portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

a question

It is sad that the US decided to resort to war instead of diplomacy and other nonviolent means, but now that we are at war...
...what should we do? If the anti-war 'people' could snap their fingers and put themselves in the powerful decision making role of President, what would they do after stopping the military action in Iraq? Would they allow Hussien to come back to power (and probably be more oppressive to his people)?

If you were in charge, how would you solve this problem?
get lost! 24.Mar.2003 19:40

nosethumb

Begging the question? Rhetorical question? Why are you bothering to ask since you already appear to have the answer ("We're right and you're wrong!")?

wrong ? 24.Mar.2003 20:17

jal jallison@oneworldpeace.org

the "problem" doesn't have anything to do with saddam. it is the result of this conservative thinktank in washington which goes by The Project for the New American Century, www.newamericancentury.org. it is this premise and philosphy which is driving war. saddam and mwd are onnly a front for global power, and iraq is just the begining. thses plans have been planned very carefully for over a decade and are now having their chance to be implemeted. until this becomes common news to the common public, the problem will remain, even if bush is gone. if you don't believe me, \check the site for yourself then educate others. this is the crucial piece and the most important work we can be doing behind the scenes.

yep 24.Mar.2003 20:59

mrLady

yeah, there was a big Frontline about those guys...anything kristol, perle, wolfowitz, and rumsfeld say should be taken as warmongering.

that said, i have no idea what i would do if the war suddenly stopped and had to deal with hussein. i would ask the experts - diplomats, ambassadors, amnesty international, etc. basically, i would seek out the people who embraced my values of true humanitarianism.

i really don't think that sending in hundreds of thousands of troops and bombing the blazes out of a city is how one should begin the "humanitarian effort" of "operation iraqi freedom."

a "regime change," meaning, the ousting of a handful of top officials, shouldn't take an entire war. as one of my signs says "assassinate saddam on your own time, bush."


btw, i don't appreciate the way you put people in quotes when referring to anti-war protestors. do you think we're not really people?

oh just stop!! *rolls eyes* 24.Mar.2003 21:01

clamydia

nosethumb you are obviously just trying to instigate infighting. are you a provocateur? the guy asked a legitimate question, and if you aren't in a position to give him a legitimate answer, then keep your fucking mouth shut. your post was pointless, beligerate, and provocative. You remind me of guy in bars who say "what the fuck are you lookin at? You wanna get your ass kicked?" when nobody is looking at them. It sounds like YOU are the one who needs to "get lost".

re: get lost 24.Mar.2003 21:01

required

I'm a little confused... are you for or against the war, and what did you think I was?

yep 24.Mar.2003 21:01

mrLady

yeah, there was a big Frontline about those guys...anything kristol, perle, wolfowitz, and rumsfeld say should be taken as warmongering.

that said, i have no idea what i would do if the war suddenly stopped and had to deal with hussein. i would ask the experts - diplomats, ambassadors, amnesty international, etc. basically, i would seek out the people who embraced my values of true humanitarianism.

i really don't think that sending in hundreds of thousands of troops and bombing the blazes out of a city is how one should begin the "humanitarian effort" of "operation iraqi freedom."

a "regime change," meaning, the ousting of a handful of top officials, shouldn't take an entire war. as one of my signs says "assassinate saddam on your own time, bush."


btw, i don't appreciate the way you put people in quotes when referring to anti-war protestors. do you think we're not really people?

out from under 24.Mar.2003 21:03

Daniel

roughly in this order:

*reduce US war machine to approximately 1/3 (interim measure), putting that fraction of Pentegon employees (civilian) on furlough-hell give'm paid leave--it's worth it-- and summarily "accept immediate resignations" of the "new american century" gang or whatever the hell they call themselves (Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et.al...and their entire staffs)...this will send a strong signal that there is a serious, not cosmetic, change underway--shock and awe run backwards! Stop all shipments of war material and personnel presently underway and headed to the Gulf and send them back.

*announce immediate termination of all grants, loans, special contractural deals (including the $3bn+ annual stipend) benefiting Israel while simultaneously making a demand (introducing a resolution) , in the UN and any other forum, that the 1960-something borders of Gaza and the West Bank be restored, that all occupation infrastructure within those restored boundaries be abandoned, if it can't be removed, and all Israeli occupation personnel (IDF and settlers) withdraw from within those restored boundaries, under penalty of sanctions...

*order US troops out of Iraq, immediately, destroying war-usable weaponry and technology on the way out...withdraw the seagoing launch platforms to well beyond the effective ranges of their suites of missles...Pull the bombers on Diego Garcia back to the US...
--------------
These gestures should leave no doubt that there is a profound change in US foreign (war) policy, and are conceived to minimize the chaos and back-lash in the face of US immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
---------------

*work, on the ground, through the UN and something similar to on site "inspectors" and using some of the largess formerly destined for Israel as incentive "carrots" for serious Palestinian efforts to restore the civil and economic infrastructure of Palestinian lands and begin the efforts dedicated to deconstructing the martyr-bomber culture (this will take generations--we likely won't see its fulfillment, but those following us will)...the ultimate goal is a cooperative federation between the Palestinian and Jewish people in the land west of the Jordan to the Mediterranean, possibly somewhat autonomous states under a shared government...

*fully fund the US share of UN programs for humanitarian aid, resettlement and repatriation, and for infrastructure resoration in Iraq...return weapons/nuclear material inspectors and observers to Iraq to monitor Sadam for the rest of his days--far cheaper and less destructive than Bush wars...

*on a less rapid, but no less urgent basis, get US military institution out of Saudi, Djibouti, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, the Emirates, Oman, Afghanistan, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Central Asian republics, Philipines, S, Korea, Japan, Okinawa...probably some others not mentioned in North Africa, Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, South-east Asia, Far East...these initiatives would be organized and performed in conjunction with proactive diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to provide for smooth transistions and amelioration of local socio-economic and national security effects...
---------------

There are many more parts to this, but generally leading to the US taking a place in the community of nations...but for now, the challenge is to get US belligerence and imperialism out of the Middle East and Western Asia and to bring human rights and self determination to the Palestinians and security to the Jewish majority of Israelis...Peace to them all!

The ultimate goal of course is the disolution of nations proceeding to a stateless world-WHICH IS POSSIBLE and MUST HAPPEN! The present trajectory of nation-states spells disaster for all life on the planet.

...well, you were the one to ask, "required"...

no easy answers 24.Mar.2003 21:07

a. nony mouse

that's a very good question, with no easy answers.

a lot of the "mainstream" debate hasn't even touched on the history of brutal dictatorships that have been installed, funded, armed, and kept in power with u.s. economic and military support. the question has been more an issue of how and when we would go in and kill or depose saddam hussein, not why. i'd say the majority of americans are simply unequipped to confront the truth about our government's involvement in dirty little wars around the world over the last century (in particular) because we have to desperately cling to the shinyhappy notion that we're always right, we're always the good guys. on a fundamental emotional level we just aren't prepared to believe that virtually everything we've been taught is a lie. and we see this expressed in the fears and rage and rhetoric of those who cling to the party line, that we are always right and just and good, and this war (like all the others) should go unquestioned.

there's a lot of moral absolutism on both sides, and you can see it here on indymedia in various outbursts and disagreements. lots of people talking past each other, not to each other. nobody willing to bend or concede or challenge their own world view. it's discouraging.

the "my country right or wrong" argument is ludicrous; it's like saying "my daddy drunk or sober". are we supposed to stand here and take a beating because power-drunk men in our government fell off the wagon? or are we going to intervene, and say "enough!" and face up to the problem?

in iraq, when the carnage is complete, there will be huge fanfare trumpeting the fact that the ends justified the means. but i find that pretty hard to swallow. there are huge issues at play here, not the least of which is whether national boundaries and national sovereignty mean anything anymore... we can simply ignore that issue while we're "king of the mountain." what happens when our collapsing economy, plummeting foreign investment, and international opinion make it too dangerous and too expensive to continue our dominance? what happens when we're no longer in a position to call all the shots? can you say "blowback" boys and girls?

rather than have the international community take on the issue of when and how to intervene when a national leader or regime is brutal or corrupt or oppressive, the bush administration has tossed all of that aside and declared itself judge, jury and executioner. iraq is the first step. even if we come out of this with a bloody nose, it'll be onto iran, or syria, or north korea, or whereever else they choose - whether there's international support or not. but i guarantee they won't go after "business friendly" governments anywhere, no matter how vile the dictatorship in power, especially if we put them there.

so in the context of this action, and this war, i have to ask: what's the government's plan? will they tolerate a "socialist" or "christian democrat" or *any* popular leader chosen NOT in washington but instead by the iraqi people - someone who might, indeed, want to nationalize the iraqi oil production, boot out the "liberators" and rebuild an independent iraq that isn't under america's thumb? hardly. as a recent article mentioned (i think by norman solomon, former portland activist and legal counsel in actions we did in the reagan years) the u.s. will probably leave nearly all the iraqi bureaucracy in place, and just change the heads. for a while, things will appear to be better on the outside, perhaps (they'll probably use the "war" as an excuse to round up and shoot or exile any progressives or leftists) and after a few months, after the fickle american public has turned its attention to the next "war of liberation," things in iraq will quietly return to the status quo.

saddam hussein is a symptom, not the cause. the guy has done lots of vile, evil, horrible things - stuff that is credibly documented, and is plenty atrocious without the exaggerations of the media and the government spin machine. practically noone in the peace movement supports saddam or will excuse the fact that he's a nasty, evil guy. but the question in this war is: why now? why not 12 years ago? why not before 9/11? why proceed unilaterally without even the support of nato? and if the liberation of oppressed peoples is truly the goal of this administration, why not stop our support of the genocide in east timor, expose and atone for our involvement in the murderous regimes in central and latin america over the last two decades, why not address the human rights violations of the chinese government? hmm? and the list goes on...

i find it greatly ironic that from the tone of a lot of the people furious at protesters for acting up in the streets of portland, they'd probably be perfectly happy in downtown baghdad, where you can absolutely guarantee that saddam wouldn't put up with those uppity protesters...

but i digress. to the question:

if i were in the white house, the first thing i'd do is open up virtually everything i possibly could. shine the light on everything -- this is, or at least was once, a democracy, and that to me means *transparency*. it means airing out ALL of our dirty laundry and making the people here face up to it. that's step one. we have to acknowledge the wrongs we've done before we can ever claim any kind of moral or ethical basis for maintaining our economic and military status in the world. it would be tremendously difficult for americans to accept, but i think it would be cathartic. expose and purge the demons of our past. because all those chicks we hatched in vietnam are coming home to roost...

second, we have to eat a big ol' slice of humble pie, and that means strengthening and abiding by the same set of rules that govern everyone else - be it through the UN, the international criminal court, etc. it means taking "no" for an answer sometimes. it means that we have to stop living by all these double standards... there are probably more chemical weapons stored in umatilla than in iraq, but is anyone invading eastern oregon? we have to lead the way to disarmament - why should anyone else eliminate their paltry stacks of "WMDs" while we sit atop a mountain of them?

third, we have to be willing to put the brakes on runaway greed and at the very least, save capitalism from itself. i don't believe that humanity has reached its zenith, that rampant consumerism is the pinnacle of human achievement, that a world where the only meaningful choices we get are all bounded in economic terms. but while the dreamers dream of new ways to create and distribute wealth, to raise up the human condition and address the violence of poverty and hopelessness, we have to take the immediate steps of bringing "our way of life" down to a more sane and rational level. we must pursue environmental healing - not just limit the damage, but find ways to preserve and protect the earth while providing for human needs. there's probably more money to be made in finding solutions to social problems than in funding endless war and killing... but we americans simply cannot to use more resources and pollute more and subjugate others to stay on top.

if we don't evolve, if we can't recognize a national "enlightened self-interest" in reigning in our ever expanding appetites, the rest of the world will eventually do it for us. sharing the wealth, bringing clean water and renewable energy to impoverished areas, working to use our tremendous strength to lift up and inspire people instead of keep our boots on their throats - THAT builds security and peace in the world. not just blue jeans and big macs - not expanding our toxic, wasteful consumer culture everywhere - but working to address poverty, bigotry, and justice. america was once a thrifty nation, that worked hard and played hard and eschewed style over substance - "consumer" was a bad word. unless and until we're able to get over our own addictive consumption, the cycle of exploitation that goes on around the world in our names (and breeds people like saddam hussein in the first place) will never be broken.

finally, we do have to find solutions to deal with power-mad, violent dictators like saddam hussein. (and the men in the bush cabinet, who i think are secretly envious that they can't just crack down and impose an overt police state here and anywhere else anyone opposes them.) it is possible that *international* action and military force will be necessary to remove dictators from power. but that force should not be imposed unilaterally the way it has been in iraq. and i would bet a month's salary that if a socialist or leftist movement in iraq - or even a fundamentalist taliban-like muslim group - were rising up and threatening to topple saddam and they were spouting anti-u.s. sentiments and threatening the oil supply, that the u.s. would be sending weapons and advisers to put down the revolution, no matter how horrible saddam is.

but i'd never be president, anyway. there's no place for truth, integrity, doubt, or honesty in politics. there's certainly no room for compassion. they'd shoot me after one day.

anyway, you may now return to your regularly scheduled rhetorical diatribes and polemics.

-- a. nony mouse

thanks folks 24.Mar.2003 22:06

required

Thanks everyone.

For the record, I am against this war.

The reason I asked was because I think this is a point that the "pro-war" (well, more "I support what the President thinks is right, and trust him." ) people use against the anti war people - they say "well, Saddam is a horrible guy and we must get rid of him: using war". I think one of the biggest things the antiwar side did wrong was not pound into people's heads the alternatives to war in the first place (and certainly if we did try, the media sure didn't help).

Now that the war has started, I think that even if we don't manage to stop it, one thing we must do is make sure the US doesn't win this with its people thinking "we went in for the sole purpose of liberating the Iraqis and securing ourselves against an immediate threat". If we come out victorious with people thinking that, we can bet that a few months later there will be a "new and immediate threat" in Iran or N. Korea, and that war will again be used by the Whitehouse, with perhaps even less public outcry than this time around.


If we do somehow get lucky and help to stop the war (which I can only imagine happening if we have heavy casualties in the coming weeks and/or heavy resistance from the Iraqi people), I would hope that the U.N. general assembly could meet and vote to condemn the U.S. war, and then go to Iraq and say "hey, we are going to send U.N. forces in to help secure the country from the American invaders, on the condition that we have U.N. people monitor your government to protect you from any further abuses from it." Of course that would be hard, but it might work, especially if the UN threatened real multilateral force if Hussien or any of his likeminded people were unable to behave.


Frantically educating Americans may be the last hope for a more happy, peaceful future for us and the world... but of course, when so many people believe that Saddam Hussien was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, things aren't looking good. (51% IIRC, from March 16 CNN poll - if anyone can find that online, let me know.)

bravo, required 24.Mar.2003 22:55

someone else

I don't know why I never posed this question on indymedia, but I'm glad you did. The lack of a clear alternative to war is the greatest handicap the antiwar movement is suffering from, and it's about time somebody started talking seriously about it.

Ever had a broken down car out in the middle of nowhere? Ever been there trying to fix the damned thing, while a friend or relative hangs over your shoulder offering helpful hints like, "you should of stopped at the last gas station," or "I told you never buy a (fill in blank)" or "I bet its the distributor cap...my car broke down once and it was the distributor cap, course I don't know anything about cars."

Doesn't it just make you want to scream? "I'm trying to fix things the best I know how, and you're just standing there making a bunch of fucking noise!"

So is it any wonder the -- well, I won't call them pro war, because very few of them really like war -- other side is getting frustrated with protesters?

Countless posters about the florida elections, the US's previous relations with Iraq, new american century and all this stuff don't do anything to address the problem. Belive me, a lot of pro-invasion (there's a fair word, maybe) folks know about these things, and they're troubled by it, but they're more interested in the present -- they belive iraq is a problem, and they're willing to go along with a plan of action to take care of it.

So what is the anti-war movements plan of action? I'd love to belive that the UN could address a situation like this, but they clearly have not -- inspectors only went back after bush cranked up the belligerance. While I'm unconvinced that iraq is a serious threat to the rest of the world, a UN resolution (or 17 or whatever it is) ought to mean something.

I'm a big fan of the earlier suggestion that we openly air our dirty laundry, though I don't know how much good it would do. Such information is readily available to anyone who wants it, though it would be nice if more people were aware.

Still, I don't belive all our dirty laundry is so dirty -- or at the least, that we didn't have reasons for soiling it at the time. Often times, out in the international world, you're stuck with the choice of backing the lesser of two evils. Bush vs Gore is a pretty damned good choice compared to what much of the world is stuck with.

The alternative, I suppose, is to stop backing anyone. I used to belive that, and I still kinda want to, but I'm losing faith. Staying out of international affairs doesn't mean they stop happening -- power abhors a vacuum, or whatever they say. Cutting back the military and closing all the overseas bases, as previously suggested, would win us a lot of short-term points. So would boosting international aid programmes. But there are any number of places, say, Mobutu's Zaire, where international aid has been used primarily to solidify the power of the ruler and his cronies.

No easy answers. But thanks for bringing it up, thanks to the two people who tried to tackle the question, and a big thumbs down to nosethumb and jal, both of whom seem unwilling to consider that there's more to it than a bunch of slogans and sitting down in the middle of the street.

thanks for the exercise 24.Mar.2003 23:51

Daniel

good job, "required"

to someone else 25.Mar.2003 00:21

dave

I wouldn't so quickly disregard jal. He/She answered the question, just maybe not like you expected. That is, regardless of what can be done now about this war, current protests may address even larger issues.

That also is where I start. I believe that the likelihood of the US pulling out of this war is very small, though perhaps getting larger (at the probable expense of the Iraqi people) through the now apparent involvement of other countries like Russia on the Iraqi side. In any case, Bush and every politician should begin to understand that there is a reason for obtaining tremendous support for a war, both at home and abroad, BEFORE you start fighting it. (Even the elder Bush apparently conceded this in  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html) Anti-war voices will no longer be handicapped by unwritten rules which silence them after the first shot has been fired, even while the press propogandizes for the war at every opportunity. Such handicaps not only make starting a war much easier, they can actually benefit the perpetrator of war by providing a means to silence opposition. (For what it's worth, both Rumsfeld and McLaughlin said on Sunday TV that protests should not be silenced, so this may not be so revolutionary an idea.)

The war planners are correct in one way: Demonstrating vast power over one's enemy can shorten, and in some cases eliminate the need for, a war. But that "shock and awe" needn't necessarily come from bombs (aka blitzkrieg), and sometimes bombs can't even do the trick. Instead, it can come from an overwhelming multinational agreement that a country is in violation of international law. Bush could have continued diplomacy, he could have gathered a true alliance or tried to continue to solve this through other pressure, and even if it was somehow still found attractive to drop bombs after that alliance was formed, the war could have been made quite short. It is not the protestors' job to make Bush less liable for his own errors, especially when the whole "Pax Americana" strategy appears to put this as just the first of many such wars (as Bill Kristol made very clear on Charlie Rose last week, for example). If Bush could not have found such an alliance (other than the current phony "41 countries" of which maybe 4 have troops and a few others provide access), then the war simply should never have started.

The question that "required" asked is the right one. Protestors will probably have virtually nothing to do with how this war is fought. Protestors can have much to do with ensuring that its horrors and motivations are not hidden, which in turn can help to ensure that something like this never happens again. If we don't make sure of it internally, other countries will do their best to ensure it externally, and I (for one) hope that doesn't happen. We have already met our enemy, and it is us.

the solution; BUTTING OUT 25.Mar.2003 00:24

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

The US created the problem in the first place by providing Saddam with WMD. Then we aggravated the problem by attacking Saddam and thus entrenching his power, then further empowering him amongst his people with our sanctions against his country, by starving-to-death over 1.5 million civilian innocents, forcing them to turn to a "strong man" (Saddam).

It appears that every time the US butts in with its ham-handed "solutions," it makes things much worse. How about the US butts out and lets the Iraqis deal with Saddam?

Killing more innocent Iraqis is a truly stupid idea. Aren't we trying to NOT gain enemies? Don't we have ENOUGH countries and people all over the world after us? Why be a recruitment sign for terrorists by killing more people?

That's what modern wars do; kill innocent civilians. The ratio these days is TEN TO ONE. For every ONE soldier that is killed in a modern war, TEN civilians are killed.

Leave Iraq alone, and let them take Saddam out. Without us forcing them to cower in Saddam's corner, they will probably fill him with bullets within 2 years. Remember what happened in Romania?

Too bad that the current administration is acting like a bunch of junkies. Junkies for oil, that is. George The Second and his bosses are so intent on assuring a large, steady supply of corporate economy-lubricating OIL that they are prepared to kill Iraqi civilians for it.

the grey areas 25.Mar.2003 11:45

a. nony mouse

i don't think it's quite fair to say that the u.s. "created" saddam in the first place. most of the dictators and "strongmen" and juntas we've supported were pretty screwed up to begin with; it takes a certain kind of person to get himself into the position where he can attract our government's attention, and that's when the cia gets involved, and we start sending military advisers and weaponry, and they start sending their guys up for death-squad training at the "school of the americas," etc. rather than recognize and accept that there are places in the world that don't want to live by our rules, we simply do what is "necessary" to pave the way for "american interests" to be reasserted. there are countless examples of not just popular revolutions, uprisings, and movements that the u.s. decided were dangerous and had to be squelched, but democratically elected governments that had to be undermined and overthrown because they had the audacity to put their own people ahead of our multinational corporations.

and yes, this government IS trying to create more enemies. that's how the psychology of it works: without cold war russia to wear the black hat, we have to find a new enemy. psychopathic personalities - aggressive neurotics - the people in power (and too many that support them) can only justify their aggression if they have someone to focus their anger on and rally the people against. have you actually tried to talk with some of the pro-invasion crowd? have you tried to stomach any of the bluster spewing out of right-wing hate radio or the papers or the nightly news? the thing that is crystal clear is that folks on the "right wing" are generally completely untroubled by doubt; their world is rigidly right and wrong, and there is no room for doubt, question, or uncertainty. sure, that's a blanket statement, but i've found that it's true far more often than not. and every institution in our society is geared toward fostering that kind of simplistic view of the world. since the day we're born, we're taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think.

what's the american framework for every debate? power? money? the status quo? "national interests"? right now it seems the country has become more polarized and more entrenched than ever before (at least in my short lifetime) and that serves to ensure that we won't EVER see a sane, reasoned debate (at the national level) about what our role in the world is and should be, because the unquestioned assumption is that we are the world's "lone superpower" and have the *right* to be. the argument centers on how and where and when to wield our power, not why. americans today cannot conceive of a world where we aren't in control, and every day that we go about our normal business we carry in our heads - consciously or not - a sense that this life we have here is the model for how it should be everywhere. if you really take an honest and deep assessment of your thoughts and feelings, you'll have to at least recognize that the lens through which we see the world has a color and shape that isn't exactly free of distortion... i struggle with that every day.

so, from that basis, how do we look at a situation like iraq and come to terms with what should be done? i tend to agree that the people of iraq will only find a lasting solution if they are the ones to win the struggle over saddam and shape their own institutions for a post-saddam iraq. but does that mean we stand by and watch them slog it out themselves? do we arm resistance groups? do we work through the UN to impose sanctions? even if we get out of the business of installing and supporting dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, how do we deal with the ones that are already in place? do we stand by and watch as genocide is committed or do we intervene militarily (be it unilaterally or multilaterally) to stop the attrocities?

in cambodia we just ignored it; the vietnamese stepped in to stop pol pot. in east timor we tacitly approve of the ongoing slaughter, continuing our military support for indonesia - there's oil in the timor sea. in bosnia; in rwanda and somalia and most of africa we stayed out of it, until enough pressure built up that we finally intervened. let me guess... there's not much in the way of oil in those places either, and they aren't exactly strategic locations for placing u.s. military bases. so it seems the answer for the american government continues to be predicated on this notion of "national interest", which in broad terms translates to "do they have any natural resources we want?"

but still, the question remains: whether it's the u.s. acting alone as we are now in iraq, or whether it's the UN sending in forces under their flag, where is the line between "humanitarian" intervention and staying the hell out of it and letting them deal with their own problems? if your neighbor is beating his wife, do you go in immediately? do you turn up the tv and pretend it isn't happening? do you call the cops? in national affairs, who are the cops? and even after the immediate situation is resolved, how do you deal with the abuser?

the situation in iraq is shamelessly about the oil, despite rabid denials and accusations by the right to the contrary. the hypocrisy is just staggering, but thankfully, the wingnuts don't have to be troubled by it at all - in fact, they revel in it. while railing on about the evils of "world government" they're out to impose it, in essence, by dictating to the globe in no uncertain terms that it's our way or the... no, it's just our way. period. while lambasting libruhls about engaging in situational ethics, there are no greater practitioners than the folks who tell us the north koreans, alleged to have missiles capable of delivering nukes to the west coast, can be negotiated with or ignored, while iraq who is a shadow of its former self and poses virtually no threat to us or its neighbors is a grave concern, and must be dealt with immediately. (something tells me that the bushies wouldn't bat an eye if seattle or portland or san francisco went up in a nuclear attack...) while rallying the people and virtually inciting civil war with the cries of "support the troops!" the gop has slashed funding for veterans in a time of unprecedented military spending. and on and on...

i think these are very good questions that we have to look for answers to. i think the situation in this country is far worse than most people perceive; the left/progressive/radical movements are in utter disarray, and the notion that "when the people know the facts, they'll make the right decisions" is, sadly, less and less true every day. there are some hopeful signs in these very, very dark times; the fact that the whole world stood up in record numbers to oppose this war before it even started was quite shocking. but here in this country, with almost unprecedented access to information (despite the best efforts of the government and the media to spin and deceive) and "facts" a large number of americans have basically said, "yeah, y'know what? we support this anyway." underlying all the poll results is the stark admission, whether it's even conscious or not, that americans LIKE being at the top of the food chain and the status quo is just fine. no matter how much blood has to be spilled to maintain it.

and THAT is what scares me.

more ramblings from the saddened heart and troubled mind of

-- a. nony mouse