posted
What light does the Lord of the Rings trilogy shed on the war with Iraq? According to Tolkein, author of the trilogy, it is not an allegory for anything happening in earthly history.
Nevertheless, Viggo Mortensen, who plays the title character in The Return of the King, has used the publicity platform provided by his role to trumpet his anti-war and anti-Bush views. Since the release of last year's Rings installment, The Two Towers, he's turned up for numerous press interviews wearing a "no more blood for oil" T-shirt and freely offered his bitter critique of U.S. foreign policy.
When outstanding actors feel compelled to place their work in a polarizing political context, they only diminish its value and its ability to connect with a diverse audience.
Amen to that! There are some actors whom I just won't pay to see any more. Viggo Mortenson has been added to my list.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and while I'm at it, I hope anyone reading this will consider how absurd the "no blood for oil" bit really is. The U.S. has now spent tens of billions of dollars on the war, not to mention the loss of hundreds of American lives. Bush has insisted all along that the financial burden not be a loan to be repaid by Iraq, which should remove all suspicion of U.S. motives. There's also been every assurance that the oil fields are the heritage of the Iraqi people, not the U.S. I haven't even heard of any strings attached concerning OPEC; presumably, a new democratic government is free to participate in the cartel.
Even in a best-case scenario where the U.S. enjoys a favored client status with Iraq, we still end up having to PAY THEM for the oil. . . which benefits . . . Iraq!
It's positively insulting to see the sacrifices being made by the U.S., Britain, and other coalition partner nations being characterized as "blood for oil." I guess I've had it with that mindless slogan and the naive people who go about spewing it.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm tempted to wear a "No money for dumb ass actors" shirt. I bet I could make a fortune selling them.
In the rarified air of adolescent intelligence, I'm sure the "No blood for oil" slogan sounds righteous and powerful. But in reality it is the opposite. It is trite, shallow and weak. It's an attempt to avoid such intractable things such as thought, reasoning and logic and go straight for emotion. I'm not shocked that artists would be more in touch with the more intuitive, emotional sides of their natures and thus would express themselves, their political beliefs, in those terms. It's part of their unique talent. But I suspect it's more than that. It's more than just the expression of unrefined emotion and the need to avoid critical thinking lest their arguments implode on themselves.
I think, at least in this case, the guy is just stupid. Perhaps ignorant is a better word. No doubt his intellect, although possibly underused, is still intact and capable of reasoning this situation out. Don't like President Bush's policies concerning Iraq? Well, fine. It's a free country. You're free even to express a stupid opinion on the matter. But if all you can seem to do is spout slogans then how do I know you've even thought about your stances, let alone understand them? How are you different from a parrot? You offer very little but other people's words.
But I think it's even more than just a matter of stupidity. It's arrogance. That's the real key to understanding such comments. What better way to show just how lost and confused the other side is than by being able to sum up the entire situation in just four words: No blood for oil. It's genius. How clever they are. They must be right. Such a simple and profound statement mirrors the simple eloquence of a short equation that explains much of the physical world: E=MC2. La dee dah to those who have to think so hard to figure out this situation. To bad they're not as smart as I am.
Of course the hypocrisy of such statements as "No blood for oil" is exquisite. Does Mr. Mortensen drive a car? Does he enjoy products made from plastic? Does he involve himself in movies that feature incredible scenes of violence? Ooops.
And yet there are simple slogans that contain a great deal of truth. "No pain, no gain." "A stitch in time saves nine." "Look before you leap." But "No blood for oil" isn't one of them. Why doesn't Mr. Mortensen just come out and be honest and say what he really means, which I think is "No blood for freedom" or "I hate George Bush"? If all we wanted was the oil we could have simply lifted the U.N. sanctions on Iraq and had the oil for market price without spending billions of dollars (or risking and losing many lives). One might disagree on the way to handle terrorism or Saddam Hussein, but how ignominious for a king to define a fight for freedom, security and justice only in terms of a petroleum product. And he does so while blatantly ignoring or excusing those who would gladly wear a shirt saying "No life for westerners." Pathetic.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Well said, Brad. It is also noteworthy that in herd-like, narcissistic fashion, Hollywood in its entirety has taken up this insipid mantel, with apparently few exceptions. And so Viggo has plenty of chums (isn't "chum" a stinky fish bait used for trolling?)to make him feel all warm and fuzzy about his mouthing off, and nobody to say, "Gee Viggo . . . " with the kind of questions you pose.
Interestingly, one of the actors in LOTR made some more intelligent comments, such as western civilization being vulnerable to political Islam. But I bet he didn't get to sit around the campfire and tell his stories about when he first started acting as a child. And so regardless of whether your a Viggo or a Michael Moore, these guys take a more critical position at the risk losing of their marketability. But there's always the choice of shutting up and not saying something stupid . . . . The chance to join the million dollar herd while posting one's arrogance behind that big Hollywood sign just can't be resisted, I guess. Bruce Willis doesn't seem to care anymore, but he's got his money. But I'm sure there are plenty well-established actors who could afford a little more reality testing than the young and greedy are willing or able to tolerate.
Go for the tee-shirt industry. I'll buy one.
On that note of clever subterfuge, did you hear the one about the football player Brian Bosworth? You might know of this Brad, since your a grieving Seahawk's fan. Back in the days of Boz, when he was the ire of many, including the Broncos fans, there was an outbreak on sales of "Hate the Boz" teeshirts, with about 50,000 sold for a home game against the Seahawks.
Sold for about 15 bucks a piece, the backside of the shirt tag read . . . .
"Boz Productions"
Mr. Bozworth, who has gone on to be a successful business man, along with his significant retirement due to an unconditional contract, made himself about 750,000 George Washingtons on that day. I don't know who won the game. I'm sure Brian didn't care.
Just a savory note to pass on to you Bradley, as you weep over that overtime loss to Bret Favre.
Methinks Viggo would make a very lousy king anywhere, least of all, real earth. Now how to watch LOTR again without thinking of what this guy stands for in real life? I wish he'd just shut up!
As you both have noted, the problem here is not criticism of the war or the President's war on terrorism. There are lots of intelligent people voicing compelling objections, here. The war-for-oil bit, especially in its sloganesque manifestations, is just too ignorant to abide any more, however. If nothing else, the critics might consider that Bush will never, ever benefit from any oil windfalls that might enrich the U.S. and help make lots of people happy enough to re-elect him. There was never even a chance of that happening. Like Bush or not, I don't see how one can deny the political risk he's taken in pushing for this course of action. In the end, the most compelling explanation for his policy is that he thought it was the right thing to do to, and that for a number of reasons.
[ January 13, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is also noteworthy that in herd-like, narcissistic fashion, Hollywood in its entirety has taken up this insipid mantel, with apparently few exceptions. And so Viggo has plenty of chums (isn't "chum" a stinky fish bait used for trolling?)to make him feel all warm and fuzzy about his mouthing off, and nobody to say, "Gee Viggo . . . " with the kind of questions you pose.
It's not an easy thing for friends and colleague to disagree about certain subjects. We might playfully fight and argue over our favorite football teams, but something about politics, particularly politics that speak to and reveal our core world views, is different. It gets our blood up. We start choosing sides and gathering allies and drawing lines in the sand while generally removing or obscuring much subtler ideas, facts and concepts. It seems more important to define the "us" and the "them". It's more important to find safety in numbers than to respectfully disagree like gentlemen or gentleladies. Intellectual integrity can quickly take a back seat to the dynamics of a herd mentality. To actually disagree with those who take a particular issue to heart very seriously is a risky affair. You must be among people who, while they might ardently disagree with you, respect the very idea of open discourse and the exchange of ideas.
quote:And so regardless of whether your a Viggo or a Michael Moore, these guys take a more critical position at the risk losing of their marketability. But there's always the choice of shutting up and not saying something stupid
I agree that some of these people take a lot of heat – more than I would be willing to take. But I wouldn't want to confuse "heat" with "risk". Given that the Hollywood crowd is, by and large, of much the same mind on these issues (as is the press), what Mr. Mortensen has to say is much less a matter of daring individualism - despite what he may think - and much more a matter of tucking himself safely into the herd by being the loudest sheep.
And the thing is, lifting the sanctions or turning a blind eye to Saddam (as with the French) would have been the cold-hearted thing to do. It would have been the more expedient thing to do. It would have, by far, been the easier thing to do. So why only now do the protesters get all worked up?
And I wonder, all that time that Saddam was repressing his people while the world did business with him, where were those pithy t-shirts saying "No oil for blood"? So why now, when quite arguably something is being done to put a stop to obvious murderers and oppressors, no matter how imperfectly, does it get the blood up of certain people?
And oh yeah, I remember that Bosworth affair quite well. Thanks for reminding me. Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I wonder, all that time that Saddam was repressing his people while the world did business with him, where were those pithy t-shirts saying "No oil for blood"? So why now, when quite arguably something is being done to put a stop to obvious murderers and oppressors, no matter how imperfectly, does it get the blood up of certain people?
Well, there you go!
Now you want to see how pathetic things can really get, check out this article: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/010904A.shtml It compares Bush to Hitler and was recommended to me by a religious group as something to seriously consider
quote:So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.
There isn't much doubt in my mind - anyone who compares the history of Hitler's rise to power and the progression of recent events in the US cannot avoid the parallels. It's incontrovertible. Is Bush another Hitler? Maybe not, but with each incriminating event, the parallel grows -it certainly cannot be dismissed. There's too much evidence already. Just as Hitler used American tactics to plan and execute his reign, it looks as if Karl Rove is reading Hitler's playbook to plan world domination - and that is the stated intent of both. From the Reichstag fire to the landing at Nuremberg to the motto of "Gott Mit Uns" to the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq to the insistence that peace was the ultimate goal, the line is unbroken and unwavering.
[ January 14, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Hum . . . if Bush is Hitler, I guess that makes Sadaam Churchill.
posted
Now you want to see how pathetic things can really get, check out this article:
Boy, that's someone trying awful hard to build a case that isn't there. I'm not going to spend my time parsing all that. It's possible and interesting to draw lessons and guess at motivations from twisted truth. But when there is simply no truth to something, there's not much you can do with it.
It compares Bush to Hitler and was recommended to me by a religious group as something to seriously consider.
Well, my heart goes out to those who think that such utter fiction is worthy of consideration as fact. I can only imagine what's going on with them. What they don't seem to realize is that this kind of behavior is the thing that leads to the Nazi Germanys. Only when truth is twisted so badly so that black becomes white and lies become truth can outrageous and obvious evil have a chance to flourish. How ironic that some think that the article is a cautionary tale when it is actually the problem that they wish to warn us about in the first place.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's easy to pull examples from the fringes of your ideological enemies, prop them up as "typical", and then write off the opposition as idiots, isn't it? Thanks, Phil, for at least acknowledging that there are others who criticize our recent efforts in Iraq on more plausible grounds.
Still, though I agree the "no blood for oil" slogan is a crass and perhaps too direct formulation, one has to wonder about the existence of oil in Iraq as a determining factor (if not "the" determining factor) in the decision to go to war. As other legitimizations for our war in Iraq have quickly melted away even as quickly as they have been offered to us as the truth, we are finally left with, "Well, gee, that Saddam was a really bad guy. He had to go for the good of the Iraqi people." Indeed, he was a bad guy.
But then we also have to ask, Why target this bad guy and not another? As our current president said (and Clinton said the same on occasion) we engage in these battle when they are in the American national interest. That's the ultimate criterion these days, fellas. Forget principle. Bad guys only matter when they matter to us. A Saddam in Rwanda, phpphh, who cares!!?
What was it that pushed Saddam onto center stage of our national concern and interest? I wonder. Maybe many things, but certainly not the least of which is oil.
No blood for oil. Crass, maybe; overblown, maybe. Totally false and without merit? Hardly.
Posts: 5 | From: Tokyo | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TD, thanks for posting. I surely agree that oil is a concern. After all, Iraq has the second richest oil fields in the world. What I was objecting to is the idea that the U.S. invasion is about having the oil for ourselves, or getting rich off the oil. As the posts above note, it will be a long time before this works out financially, if ever at all, and that's not counting the loss of lives in the equation.
Considering Iraq's oil wealth, what needs to be acknowledged here is its importance not just to the U.S., but to the entire world. Consider a scenario wherein Islamic fundamentalism and its anti-Western biases come to determine Iraq's oil policies. Not good for only the U.S., but the world. In other words, Iraq's oil fields are too important to leave to chance, or to whatever would come after Saddam--most likely his goonish sons.
So that's the oil piece of the equation, and it does set Iraq apart from Rwanda and other sad situations. So did the potential for Iraq feeding WMD to Al Qaeda, a possibility that virtually everyone took seriously, including the French and Germans. That Iraq was a terrorist state is debatable, but that Saddam was a free-lancer with sympathies to many terrorist groups is not. All those concerns and issues remain valid, imo, along with the humanitarian issue of "Saddam-the-bad-guy."
BTW: Rwanda! Where was the U.N.? Where was NATO? What was Bill Clinton doing about it?
Where I see Bush's policy most vulnerable to criticism is that he rushed the U.N. process. Senator (and Presidential candidate) Kerry makes this point, and it's a compelling one, I think. But what we have to remember is that the U.S. had 100,000 soldiers in Kuwait, poised for action--the only thing really motivating Saddam to cooperate--with summer coming on. Keeping our troops there until the French and Germans made up their minds what to do (especially, now, considering their vast business ties to Iraq) seemed untenable. 17 U.N. resolutions had come and gone; the U.N. seemed reluctant to ultimately back up its words with actions.
It was Bush's call, and a tough one, no doubt. Ultimately, it could cost him re-election, depending on how things go in the months ahead. I'm convinced he did it because he thought it was the next best step in the war on terror. One can play armchair president on this one, and that's easy enough. At this stage of the game, however, I'm wondering what good is accomplished by criticizing the decision to go in? We're there, and we really can't leave until the country comes to a place where it can better care for itself.
[ January 16, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the reply, Phil. I don't normally have time to carry on these discussions online, but since you responded and had interesting things to say, I'd like to offer my response. (I also realize that I'm, in a way, crashing a party here as a dissenting voice, so I'll try not to loiter beyond this post.)
TD, thanks for posting. I surely agree that oil is a concern. After all, Iraq has the second richest oil fields in the world. What I was objecting to is the idea that the U.S. invasion is about having the oil for ourselves, or getting rich off the oil. As the posts above note, it will be a long time before this works out financially, if ever at all, and that's not counting the loss of lives in the equation.
I agree that things didn't work out as they were supposed to, according to the drawing board. But if you will recall, there was a lot of talk about "shock and awe" and Iraqis waving American flags, welcoming our troops with open arms. Projections for the cost of the war in terms of dollars and lives were, relatively speaking, small. Clearly, this war was supposed to go smoothly--that was the plan. And in its aftermath, there would indeed be plently of opportunity for US corporate interests, oil companies included, to become involved. That the war didn't go as planned doesn't suddenly change the motivations that may have set the war plan into operation, however. I believe that expectations of a windfall for corporate interests were, at least, a healthy inducive to prosecuting this war. You believe that Bush, et al., had purer motivations, whereas I have seen few policy decisions on the part of the current administration that do not take into full account their friends in corporate America. I'm probably just a cynic.
Considering Iraq's oil wealth, what needs to be acknowledged here is its importance not just to the U.S., but to the entire world. Consider a scenario wherein Islamic fundamentalism and its anti-Western biases come to determine Iraq's oil policies. Not good for only the U.S., but the world. In other words, Iraq's oil fields are too important to leave to chance, or to whatever would come after Saddam--most likely his goonish sons.
Perhaps I'm not clear about the nuances of your argument here, but what I hear you saying is, "Blood for oil?... Well, yeah, maybe... yeah, of course! But not for just us, for everybody!" Okay, maybe. Still, we didn't go into this war with a primary concern for the world, I'm afraid. As always, our interests were first and foremost domestic. Whether that's right or wrong is for another debate, but I don't sense that our concern about oil was as altruistic as you seem to think, Phil. Rather I would suggest it would be more on a par with the 300-lb. father who steals 10 hamburgers and gives one to his three-year-old son and claims, "I did it for you," and polishes off the other 9 himself. Sounds and looks good, but may be more cosmetic than truthful. (I guess I really am cynical!)
So that's the oil piece of the equation, and it does set Iraq apart from Rwanda and other sad situations. So did the potential for Iraq feeding WMD to Al Qaeda, a possibility that virtually everyone took seriously, including the French and Germans. That Iraq was a terrorist state is debatable, but that Saddam was a free-lancer with sympathies to many terrorist groups is not. All those concerns and issues remain valid, imo, along with the humanitarian issue of "Saddam-the-bad-guy."
Many people (or "virtually everyone" as you say, Phil) took the potential for Iraq to supply WMD to Al Qaeda seriously because that was the fear, based on "good intelligence," that we were led to believe. More and more we are learning that that intelligence was suspect from the outset, and even deliberately manipulated to create a sense of impending crisis. (Why? To what end? would be natural questions here.) Moreover, many scholars have argued that Saddam and Islamic fundamentalists would make amazingly strange bedfellows, even if they shared a mutual hatred for the infidel America. Saddam was the secularist Islamic leader, bar none, an anathema to Islamic fundamentalists. And for his part, Saddam was deeply suspect of any in his administration who showed sympathy to religious fundamentalist movements, as a memo recently unearthed well illustrates. The terrorist training camps in northern Iraq were located in a region that was never in the control of Saddam's regime, and it's hard to find any real threads of support. So, it's highly doubtful that Saddam would pass along powerful WMD fresh from the factory to such dubious "friends" who would view his regime as more of an obstacle their agenda than an ally.
Furthermore, the Bush administration itself has admitted that they did not and cannot substantiate any links, political or otherwise, between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Even though Wesley Clark and others may have suggested that it would have been natural for such conversations to occur between parties who share mutual goals (ie. hatred of America) in the Arab world, he didn't say the conversations had occurred or, more importantly, that these parties would ever find common ground upon which they could cooperate, especially with their inherent distrust of one another. Still, and despite the admissions of the current adminstration itself, many Americans (and apparently you, too, Phil) continue to associate the current war on terrorism with Iraq. (Arabs who hate America?--who can tell'em apart?!... Answer: the politically, historically and interminably factious Arabs, that's who. To the average American--"Al Qaeda? Iraq? There all the same.") And yet, even as we speak, the Bush leadership continues to associate these items in their rhetoric--Iraq, terrorism, the war on terrorism, and 9-11. Even though no WMD, no plans, and no alliances have been uncovered. And because of this unrelenting rhetoric, many Americans continue to believe that the next logical and inevitable step from the 9-11 tragedy (a group of Al Qaeda men who after years of planning boarded planes with box-cutters and created terror) was the transfer of WMD from Saddam to similarly-minded terrorists that would unleash untold horror in America. (I don't imagine there will be any change in this rhetorical tactic, either. After all, Bush's reelection most probably depends on the misperception.)
Am I glad that "Saddam-the-bad-guy" is gone? Of course! Who wouldn't be!? Do I think it was worth the war, destruction and killing, etc., etc.? No. Bush campaigned on a "no nation-building" platform, and yet it seems that from the earliest days of his administration regime change in Iraq was on the front burner. And now there's a rush to hand over the reins of democracy to a fledgling, newly-liberated Iraq by July 1 that seems to be trumping all other concerns. According to a recent interview with military leaders on the ground in Iraq (who chose to remain anonymous), the perception is that political concerns are overriding prudence or any other real concern for the future of our new democratic ally in the Middle East... How can I trust this president when his motivations seem all too apparent to me?
BTW: Rwanda! Where was the U.N.? Where was NATO? What was Bill Clinton doing about it?
Indeed. Probably not enough. I would hope that whatever positive, prudent steps to effect change would have been taken. But make no mistake about it, invading Rwanda was never on the table--nor, IMO, should it have been, even though in a humanitarian sense, it was probably just as compelling as Iraq. If Clinton, et al. however, didn't do all they could, they deserve criticism. But the fact that little was done in the case of Rwanda, for example, does not constitute a valid legitimization for taking the actions we did in Iraq, IMO. Rather, it's a bit like Lieberman's disingenous criticism of Dean that, if Dean had his way, Saddam would still be in power. We can point to any number of areas of the world and say, Why don't we do more? And there may or may not be good reasons why that may be the case. However, my reason for suggesting Rwanda, for example, was simply to suggest that there were factors in the case of Iraq that encouraged us to take extreme action--even to the point of unprecedented "preemptive" military action. But as most of the most compelling reasons proffered have already melted away, one that hasn't and surely won't, is oil.
Where I see Bush's policy most vulnerable to criticism is that he rushed the U.N. process. Senator (and Presidential candidate) Kerry makes this point, and it's a compelling one, I think. But what we have to remember is that the U.S. had 100,000 soldiers in Kuwait, poised for action--the only thing really motivating Saddam to cooperate--with summer coming on. Keeping our troops there until the French and Germans made up their minds what to do (especially, now, considering their vast business ties to Iraq) seemed untenable. 17 U.N. resolutions had come and gone; the U.N. seemed reluctant to ultimately back up its words with actions.
As Ted Kennedy (excuse me for bringing his name up here!) recently asserted, and I long ago believed, Bush's calls/demands for Saddam to cooperate and turn over those weapons, etc., were disingenuous. I remember thinking at the time, "What if they don't have weapons or weapons programs?" Yet, Bush kept insisting, kept claiming that Saddam was not forthcoming, even though we now know that there were plenty of attempts to do all that was necessary to avert war on the part of the Saddam regime. Perhaps it was just too little, too late, but I don't believe anything could have stopped the wheels that were already set into motion, and I don't think Bush's calls for Saddam to come clean were genuine. The die had been cast long before... How could Iraq have cooperated more? How could the inspections have been more "productive?" I don't know. Keeping 100,000 troops poised in Kuwait as "motivation" for continued would have been fine with me. In any case, it's hard to produce weapons when you don't have any, so, in the end, "cooperation" (however you want to define it) really didn't matter. It seems in retrospect, the UN sanctions were more effective than we thought.
It was Bush's call, and a tough one, no doubt.(Yes, no doubt. No matter what his ultimate motivations may have been, sending troops into war shouldn't be an easy decision.) Ultimately, it could cost him re-election, (so, I hope) depending on how things go in the months ahead. (Hence, the "firm committment" to the July 1 deadline--whether it is in the best inerests of Iraq, or not, I'm afraid.) I'm convinced he did it because he thought it was the next best step in the war on terror. (I wish I could share that confidence; I think Bush is a good man, if a poor leader.) One can play armchair president on this one, and that's easy enough. At this stage of the game, however, I'm wondering what good is accomplished by criticizing the decision to go in? We're there, and we really can't leave until the country comes to a place where it can better care for itself.
For me, if we turn a blind eye to our motivations for engaging in war, we do so at our own great peril. The good that comes from looking critically (especially at this point) at the decision to go in is the same good that comes examining one's own actions--a hope for deeper self-understanding, a clearer knowledge of one's heart and its motivation, and the wisdom that can come only from an examined life, albeit, a the life of a nation. As one involved in spiritual direction, I would think you would value such pertinent introspection, Phil. What happened in Iraq, in my opinion, should not be repeated. Thousands and thousands have died, and whether it was at the hand of Saddam or simply as 'collateral damage' really means little to those left behind--except that some now have a new enemy to hate. The loss of life, tremendous destruction, continuing insurrection, loss of focus on those like Al Qaeda who continue to support terrorist action against the US and others, the creation of new fuel to fire a new generation of terrorists and fanatics, the continuing erosion of our own civil liberties... the list is endless. What a sad chapter in the history of our world.
Still, despite all this, I share a small hope that something good will come out of this, in the end. If we stay the course, (and the July 1 deadline is not encouraging in this respect) and don't just cut our losses, if we remain present and willing to sacrifice our soldiers and money for the cause, perhaps a democracy or new freedom can be birthed in Iraq. Even as I say this is my hope, I admit I am not very hopeful. Our past efforts to plant democracy and democratic ideals in our own image in other lands have not yielded much success, and the Middle East is soil perhaps least suited to such endeavors. But I agree with you, Phil, at least on this: we can't leave until the country comes to a place where it can better care for itself, at the very least. I'm not convinced that the average American is committed, with our dollars and our troops, to see this out to that idealistic end; however, it remains my prayer. The God I believe in is one who regularly turns bad into good, death into life, and my prayer is that God will once again make a miracle happen, for I believe that's what it's going to take.
This has been a rare opportunity for me to give a long response on a board like this. Even if I don't respond in the future, I will read any of your subsequent comments with interest. Blessings.
Posts: 5 | From: Tokyo | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
TD:
Since you make the assertion several times in your last post, it's worth pointing out that WMD have recently been discovered by the Danish in Iraq, something I'd be surprised your not aware of. Of course, it's easy to dismiss the find, if your thinking the mid to late 80's date on the weapons cache matters in terms of what Sadaam was up to in the past five to ten years or so. But with Iran and Lybia making public their own violation of non proliferation law in the past month, it's hard to argue that Sadaam had turned over a new leaf since his use of them against Iran, and more lately against the Kurds.
With Sadaam alive, and others in the know captured as well, it's likely we'll find out what his motivations were to decrease those armaments, and when this new behavior began. What did he have to gain in crashing his WMD program, since his worst enemies in the region were well-equiped at the time with the very arsenals that made him superior in the 1980's? One can only speculate, but many suspect he knew his goose was cooked after 911, and ditched the programs so as to at least lift sanctions and regain the money needed to refurbish them, since he had probably fallen behind considerably during the sanctions era.
By the time UN 1441 emerged, nobody would have believed Sadaam's claims of having come clean short of his turning over significant technology and weaponry. He probably got rid of them too soon, although I suspect we'll find many more of the older sort the Danish uncovered.
I have similar concerns to yours regarding, at least, the strategic advantage of removing Sadaam, but only from the standpoint of erring on the side of caution post 911. Keeping Saddam in place as a sort of secular containment against Islamists depended upon proving he didn't have connections to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Post 911, this wait and see approach would have been based on inferences as weak as the one that asserted his having had contact with these figures in the past; hence, one can say it is no longer prudent to wait and see what Islamists and their local governments will do when waiting and looking the other way has been shown to be so imprudent. Either way, our entry into the post Cold War paradox is fraught with danger, even though taking the aggressive position has yielded the recent inroads into Iran and Libya's WMD programs.
So caution certainly took a back seat with the realization that Islamic terrorism was motivated far beyond the plight of Palestine or the presence of foreign western troops in Saudi Arabia. It seems you implied toward the end of your last post that we are stirring up a hornet's nest that wasn't already stinging prior to 911. These attacks date back to the early 1980's. Had the first attack on the World Trade Centers been successful as planned, Clinton would have been faced with the task of Afganistan as well. So I'd like to hear you make the argument that Islamic terrorism is mainly a domestic problem that the West needn't worry about short of its own intrusions. Islamic fundamentalism is a largely an internal creation, as well as a response to modernity being largely western in character, and this is an intrusion of the ideological sort that Islamists have been fending off since the 10th century.
posted
TD, thanks for taking the time to reply. I hope you make time to do so in the future. We've tried to carry on an open discussion on this topic, so your pov is important unto this end.
I see that w.c. has made a response, so I'll think about that one a bit before replying to your thoughtful post. I will comment on one of your points that kind of stuck in my craw, however (Your words in parentheses): Ultimately, it could cost him re-election, (so, I hope) depending on how things go in the months ahead. (Hence, the "firm committment" to the July 1 deadline--whether it is in the best inerests of Iraq, or not, I'm afraid.)
This comes across as one of those "damned if you do and damned if you don't" kinds of attitudes that I see directed at Bush constantly. On the one hand, there are those who wish we'd have left almost right away. Others want us to stay indefinitely . . . until the Iraqis can take care of themselves. If Bush sets the deadline to turn over responsibility to next year, he's accused of doing so after the election. If he does it early, it's so he can look good come election time. Etc. etc. The guy just can't win no matter what. See what I mean? No matter what date he sets, some will see bad motives in his actions. There's quite a bit of that kind of cynicism in your post, but there's some good substantive points as well. Maybe I can better attend to the latter now that I've got that off my chest.
Thanks for hearing me out.
You might check out this forum thread where I presented some of my concerns. The discussion that followed is most enlightening, I believe.
[ January 16, 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if I am misreading you or not, W.C., but are you suggesting that Saddam and Iraq forces have been engaged in terrorism against the US since as early as the 80's? As I recall it, Saddam was a well-funded US ally during at least part of that time, and even received some US funding after it was known that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds.
As I recall it, Saddam has always been primarily concerned with regional domination. My guess is that if he had had serviceable weapons and had the opportunity to use them, we would have seen it first closer to home again. But I'm no expert. In any case, the combination of UN sanctions, the presence of UN inspectors, and US troops nearby had rendered him virtually impotent in the region. Most terrorists, as far as I have read, were mostly of extra-Iraqi origin, and funded and supported largely by the Saudis and others, it seems. Simply stated, I would have preferred the war on terrorism target those whom we know to be terrorists.
Right now as our focus remains on Iraq, Afghanistan is a mess, terrorists are regrouping and regaining their strength, it seems. How a US-sponsored democracy will survive in that regional hot-bed, much less become a beacon of hope, remains to be seen.
Posts: 5 | From: Tokyo | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
td:
No, I wasn't assigning a known Islamic terrorist connection to Sadaam during the 80's. My point was simply that after 911, any bit of evidence of Sadaam's corresponding with such groups could only have been viewed with the utmost gravity. As antithetical to Saudi Arabia's offical interests as Al Qaeda has been, I wouldn't be surprised to have seen some conversation going on between Sadaam and this bunch, both being fascist in character and perhaps finding some Faustian regard for each other.
"Simply stated, I would have preferred the war on terrorism target those whom we know to be terrorists."
I agree that democracy among Arabs and Muslims steeped in tribal/family kinship ties for their sense of economy and polity is quite a stretch. I was squeamish about going into Iraq without international support, but feel strongly that nuclear weaponry must be policed globally. With that in mind, and never a doubt that Sadaam had them and would reinvent his programs without ever coming clean, there was for me reason to invade Iraq. This has left us with new problems, but also with movement toward disarmament in Iran and Lybia, and others to follow, who don't want to be next on Bush's list. Without this hard line, there's simply no way to control proliferation. When the big stick is real, negotiations are far more urnest.
posted
Phil, I certainly don't want to raise your blood-pressure, and I can understand why those who support Bush would feel the way you do. Yes, it is a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" proposition. So, yes, on the one hand, I would heartily support Bush's July 1 deadline if I felt he was primarily motivated by the notion that a quick transfer of power were in the best interest of the Iraqi people. Yes, it will upset some, as would the other option upset others.
From what I have read, however, it doesn't seem that this is the most prudent move right now. Perhaps a sort if interim situation as a good-faith promise of what is to come would be more viable and in the best long-term interest for the Iraqis, but I'm not sure that Bush will settle for that. And I do believe the need for a "trophy" of sorts, is a priority for him in this election year, though I could be wrong.
More important to me, however, is the question, "Why is Bush and the US now mired in this 'damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't' situation?" Or better yet, "Why are we in this mess in Iraq, in the first place?" The question of timetables is only a secondary concern, at best. From my perspective, it's because of bad foreign policy that was badly executed--nothing more, nothing less. As painful as their criticism must be to his supporters, shifting focus to Bush's cruel detractors (who, by all means, will make political hay out of this situation, just as conservatives had a field day with Clinton and the current Democratic candidates), doesn't extract Bush from his fundamental responsibility for the predicament we find ourselves in... from my perspective.
I don't hate Bush, as it must seem to you; in fact, I was genuinely curious, even optimistic, about seeing what "compassionate conservatism" could mean. But I won't excuse him from responsibility for the situation in Iraq and its aftermath, either; nor do I think it is wise or right to stop examining the motivations for our going in (as you suggest above), even if it's politically uncomfortable.
I need to leave the forum now; I'm sorry because I know that you may have comments and questions you may want to pose. But, I don't want to anger people here further, or raise my own blood-pressure, either. But I will read any responses, and will read the thread to which you have kindly directed me. Blessings.
Posts: 5 | From: Tokyo | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
TD:
By all means take care of your blood pressure. But I think I can say your not going to make any enemies here by posting opposing views. We've been thirsty for some fresh liberal intelligence, as I've had to go fishing on liberal forums for it myself. Caught a few big ones, fillet'd up nice on the barbe!! Good tasting, if you don't eat'm everday . . . kidding, really . . . I've learned some things and had my biases illuminated, as only opposition can do.
posted
. . . As one involved in spiritual direction, I would think you would value such pertinent introspection, Phil. What happened in Iraq, in my opinion, should not be repeated. Thousands and thousands have died . . .
T.D., I'm a great believer in learning from the past and in reflecting on one's motives and behavior. I wasn't discouraging anything like that. But since we're already committed to a course of action in Iraq, I wonder about the wisdom of publicly criticizing the President and U.S. policy by prominent U.S. leaders when that would seem to embolden the enemy. Also, many of these criticisms come in the light of 20-20 hindsight. Maybe it seems now that our intelligence about WMD was inflated, but I don't know that you'd have gotten one nation in the world to bet that none would be found. And if one doesn't believe Saddam would have been willing to supply Al Qaeda and other groups with such weapons, then what can one say? He doesn't have to be an Al Qaeda member or Islamic fundamentalist sympathizer to hold a grudge against the U.S. It's well-known, for example, that he tried to get Bush Sr. assassinated. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Perhaps I'm not clear about the nuances of your argument here, but what I hear you saying is, "Blood for oil?... Well, yeah, maybe... yeah, of course! But not for just us, for everybody!" Okay, maybe. Still, we didn't go into this war with a primary concern for the world, I'm afraid.
I'm sure Bush wouldn't have objected in the least if more nations had joined in the cause. We are out there in that strange land spending our money and shedding our blood first and foremost in the hope that the people of Iraq can know a freedom that had been denied them for many years. There's no oil coming to us, and none to offset the expenses for a very long time. One can view this as a sad chapter in human history, but others might see a rare and precious opportunity being offered the people of Iraq. There's something about the "blood for oil" bit that diminishes and disrespects this effort, which does have an altruistic dimension to it. We're doing a lot of giving with a lot of good-will and getting very little in return. That's an altruistic dynamic!
In the end, it may well be that the people of Iraq are so embroiled in their tribal and religious sectarian allegiances as to hopelessly frustrate the development of a democratic process. It won't be because an opportunity wasn't given them, however--one they would have certainly never had with Saddam and then his loony sons at the reigns.
There are many ways in which a democratic, pro-Western Iraq would be a boon in the war on terror. w.c. has alluded to this in some of his posts so I'll not be repeating all that.
TD, I don't think the the cynicism you express is an inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the facts at hand. I'm not trying to be an apologist for U.S. policy. As you'll note in the thread I referred you to, I do have concerns about what's going on as well.
I need to leave the forum now; I'm sorry because I know that you may have comments and questions you may want to pose. But, I don't want to anger people here further, or raise my own blood-pressure, either.
Oh, come now! We're all grownups out here and you need not be concerned about upsetting people. You're expressing your opinions and I don't see any flaming going on. I can handle a difference of opinion, as can the "regulars" here. Just don't start in on Mac OS X vs. OS 9 and Windows or you'll have a real fight on your hands. Hang with it if you have the time and inclination. I'm glad you're posting on this forum.
[ January 16, 2004, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
TD said: It's easy to pull examples from the fringes of your ideological enemies, prop them up as "typical", and then write off the opposition as idiots, isn't it?
Actually, it is pretty easy. When I hear candidates for the Presidency of the United States say that we or the Iraqi people are no better off now that Saddam is gone, well, I'm a little confused at the moment as to what is "typical" and what is fringe.
Still, though I agree the "no blood for oil" slogan is a crass and perhaps too direct formulation, one has to wonder about the existence of oil in Iraq as a determining factor (if not "the" determining factor) in the decision to go to war.
Certainly oil plays a factor in terms of our economic security and thus plays a part. But so do the ideas of justice, freedom, and humanitarian aid. Why then do some single out just the one factor from all the others? That's my beef. It seems some don't want this war to be about anything good or noble. Last time I looked we were not plundering the oil nor were we installing a new dictator in Iraq.
As other legitimizations for our war in Iraq have quickly melted away even as quickly as they have been offered to us as the truth, we are finally left with, "Well, gee, that Saddam was a really bad guy. He had to go for the good of the Iraqi people." Indeed, he was a bad guy.
Saddam really *is* a bad guy and given his propensity for invading other countries and slaughtering his own people it's kind of surprising to hear this spoken of as a "ho hum" reason for going to war. It's not the only reason, but it's a good one all the same.
As our current president said (and Clinton said the same on occasion) we engage in these battle when they are in the American national interest. That's the ultimate criterion these days, fellas. Forget principle. Bad guys only matter when they matter to us.
It doesn't automatically de-legitimize an action because it is in our interest, nor does it automatically legitimize an action if it isn't in our interest. And gee, it's not as if we're China, the old Soviet Union, North Korea or Iran. One would assume that there is a better than even chance that our interests are going to coincide with good and just interests.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
TD wrote: "Why are we in this mess in Iraq, in the first place?" The question of timetables is only a secondary concern, at best. . .
I think you raise and important point here, TD. The President will have to continue to articulate a response to that question, especially now that the WMD issue has come up short. I'm sure he'll have many opportunities to do so during the months ahead, particularly in the debates with Democrat Presidential candidates.
From Brad: . . . One would assume that there is a better than even chance that our interests are going to coincide with good and just interests.
I know what you mean, but I'm sure you know, too, that there is widespread cynicism about U.S. foreign policy in the M.E., and not only from Arab nations. Look no further than America's universities and most Christian social justice programs and you'll find that, more often than not, the U.S. is viewed as being the oppressor--even the terrorists. It is assumed that if the U.S. leadership wants something, then it must be wrong or suspect, for the U.S. doesn't care a whit about justice or the poor, but only about enriching itself and big business. The Cold War context for many of our past policies is disregarded; mistakes and indescretions are amplified; the communist threat we opposed is minimized. Hence, what else could we be doing in Iraq except pursuing our lust for their oil?
[ January 17, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Hello . . . my name is w.c., and I've posted a gazillion times already, but just one more, since mine are often unread soliloquies:
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!
Bush has not come up short on this. And for those who want to snipe at the late 80's date on the arsenal the Dutch uncovered, consider my points in a previous post . . . .
Why didn't Sadaam reveal this rather large cache? To do so would have extended his regime, but it would have been the beginning of the end of it as well, and in a way far more shameful to him than posing as a military leader and taking his dose of "shock and awe." He was, at least in his own feeble, grandiose, paranoid mind, expecting to reign and torture another day.
There are no doubt many locations where older weaponry will be found. It was saved for a purpose: less incriminating . . .
"Oh, you meant blister gas too?! We thought you just meant germ agents and nuclear devices!!"
So stop digging your toe in the sand, Phil. This might not have been itemized on UN 1441's list of expected holdings, for which Sadaam burned much paperwork, but counts all the same as evidence of his unwillingness to cooperate, and that the assumption of 1441 was/is true: Sadaam's got them and needs to show us where they are.
posted
W.C., I'm familiar with the find of WMD that you mention and agree with your point. Nevertheless, there's this prevailing perception out there that the search for WMD has come up short. The media harps on this at every opportunity, the recent report by the U.S. task force on WMD being a prime example. Then there are articles like this one from USA Today, which make it seem as though the issue was really that they *might* be able to develop them and had intention of doing so.
What comes across in much of this (and it's everywhere in the media--I hear it every day on NPR) is that Bush's primary justification for the war was overblown--a rationalization, really, for a course of action motivated by other, unworthy reasons. The huge contracts with Haliburton (Cheney's old company) are mentioned regularly now, and not accidentally, I don't believe.
The point I was trying to make was that with this perception about WMD so prevailing, it behooves the Bush administration to counter, as Colin Powell is attempting to do in that USA Today article. He also needs to continue to hold before the people his vision of what we're doing there, and why.
[ January 17, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a prime example of the kind of info that's being piped by the media. NPR made a big deal out of this one a few days ago (see this link). The overwhelming impression left is that nothing of substance or serious danger has been found. Here's another one from NPR. There's no correction of this in any recent segment because of the find you mention, w.c.
[ January 17, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hello . . . my name is w.c., and I've posted a gazillion times already, but just one more, since mine are often unread soliloquies:
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, W.C. Did you provide a link for that info? I'm not totally up to speed on what exactly has been found. It's my understanding that plenty of stuff has been found (infrastructure and information) for the making of WMD's. Heck, those long-range missiles found during the pre-war re-inspections were violations of WMD provisions. They've used WMD's in the past. They have ties with terrorists. It's a large country. WMD's can be a small as a thimble. You do the math.
Here's what we face: The United States is the good guy. We don't go to war for conquest. We beat the bad guys, stabilize and re-democratize countries, and then leave. This is done reluctantly, at great expense, and as a last resort. Contrast that with Iraq which has mounted two wars of conquest (at least one specifically for oil), deployed WMD's on their own people, and has been a brutal police state that regularly tortures its citizens. But still it is our motivations that are in question. But I certainly don't have a problem with questioning our motivations. It's a civic duty in a free democracy. But I don't think it irrational to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt.
And if anyone questions whether Iraq is a terrorist state or has terrorist ties then I would just say to take a look right now at how the last hold-outs are fighting in Iraq.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
