WAR! What is it good for?

All things outside of Burning Man.
Post Reply
User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

WAR! What is it good for?

Post by Chimp » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:29 pm

Simple question. Stuart and I were discussing the breakdown of society on the Sexual Violence thread and I postulated that certain perversions and abberations within society were directly linked to the breakdown of that society and suggested nothing illustrated that breakdown better than war. Lets have your opinions burners on the big issue right now - W.A.R - most of this planet is at war right now so c'mon lets use our oh so expanded 'freethinking' minds to ponder WTF can be done about this shall we?

"As society becomes more ugly it's art shall become more abstract" - Andre Gide

Guernica - Picasso

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:32 pm

Chimp wrote:most of this planet is at war right now so c'mon lets use our oh so expanded 'freethinking' minds to ponder WTF can be done about this shall we?
My wife believes that there would be no war if women were in charge instead of men. I'm no fan of the present array of male leaders, but I counter that Oslo Accord would never have happened if Clinton, Arafat or Rabin had been PMSing.

Agree or disagree? The world would be a more peaceful place if it were ruled by women.

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:45 pm

A few names - Margaret Thatcher / Madeleine Allbright / Boudeccia / Cleopatra / Queen Elizabeth 1st - In fact the UK went to war thousands of times under female monarchs and yo' there are plenty of female suicide bombers in the middle east / In Rwanda there is a group of all women militia - much feared- That argument is just silly - women join the army Marshmellow, they kill people too pal.

I want to hear an ethical debate not more of this battle of the sexes crap - people are fucking dying all over the globe this very minute, everyone is terrified of dirty bombs, gas attacks - racial divisions are running high as is intolerance and blind patriotism.

What is your wife saying? women are so clever and much more tolerant etc. Hmmm, don't think so, Imagine Courtney Love or Lydia Lunch armed with an AK47

Thanks for opening up the discussion bro'

C'mon, really.

Taniwha
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:13 am
Location: Oakland CA

WAR! What is it good for?

Post by Taniwha » Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:42 pm

er .... Nothing?

User avatar
consumer
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:47 pm
Location: 14 feet from the cart return
Contact:

Post by consumer » Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:17 pm

Absolutely nothing?

User avatar
TheMuse
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 4:45 pm
Location: Oakland
Contact:

Post by TheMuse » Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:19 pm

Aw fuck it ---- let them eat cake!
Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip around the sun every year.

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:37 pm

Nice to see so many people giving a rat's ass.

User avatar
OregonRed
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:13 pm
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: M*A*S*H 4207
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Contact:

Post by OregonRed » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:12 pm

I think that if we had any idea as to how to stop the powers that be from killing the little people, it would have been done already. Most Americans are so apathetic these days that most of them are not aware of flagrant violations of our civil rights, which have been happening since 10/26/01. Anyone heard of The USA Patriot Act? This is scary shit, and yet we continue to be a mindless consumption driven culture, who, apparently won't wake up until it's too late.

M*A*S*H 4207 We're not doctors.

"Just be yourself. All the good personalities are taken." stolen from my amazing friend Dwayne Gerken's fb status post.

Image

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:28 pm

don't be sad about the lack of discourse in this here thread. There was a very active thread on the previous eplaya with this exact same title. The previous eplaya had at least as many threads that had nothing to do with BM as not. People might be a little gun shy about getting directly involved in a politically charged subject like this. This recently after the event, except for the expected thread drift of course, it seems like mostly people want to either praise or bitch about BM.

User avatar
Badger
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by Badger » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:32 pm

...it seems like mostly people want to either praise or bitch about BM.
Which would be nice if that's where things could stay at least until we're given the opportunity to personally block such threads. Such topis end up being not unlike hamster wheels where the same shit is rehashed, debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried, debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried,debated, buried, resurrected, argued buried.....
Desert dogs drink deep.

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:37 pm

I agree entirely with Oregon Red

I think we get what is happening in the Whitehouse reported better here, at least with more equilibrium - your press has pretty much rallyed round in fear that it might face further restrictions if it is too critical. Art Spiegelman (writer of MAUS) had to go to Germany to get his cartoons published which were about 9/11 and the aftermath - this guy won the pullitzer prize and yet felt he had to quit his job at the New Yorker after ten years because it towed the line too much. Ironic in that his parents were nazi concentration camp survivors who built a new life in America, which if you have not read it is the subject of MAUS, a truly great book.
The new cartoons were published here on the anniversary of that terrible day in a national newspaper and though subversive in content regarding Dubya they were incredibly moving about the catasrophe itself.

Note: he ran though the debris searching for his young daughter - he was one of the lucky ones.

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:50 pm

Thanks Stu

I'm not sad just a bit surprised, I kind of think of BM as an example of radical / alternative US Culture, the bastard lovechild of Leary and Ginsberg if you like and I have had a certain amount of shock and awe to come to terms with regarding how far to the right people can be, even in this open forum called eplaya.

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:59 pm

Chimp wrote:I want to hear an ethical debate not more of this battle of the sexes crap
At the risk of angering you further :-) I'd like to suggest that your post and my first response are, in fact related. Nobody (least of all Burners) think that "people dying all over the globe" is a good thing. [Well maybe a few radicals from the Resources thread but still] So the question is not whether or not war is good, but why does it still exist in self-proclaimed "civilized" societies? That's where sex may play a role -- you can't argue the effects of testosterone and in the majority of the animal kingdom the fighting is left up to the males. I'm not suggesting we kill or maim all the males, but rather was suggesting this as a starting point to get people to discuss the difference.

You don't want to go that way and apparently it's just you and me, so I'll take another tack.

India/Pakistan and Israel/PLO are, in my opinion, cut and dried. They're both clashes of both religion and land. I'm not sure what you suggest we do about that! The west bank is especially pernicious because both sides have legitimate historical interest in the land -- neither the Jews nor the Palestinians are going to accept relocation to, say, a portion of Jordan.

I don't know what the current Iraq conflict is about but it sure as hell isn't about freeing an oppressed people. If that were the case we'd be in a dozen other African nations but oh wait, they don't have oil and therefore pose no "national interest." Just like Afghanistan we've torn down the only government they had and so we are now obligated to stay and clean up the mess. [Sensitivity check: I know people on this board lost friends and relatives in the September 11th attacks and no doubt feel strongly about portions of our foreign policy. I'm making no claim whether or not it was right to go into Afghanistan, only that now that we're there we have a moral obligation to rebuild]

To get back to your original question, chimp, I don't have answers to specific conflicts and I think if people did, perhaps more would have been done already. A broader approach, however, might be to strictly enforce international combat laws (Vienna convention) so that perhaps we can push the world back to those times when combat was restricted to combatants, and even then under "gentlemanly" rules.

User avatar
Badger
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by Badger » Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:07 pm

I'm not sad just a bit surprised, I kind of think of BM as an example of radical / alternative US Culture, the bastard lovechild of Leary and Ginsberg if you like and I have had a certain amount of shock and awe to come to terms with regarding how far to the right people can be, even in this open forum called eplaya.
I find myself not surprised a bit at the amount of presumptuousness on the part of some people on both sides of the fence who'd deign to claim the folks here as somehow belonging in one camp or another. It's pretty myopic and more than a bit patronizing - wouldn't you agree?
Desert dogs drink deep.

User avatar
OregonRed
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:13 pm
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: M*A*S*H 4207
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Contact:

Post by OregonRed » Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:25 pm

Chimp wrote:I agree entirely with Oregon Red

I think we get what is happening in the Whitehouse reported better here, at least with more equilibrium - your press has pretty much rallyed round in fear that it might face further restrictions if it is too critical. Art Spiegelman (writer of MAUS) had to go to Germany to get his cartoons published which were about 9/11 and the aftermath - this guy won the pullitzer prize and yet felt he had to quit his job at the New Yorker after ten years because it towed the line too much. Ironic in that his parents were nazi concentration camp survivors who built a new life in America, which if you have not read it is the subject of MAUS, a truly great book.
The new cartoons were published here on the anniversary of that terrible day in a national newspaper and though subversive in content regarding Dubya they were incredibly moving about the catasrophe itself.

Note: he ran though the debris searching for his young daughter - he was one of the lucky ones.


I recently did research into the USAPA and the new one (The Defense Security Enhancement Act) and was truly amazed at how much information I pulled offline from overseas. Like you said the American press is so afraid of further restrictions, that they are not reporting the facts.

If they were I wonder if people would pay attention, though. When I presented my speech in class, siting the horrors that have affected Jose Pedilla, and the horrors that would be if the Defense Security Enhancement Act were to come to pass. The response I recieved was completely underwhelming. Several people told me that what was happening was awful, but that it would never affect them.

The response made me realize that, even given the proper information, people still refer to bury thier heads in the sand.

Pastor Neimoller said, " They came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew, so I did not object. They came for the Roman Catholics, and I was not a Roman Catholic, so I did not object. They came for the Trade Unionists, and I was not a Trade Unionist, so I did not object. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to object."

or something to that effect.
M*A*S*H 4207 We're not doctors.

"Just be yourself. All the good personalities are taken." stolen from my amazing friend Dwayne Gerken's fb status post.

Image

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:27 pm

Taking the Israeli / Palestinian conflict first, well as far as I can see there is one thing there that has made sure the middle east has become a bloodbath- Ariel Motherfucking Sharon - if no one finds this dull I would like to post here excerpts from two articles from Feb 2001, when he became Israel's new premier -

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday February 7, 2001
The Guardian

Last night Israel, by a massive landslide, turned to a man who has spent two decades as an international byword for extremism - a global hate-figure - and elevated him to the country's top job. Ariel Sharon, who once seemed destined only for exile into disgrace, is now the prime minister of Israel. For anyone who wishes peace for that nation and its neighbours, today is among the darkest of days.

Sharon's been around so long - a fighter in the pre-state, Jewish resistance against the British in the 40s, a key player in every one of Israel's five wars - that there is barely a need to recite the roll call of shame that constitutes his CV. Israelis know of the brutal reprisal raids he led against Palestinian infiltrators in the 50s, just as they recall his blood-soaked invasion of Lebanon three decades later. They know an internal Israeli inquiry held him "indirectly responsible" for massacres at Sabra and Chatila of more than 2,000 Palestinian refugees, slaughtered by Israeli-backed Lebanese Christian militiamen. They know, too, that that same inquiry declared Sharon unfit to serve as defence minister (let alone the job he holds this morning). And they know that he has opposed every move Israel has ever made toward peace - from the 70s Camp David accords with Egypt, right through to the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians of the 90s.

They have seen the company he keeps. Men like Avigdor Lieberman, whose game plan for the Middle East includes setting Beirut on fire, launching missiles at Tehran, destroying the Aswan dam and recapturing villages already handed back to the Palestinians. They know that Lieberman is likely to be part of Sharon's coalition, a government which threatens to be the most rightwing in Israel's history.

They know the likely consequences of a Sharon administration. Ostracism beckons, as the world community turns a cold shoulder toward a nation led by a thug whose own law courts (in a libel case against the Ha'aretz newspaper) have branded him a liar. Foreign investment, which depends on stability, will evaporate further; Israel's economy will struggle. The country's link with the Jewish diaspora will weaken, too: Jews in the United States, Britain and elsewhere may want less and less to do with an Israel that could choose Sharon as its leader.

Above all, they know the most immediate result of their actions yesterday. For the election of a leader who does not be lieve in peace takes Israel one step closer to the alternative: war. Israelis understand that. Asked which candidate was more likely to plunge Israel into an all-out confrontation with its neighbours, a wide majority plumped for Sharon.

And yet, despite all that, there he stands this morning: Ariel, King of Israel. Why have Israelis done it? Why have they taken a step towards what seems, from the outside, national suicide?


I hope none minds me doing this by the way, I am just using existing reports to remind us of the butcher at the heart of Jewish goverment and hopefully stoke the fires of debate:

Staff and agencies
Wednesday February 7, 2001

World leaders today reacted with a mixture of caution and outrage to the election of hawkish Israeli rightwinger Ariel Sharon as prime minister.
The warmest welcome came from the US president, George Bush , who immediately offered congratulations and a commitment to keeping US-Israeli relations "rock solid".

"The president told prime minister-elect Sharon he looked forward to working with him, especially with regard to advancing peace and stability in the region," said the statement, released by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Speaking at a victory rally in Jerusalem yesterday, Mr Sharon said Mr Bush had "told me about the close cooperation they wanted to have with the government I will be heading".

"We shall act to deepen our special relations with our great friend and ally, the United States," Mr Sharon said. "And we shall strengthen the ties between Israel and the nations of the world."

Addressing his tearful supporters, the ousted prime minister, Ehud Barak said that he may have been "ahead of his time" in pushing Israelis and Palestinians toward a final peace accord before they were ready. "Perhaps the public is not ready to accept the painful truth we have revealed to it," he said. "On the other side, the Palestinian side is not yet sufficiently mature to take decisions and confront their painful reality. Violence has become the refuge for desperate people."

The Palestinian leader , Yasser Arafat , was non-committal in his response to Mr Sharon's victory. "We respect the Israeli people's choice and we hope the peace process will continue," Nabil Abourdeneh, a top aide to Mr Arafat, quoted him as saying.

However, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat warned that Sharon's hardline views were a "recipe for war", and the Palestinian information minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, called Sharon's election "the most foolish event in Israel's history".

Syrian media echoed the feelings of many in the Arab world by immediately condemning both the Israeli electorate and Mr Sharon.

"The victory of the bloody terrorist and war criminal Sharon as head of the Israeli government is a clear message by the Zionist entity to Arabs amounting to an official declaration of war," al-Baath, organ of the ruling Baath Party, said. "By choosing Sharon the Israelis chose escalation, terrorism and aggression. They cut their final links with the peace process and drove the region into a new cycle of violence."

The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, said of the election: "We will wait and see what Sharon will do. Will it be a policy of peace or one of suppression?"


This may seem over long and so on but well, if you haven't read it before it makes for interesting reading no? Plus it is pushing 3am here and I must get some sleep soon for work tommorrow.

User avatar
OregonRed
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:13 pm
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: M*A*S*H 4207
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Contact:

Post by OregonRed » Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:31 pm

World leaders today reacted with a mixture of caution and outrage to the election of hawkish Israeli rightwinger Ariel Sharon as prime minister.
The warmest welcome came from the US president, George Bush , who immediately offered congratulations and a commitment to keeping US-Israeli relations "rock solid".


Oh dear God! Why is Dubya always on the wrong side of the issue?

He's not my fucking president.
M*A*S*H 4207 We're not doctors.

"Just be yourself. All the good personalities are taken." stolen from my amazing friend Dwayne Gerken's fb status post.

Image

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:38 pm

OregonRed wrote:
World leaders today reacted with a mixture of caution and outrage to the election of hawkish Israeli rightwinger Ariel Sharon as prime minister.
The warmest welcome came from the US president, George Bush , who immediately offered congratulations and a commitment to keeping US-Israeli relations "rock solid".


Oh dear God! Why is Dubya always on the wrong side of the issue?

He's not my fucking president.
I lose more faith in Dubya's IQ, along with the rest of the neocons, by the day. Still, it doesn't make sense to entirely isolate someone like Sharon, no telling what Arik might do then.
I am my own sock puppet.

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:49 pm

Chimp wrote:I have had a certain amount of shock and awe to come to terms with regarding how far to the right people can be, even in this open forum called eplaya.
i got into this here eplaya thingie a little less than a year ago. Surprisingly enough, I came here to ask for advice regarding my projects for the years burn. Well, I got caught up in the other threads as you might imagine. I was surprised at the array of differing politcal opinion. While I had some hot fueds with some folk, at the end of the day it just made me smile to think about the diversity of our community called burning man. It also greatly illustrates that there is not simply right, left and center. There are myriad axes, especially among those who are a bit more thoughtful. And that, if anything, is a decent generalization for your average, if there is such a thing, burner.

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:10 pm

Chimp wrote:I have had a certain amount of shock and awe to come to terms with regarding how far to the right people can be, even in this open forum called eplaya.
Nature values heterogeneity as a source of strength, and you claim to value nature. Yet, you seem not to particularly value opposing points of view, often brushing them off with something that resembles disdain ("Don't let me rain on your parade.", etc).

I contend that those opposing points of view constitute the heterogeneity in the aggregate "burner" POV, and that they are a key strength of the event. In fact, if your POV were ever entirely to prevail, at the expense of all others, the end of the event itself would be quite near indeed.
I am my own sock puppet.

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:18 pm

Secondly, Iraq, what are the reasons for this war, again I am afraid I wish to to quote from earlier sources, its late here so forgive me if you think this is lazy, if you never saw it reported this way then, now you are getting it the way we had it reported

Martin Woollacott
Friday October 4, 2002
The Guardian

George Bush is bent on war against Iraq. All the world knows it, from Blackpool to Baghdad, and from Paris to Moscow. That is why the manoeuvring over United Nations resolutions and arms inspections has an unreal quality. It is just possible that UN-approved coercive inspections, of a kind that would so humiliate Saddam Hussein that he might fall without war, can prevent a conflict. But, aside from this thin chance, international diplomacy now is less about preventing war than about preventing an open break between America and Europe and Russia.

It is also about what other powers will be able to say about the war after it is over, and what influence they will have on postwar American policy. That they tried to prevent it, if it proves a disaster, that they were supportive, if it proves a success, that they kept it within the bounds of international law, or that America and Europe can still act together, whichever way it goes.

In other words, we are not discussing what we seem to be discussing but something else. This may not be either honest or rational, but reaction partakes of the quality of action, and going to war against Iraq in the way that the US plans to do is not a rational project. Let us add at once that few enterprises of this kind have been rational. Was the Vietnam war rational? Was the Falklands war rational? Is Chechnya rational? Saying an Iraq war is not rational does not mean that reasoning has not gone into the decisions which led to the policy. "Reasoning" and "rational" are not the same.

An Iraq war looms because a group of American conservatives, now very influential inside and outside this administration, came to the conclusion years ago that Saddam had challenged the US and got away with it, and that his victory could not be allowed to stand.

Not allowed to stand because he might once again disturb a region of political and economic importance to the US, and because he might threaten Israel, a cause as dear to the hearts of most of this group as the security of America itself, or understood as indistinguishable from it.

Not allowed to stand, also, just to show how feeble the previous Democratic administration had been. Not allowed to stand, finally, because the US could not be seen to be thwarted. It set the wrong precedent. Let the precedent, rather, go the other way and show that a tyrant who defied America would regret that choice. Others would take note. It may be that an Iraq war will be above all a war of example.



personally I buy this definition of why it happened pretty much, however it is now all turning very sour...this is long but worth it


Hugo Young in Vermont
Tuesday August 26, 2003
The Guardian

There have been a good few wars in our time, but none like Iraq War Two. Most, in the finish, have been quite clean-cut. Even Bosnia ended. They've all, naturally, been messy. The Falklands, simplest of all, had its perilous moments. But few have had enduring, possibly lethal, political consequences for the main good-guy combatants, which is to say the US and the UK.
The battles finish (two months or so has often been the span), the warriors return to base and the politics are mostly over. But Iraq is quite different. The formal war is over, but the afterburn sears into the body politic of both aggressor powers. The politics are nowhere near over. There has been no catharsis of moral or strategic rectitude. Nothing has been simplified by the so-called victory. In this respect, the situation in Iraq, and probably the region, is as bad as those who opposed war foresaw. The leaders, of course, deny that. But their problems are getting deeper. Four months after President Bush declared the war was over, they face electorates that worry away, as never before, at both the causes and the consequences of an event that should, by normal reckoning, already be docketed as an historic victory. After all, we won, didn't we?

In Britain, there's a forum where this national angst can be played out. The Hutton inquiry into David Kelly's death was not intended to be that theatre, and the judge's verdict may well take refuge behind his narrow terms of reference. But whatever the judge says, the hearing itself exposes some of the big questions that victory hasn't erased. Were we given a false account of the threat Saddam posed? Was speculation souped up into so-called evidence? And so on.

Nor are deeper issues being put to sleep. Wasn't Blair hooked on the Bush analysis - the need for regime change in Baghdad - earlier than he ever admitted? Didn't he trap himself into going Bush's way, in fealty to the Anglo-American relationship? Where are all those weapons of mass destruction, whose discovery was supposed to justify the mess of terrorism and post-war coalition incompetence we see on our screens every night?

Hutton, along with the suicide bombers, keeps all this at the front of the British mind. It matters more than the row between the government and the BBC. Hutton's micro-questions are explored against a background of macro-calamity. From questions of trust, Blair moves on to face challenges to his elementary competence. Not only did he not deliver an honest version of the threat, he completely misjudged how long, and with what accompanying disasters, the real conflict would last. That's how Brits will soon be feeling, unless things change. Leaders have been kicked out for much lesser crimes.

Here in the US, the position is ostensibly different. There is no Hutton, nor any other single focal point where the issues can be joined. The media are too dispersed, and still mostly driven by the need to prove their own patriotism. Only events of massive fascination - the blackout, the Clinton impeachment - easily force their way into a national, all-American conversation. The war has yet to do that.

Besides, the Iraq war continues to be blessed in many minds by 9/11. Bush plays on this unscrupulously. Though there is no evidence to show Saddam's fingers near that atrocity, half the electorate believes in the connection. This supplies a bedrock of backing for the notion that the war is about the security of the homeland. It means that Americans are staying behind Bush's crusade for longer than was prophesied when the national distaste for a single body bag looked like a reason why they would not last the course. Over Iraq, the US has become a more stoical citizenry. For the sole hyperpower, this could be called a commendable necessity.

But questions are being asked, and because the US is the lead player they're capable of resounding more fiercely here than in Britain. Iraq has become a vast undertaking, which everyone claimed could not develop into another Vietnam but is beginning to arouse echoes of that existential American nightmare. A recent Washington Post investigation revealed more about the twisting of pre-war propaganda than Hutton is likely to expose. With heavy guns on Capitol Hill asking why post-war planning was so woefully deficient, Bush can't rely forever on single-syllable promises about terrorism not triumphing. Slowly, slowly, Americans confront the evidence that they are creating not a democracy but a terrorist state where there was none before.

This is the mood of doubt into which some pertinent literature is being cast. The timing is right. Imperial America, by John Newhouse (coming next month from Knopf) is important enough to make waves. As well as chronicling the opportunities scandalously cast aside (by Blair as well as Bush) in the run-up to Iraq, Newhouse dissects the perils to come if the Pentagon psyche that allowed Iraq to happen applies itself to Iran and North Korea. If Bush's triumphant prophecies about the war being over continue to be disproved on the ground to such bloody effect as in the past two weeks, political traction against the man and his neo-con adventures can only strengthen.

It's hard to imagine the aftermath of this unfinished conflict displacing Tony Blair. Hutton's forensic inquiry is unlikely to come to a verdict that shatters his credibility. His reputation is already damaged. We will look with more wariness on his outrageous insistence that his moral vision of the world coincides with the British national interest. But, if only because of the arrangement of British politics, with its me-too Tory warriors and an opposition leader of pitiful irrelevance, Blair's success in an election he's determined to fight looks assured.

Bush is another matter. Despite the macho confidence, he looks vulnerable. He has no answer to what's happening in Iraq, and after another year, the American people may be asking what this is all about. That depends on a few variables, chief among them the presence of a Democrat who doesn't flinch from asking the question himself. General Wesley Clark, anti-war and once Nato's leader in the Balkans, could soon be turning things upside down. Much will turn on the economy, where Bush has seen more jobs disappear than any president since Herbert Hoover, but which now shows signs of perking up.

The big thing, though, is this: Iraq is a war Americans bought into on grounds that turn out to be false. So far there are no WMD, and the Middle East gets rougher not smoother. Terrorism multiplies. The prophets of doom are, unfortunately, looking correct. After another year, the agent of world triumph, dressing in and out of his fake bomber jacket, could look ready for the electors' revenge.


They put it all so much better than me
anyway, goodnight.

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:23 pm

Cas

Get over it, your continued animosity and nit picking is excruciatingly boring - no doubt I will have more of it to read when I wake up tommorrow

happy happy, joy, joy...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

User avatar
TestesInSac
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Post by TestesInSac » Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:31 pm

Chimp wrote:Cas

Get over it, your continued animosity and nit picking is excruciatingly boring - no doubt I will have more of it to read when I wake up tommorrow

happy happy, joy, joy...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ah, you should read closer. Really. I mean, you want the moral high ground, yes? How can you hold it if you out-of-hand dismiss a point of view because it's too much trouble to understand? Isn't that what you accuse the neocons of?

Or is it not really about understanding opposing points of view?
I am my own sock puppet.

User avatar
nymphgonebad
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 4:05 am
Location: little forest
Contact:

Post by nymphgonebad » Thu Sep 18, 2003 8:16 pm

for anyone who wants to try and wrap your feeble mind around this and others pressing issues go check out:

www.disinformation.com

in addition to literature, they have kick ass t-shirts like " the cia traffics drugs" and "you are being lied to".

chimp, don't feel the need to defend the format. looks just like the nation.

The Key Man
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:34 am
Location: Southern California

Post by The Key Man » Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:22 pm

"It's pretty myopic and more than a bit patronizing - wouldn't you agree?"

Ahem...I would most certainlyagree, dear chap!

Erm...what was it you said exactly? Sorry it's late and I couldn't follow...

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Fri Sep 19, 2003 2:12 am

It may be proving to be a 'naive' assumption on my part that people on the whole who actively engage once a year in the creation of a place designed to facilitate acts of so-called 'radical self expression' might hold radical and indeed libertarian views (in which case it would be fair to surmise that on the whole they may be the kind of people to disagree with staunch conservatism / republicanism).

Okay granted, but I fail to see how it is 'patronizing'. Do you see it as patronizing simply because I am not from the States? Is that not in itself a little myopic?

User avatar
consumer
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:47 pm
Location: 14 feet from the cart return
Contact:

Post by consumer » Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:23 am

I find it almost unreal to see "Chimp" throw an e-fit on the board simply because not everyone, in the majority here that is, wants to engage in a political discourse of what he calls "w.a.r.".

Honestly, I'd love to talk all day about the vast subject of current warfare, but I can't spend all day on this when I'm also discussing the same subject in my local community. I know I'm not the only one that is in this position.

Looking forward to when I can offer more opinions in this thread.

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:41 am

This subject is picking up momentum on the Sexual Violence thread.

User avatar
Badger
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by Badger » Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:56 am

This subject is picking up momentum on the Sexual Violence thread.
Yes, and judging from the number of posts you've added to it recently it appears it's because you've initiated the thread drift that's causing it to jump off-topic.
Desert dogs drink deep.

User avatar
Chimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:58 am
Location: London / England
Contact:

Post by Chimp » Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:01 am

Seeing as it had broken down to the common denominators of public flogging and capital punishment (which was in fact what it has been about for ages) this is no bad thing methinks - by the way I've only posted as many posts on the subject as the other people in the discussion.

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”