose is control rather than democracy.

No one country should take it upon itself to act in a certain way unless it is willing to have everyone else act in the same way. A country cannot make an exception for its own action even if it is the Superpower of the world.

The choices we make relate to how we resolve our differences. When conflict moves to a stage in which feelings become increasingly hostile (as what is happening now around the world, as a result of the invasion of Iraq - anti-war protesters & pro-war protesters), our responses to it threaten our sense of peace and happiness. This in itself is bad because international relationships will suffer and economic growth will regress.

An ethical resolution could have been worked out using the UN Security Council. Despite what the polls are showing, both the United States and England are yet to convince the world of their true intentions for this war. The link between the 9/11 attacks on the US and Iraq is yet to be established. Interestingly enough, it was discovered that the 9/11 attackers were mainly nationals from Saudi Arabia. However, the United States considered the attacks to be an act of terrorism or an "invasion against Americans." It was always the tyrant who declared war or invaded another country. However, it appears that there has been a paradigm shift, where now the country being invaded is the terrorist.

Who therefore is the tyrant, the invadee or the invader? What gives a country the right to change a paradigm at will? The world is made up of many sovereign states, not just one that can decide to occupy any land mass as and when it feels.

As an American who has served in the military, I am ashamed of what my country now stands for. We have a President that does not deserve to be in power, and allowing this government to win a second term in office will be the beginning of the fall of the United States, a country that I am proud of. I urge you Mr. President and your allies bring a halt to this war now. Please, hold your pride, or it shall bring you low. You cannot hold the bible and uphold love in one hand, and hatred, aggression, discord, and selfish ambition in the other. It is contradictory to human nature.

I am etc.,

CARMICHAEL McKENZIE

cmck01@email.uophx.edu

San Jose, California

Via Go-Jamaica

More Letters


















©Copyright2003 Gleaner Company Ltd. | Disclaimer | Letters to the Editor | Suggestions

Home - Jamaica Gleaner