hello, friends,
i've read a bunch of blogs this morning, from those on the left and those on the right, and i have to say, there is not a lot of support for this escalation...
how's that for an understatement? whether it is coming from the most liberal of all, hilary, or from an ex-marine logged on to fox news, the response is more than a little clear.
i found myself watching the president last night and thinking a couple of things:
1. he looked terrible
2. he is standing alone, like the kid on the playground that just pooped his pants
3. he maintains a sense of arrogance and COMPLETE ignorance
4. the invocation of 9/11 along with "hint" of some action against syria or iran makes me believe that he is crazy, as betty asserted last night
a couple of weeks ago, the NYTimes printed an article observing that the bulk of the soldiers being killed in iraq at this stage in the game were young (under 25), white and from mostly rural areas. for some reason, that struck a chord with me. once again, we are sending those with few life options into a place to do someone else's dirty work. i would urge you, once again, to take a close look at the "names of the dead" listings in your local paper, or stare at the screen when jim leher shows the roll-call. it is heartbreaking and a staggering reminder that we here stateside having nothing to offer but our fervent wishes for it all to end.
write, call and challenge those who can make it stop.
gotohellifyouhatefreedom,
volansky
Thursday, January 11, 2007
now what?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Interesting what's become of us post-1960's... a guy who stands alone for what he believes in is likened to a kid who has soiled his pants. It's also worth noting that the soldiers who went to their deaths fighting Hitler, Mussolini and imperial Japan were just as young and adorable as the ones who have done so fighting Islamofascism.
If only the president did intend to attack Iran and Syria (I don't believe he actually does, sadly). Someone's going to have to do something about those terrorist-sponsoring regimes. Oh, yes, we can talk and negotiate with them. It worked so well at Munich in the 30's...
Part of me agrees with you, jon the neocon. Certain situations need to be dealt with harshly. But in the context of what you've written, your argument about a guy standing alone for what he believes doesn't hold water. The reason is simple. Hitler and Mussolini, the two guys (it is implied) that you cite as being the benchmark of problems that needed to be dealt with militarily, were themselves men who stood alone for what they believed even when the rest of the world didn't agree. So are you comparing George W. Bush to them, or to FDR and Winston Churchill?
Interesting question! I've never looked at Hitler and Mussolini as nonconformists in that way. To me, men like that need to be backed up by angry mobs. I certainly don't see them as "standing alone" at all; take away the mob, and they head for the hills.
It's not clear to me that "the rest of the world didn't agree" with Hitler. Oh, I'm sure that other countries didn't want to be invaded by him. But some of what he preached, like his anti-Semitism, were secretly echoed by a lot of other leaders (parallels with today intended).
It was Churchill I was comparing Bush to - a second- or third-string Churchill, to be sure, but in that mold. After WW2, the English quickly threw Churchill out of office, but there are times when you need someone like that.
I was also expressing a certain surprise that the liberal left, which once talked about marching to a different drummer, not being afraid to be different, etc., is appalled by Bush because he doesn't agree with the mob.
Lots of thoughts here, sort of random, jon.
A second or third string Churchill. Maybe I can go with that. So does that mean you`re comparing the current situation in the Mideast to a second or third string WW2?
Not with you there, for obvious reasons. You cannot possibly think that terrorism is as big and direct a threat to the rest of the free world as Nazi Germany. Can you? Are terrorists on a path to take over nations? As far as I can tell, that doesn`t appear to be the case. Terrorism is about fear.
So in talking about fear, if you think about it, George W. Bush is as much of a terrorist as anybody else. No, he hasn`t driven an SUV full of explosives into a building, but he has very effectively and very consistently scared the crap out of almost an entire nation of people. Is that something to admire? If you believe everything that he spoon feeds you, believe every threat that comes out on the news, then you are not as intelligent as I had given you credit for, jon.
Getting back to the first question I posed here about comparing the Middle East to WW2, I have another question for you: will an entire generation of young men, not to mention the better part of a continent, be wiped out by suicide bombers? Unlikely. Terrorism is something to worry about, but nothing like the charge of Nazi Germany through Europe.
I`m not belittling terrorism, or the lives lost in its path. What I`m belittling is the approach to dealing with it. To keep with the analogies we`re dealing with here, we`re using 1942 tactics to deal with a 2007 problem. A bazooka killing a fly.
So I`m here to offer some solutions, some alternatives.
George W. Bush is a Christian, right? He talks about God and claims to believe strongly in the teachings of Christ. And didn`t Christ talk about turning the other cheek and having compassion, even for those who claim to be enemies? If George W. Bush was going to stand alone for something he truly claims to believe in, here`s what he could have done:
He could have been the first world leader in history to absorb an attack on his home soil who DIDN`T immediately respond with military force. He could have gone into the nations suspected of harboring the attackers with medical aid, food supplies, educational assistance. He could have killed them with kindness, so to speak, used love and compassion to combat the anger that has obviously been building for many years. He could have sat them down and asked them why they are so angry, and what he could possibly do to rectify it. From there, perhaps, the grateful citizens would have willingly given up the perpetrators with far fewer lives lost, the tyrranical regimes would have tumbled naturally and far less bloodily.
Preposterous? Maybe. Ineffective? Not so sure about that. Anyway, could it be any more ineffective than the current approach?
What HAS happened?
Well, we`ve angered almost an entire continent, if you want to think of the Middle East as a continent. I think about it this way: for every Iraqi and Afghanistani civilian that has died, I assume that at least one of the dead person`s relations will get angry enough to perhaps become a terrorist. With that in mind, as the situation develops, you might just get your next WW2 after all, jon. Congratulations. Is that what you wanted? George W. Bush has effectively turned a worrisome problem that pockmarked the region into a divisive global issue. What were once isolated groups banding together to make their voice heard through violence may now have enough support in the hearts and minds of regular people throughout the Middle East to mount a more deadly invasion of American soil. George W. Bush claims to be doing what he is doing to protect America, but, in my opinion, everything he has done has simply made people angrier and angrier. The saddest, or maybe the most frightening part of all this is that he cannot see this happening.
Some of us can. I suspect even you can, jon the neocon.
More interesting questions!
You're right, the Islamofascists are not as formidable as Nazi Germany. But don't forget that 9/11 - when they came over and slaughtered thousands of Americans - happened during the stability that Bush supposedly destroyed. Some stability! Decrepit as his WMD program turned out to be, the late Saddam wanted nothing more than a nuclear weapon. His Iranian rivals are moving quickly toward developing one. Even Hitler and Musso didn't have nuclear capability.
I'm afraid I don't buy a lot of your argument, anonymous, interesting as your questions are. Bush didn't scare me. The damn Islamofascists scared me. The idea that we're "creating more terrorists" cuts no ice with this grizzled neocon brain. That's just like the idea that prisons "create more criminals." But when some visionary city leaders (in other cities, alas) decided the hell with that, these criminals belong in jail - guess what? Crime went down! And when you kill enough terrorists, terrorism will go down, too.
As Adam Smith once said, mercy toward the guilty harms the innocent.
I wonder why you never see people in Iraq and Iran worried about how angry they're going to make people on "the American street." Why no one seems to sweat it that every suicide bomber "creates" another invading American marine or Israeli settler.
They're not afraid of making us (the greatest military power on earth) angry, so perhaps we shouldn't be so afraid of angering them. You ask about what has happened - well, we haven't had an attack on American soil since 2001, something that seemed impossible back in those days.
As to your suggestion about Bush responding to the invasion with peace overtures - forget for a minute that this would have flushed the idea of justice, people paying for their acts, down the toilet. I have an idea. The next presidential election, instead of fighting like hell to defeat the Republican candidate, why don't you just call that candidate up and tell him how much you love him (or her). See what happens.
First off, jon, let`s get one thing straight. I`m not political. I don`t care about Democrat or Republican. I`m not cynical, either (as you can probably tell from my peace and love approach), but I also don`t see a shred of difference between the two parties. Taken on the global political scale, they are almost identical. Taken in the context of American politics, sadly, it seems to me that the guys from both sides are focused solely increasing their own power, influence, or, at worst, name recognition. They`re packaged products with conservative haircuts and suits. They are laundry detergent, only dirtier. The non-cynic in me believes that there are good men out there fighting the good fight in state assemblies and on the city level, but they`re hard to find. I`ll call a Republican to tell him I love him just as readily as I`d call a Democrat. It doesn`t much matter to me who wins.
Segueing, I think what most humans (re-election-hungry politicians especially) suffer from is short-sightedness. Something happens to us, bad or good it doesn`t matter, and we cannot see the big picture. We have stressful or difficult experiences, but while we`re in the thick of those situations, we often can`t see how they are going to help us, shape us, make us grow stronger. Something unpleasant happens, and we only see it as unpleasant, not as an opportunity to move forward. We`re hopeless reactionaries.
I think, jon, that perhaps you are looking toward the future with regard to what George W. Bush has been doing. Perhaps you are optimistic that his unwavering policy of military aggression will ultimately bring about peace and democracy in the Middle East, and that the ends will ultimately justify the means. While I don`t agree with his methods, and I don`t necessarily agree with your opinion, I have to say that I like your optimism.
But I don`t agree with his methods. You raise a good point that the threat of nuclear weapons definitely increases the stakes, but I`ll still hold that the way George W. Bush is trying to stop them from making the nukes is only temporarily postponing the inevitable. It is short-sighted.
Scientists are scientists, jon. Their nature is to push the limits of human capability and comprehension out of sheer curiosity. And if you have a group of scientists who are being paid/forced by a government with a lot of money, they are going to develop nukes eventually. We can kill this group or that group, we can bomb this R & D facility or that R & D facility, but sooner or later, they`re going to get the job done. And you know what? When they do, who do you think they`re going to point them at?
The people who have been bombing them. Us. Duh.
Now.
Let`s follow the peace and love approach. Let`s accept the fact that a lot of governments around the globe are going to develop weapons. Why not befriend them? Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Why not make a sincere effort to say, `Ok, look. We know you`ve got the weapons. We don`t like it, but let`s try to come to some sort of understanding here. Let`s acknowledge that we can all blow each other to smithereens, and then see if we can`t work toward somehow not blowing each other to smithereens.`
Didn`t that work during the Cold War? Didn`t America and the Soviet Union ultimately do exactly that?
The other alternative, of course, is for us to destroy our own weapons as a sign of goodwill, and encourage other nations to follow suit. Ahahahahahaha! Ok, even I`m not that unrealistic.
Don`t give me that the Islamofascists, as you call them, are hotheaded and irrational. They`re human just like us. They don`t want the planet to explode any more than we do. I feel that the people who commit terrorists acts are doing so not so much out of hate and anger as out of a simple desire to have their voice heard. Why not listen?
Your Adam Smith quote about mercy toward the guilty harming the innocent, jon, was adorable, taken in this context. Is the American government completely innocent?
Glass houses, bro. We`re all sinners. Let`s stop riding our moral high horse for like two seconds and accept the fact that we`ve been bad boys in the Middle East, have been messing around playing one side against the other for generations in order to keep gas prices low, among other things. We are guilty. A different kind of crime, for sure, and not as overt as planes in the WTC, but guilty nonetheless.
No direct questions for you today, but feel free to respond.
I know there`s a lot of stuff out there, but just for shits and giggles, read this:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13141451/the_low_post_waiter_theres_a_surge_in_my_soup
Post a Comment