|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
CPAC - THE AXIS OF EVIL ! ! ::shudders:: Our o... Norman Schwarzkopf on Donald Rumsfeld "It's scary... "I do not need to explain why I say things. That's... Ok, so let's assume for a moment that the US econo... About GOP Team Leader - Help Further President Bus... Here's an editorial I will send into the local pap... Reuters AlertNet - Marijuana is gateway to hard dr... Urban Tulsa editorial nothing more than cookie cut... Violence comes from power. It is not a tool of the... Dr. Martin Luther King Day, Celebrate peace. It's... Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
2.06.2003
Listening to David Corn from the The Nation on the radio this morning I had the awful realization of just how hard it is to be a liberal in the news. Just how do you present a nuanced anti-war message in the face of the pro-war mantra that is being put forth by the Bush Administration and the think tanks that support them? The threat of being anti-american is always looming even though you may not see yourself as anti-american. Addressing the notion that just because we have the power doesnt mean we should use it in part depends on a philosophy so off the radar in America that I think it would require a small history lesson just to begin. When the liberal arguement against war depends on the idea of not only root causes but predictable consequences, going into an environment that addresses neither history nor consequences is a daunting task. When the common consensus is that we act justly, morally and without regard for our own power then how do you address that we do not always act thusly. The President of the United States stands before the people and says that we act with the power of morality and providence. History states otherwise. How do you argue from history in what is in effect an a-historical society? Anti-war arguements are ill-suited for the compact talking points type programming that passes for news and editorial debate. Despite the fact that stations like CNN, Fox, MSNBC and their ilk are 24 HOUR news stations they condense discussion to near microscopic proportions. Rarely do you get a debate that extents far past what are in effect the opening salvos. Whoever can present the most direct to the gut arguement comes across better. What better than fear to get to the minds of people? "Saddam is evil, we must destroy him before he gets us, support the president, remember what happened on September 11th!!" Its easy, I could be a pro-war commentator, especially when you have people in authority pushing the cause. Its safe to say that without the vocal support of people in the Bush administration for making war the case would take much more time and effort. When an authority figure takes a stance on an issue then the onus of proof falls on the opposition. Never mind the fact that the President on his bully pulpit can advance his cause with discredited information and rhetoric. How can you argue that the weapons inspectors where not "thrown out" when the president says so right on TV, in front of all the world and the assembled officials of the state? Thrown out, more like pulled out before the bombing, and were indeed acting as spies for the United States. The facts shifts the blame away from the enemy, but to where? People refuse to believe that the government that runs the US will act in ways that are not consistent with its public stance on issues. So the blame has no place to rest. Saddam gassed his own people. Right, ok, except that the United States was aware of this action and was not at all perturbed by it. They saw Saddam's actions putting down the Kurds as preffered to watching their ally in the war with Iran losing power. The phrase "his own people" is noteworthy in the sense that in america we have commited great acts of violence and aggression on what could be called "our own people". The charge could easily be leveled that the US has killed and enslaved "its own people" on many occasions. Yet, historians would point out that slaves and natives would not usually be not be considered "our own people" in that time and place. I suppose Saddam would say the same of the Kurds. But these arguements are around the net so I wont go further. WE ARE NOT AT WAR What seems to be the problem is that the consensus is that we are "at war", and that an invasion of Iraq is a neccesity. I consider both to be false. But if its the basic assumption going into a discussion then how do you debate the issues. I think anti-war activists should stress that we are not at war. We should reduce the chances of future terrorism events but that the war paradigm is an inappropriate one. We cannot invade ourselves to safety. As much as people like to talk about the new world post Sept 11, many still see the miltary solutions of pre-Sept 11th as the best approach, with their only new arguement being that we should reduce the debate and lower the safeguards. In an honest debate we would admit that our military involvement in all parts of the world fuel the ideologies of terrorism. But since we are a society dependent on military power we see it as our only means of addressing issues. If there is a message from 9/11 it is that military solutions are irrelavent. Our attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq are attempts to justify the usefulness of miltary might in the wake of its proven impotence. We are not at war! We are threatening to invade a country based mainly on circumstantial evidence. More importantly, the decision to invade is ours to make despite what you hear people say that we are somehow "forced" by a post 9/11 world. We will go to war as a choice. We will destabilize an area of the world that already serves as the hotbed of terrorism. Chaos breeds more terrorism. Our goal should be to reduce chaos which means that we should reduce the disparity in this world. We will not do this because we need the poor and desperate to fuel our economic needs. We are not at war! Anti-war people should have the gumption to say that. Even though the media has bought the Bush Administration lie that we are at war. We should take the lead in opposing the Orwellian notions of perpetual war that is being promoted. If we are at war now, I would hate to see when we are really at war. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
