![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rambling. Somewhat politically connected. All personal.
I watch the news. I read the news. I pay attention to what's going on in the world. I listen to the opinions and pontification that appears equally in the news, the workplace, webpages, live journals and local restaurants and bars.
Everyone has an opinion. And most of them have an "I am right and only a complete moron would disagree with me" type of an opinion. They write all their little essays and articles and they go to great lengths to illustrate how right they are.
And most of them suffer from exactly the same problem: they paint the world in very bold strokes of black and white.
There is a protest group down by the courthouse every weekend or so, and they had a big rally a couple of weeks ago. Lots of signs: "No war for oil". I'd love to jump in and join them, but the cynic in me wants to know how many of them drove their cars to the rally and will head home to nice warm houses and use all those wonderful products made from petroleum. And then I'm a little confused as to how much oil we actually get from Iraq and how much more we will get once we go to war.
I'm all for this live and let live ideal. Only for that to work, both sides have to want to "live and let live", and I'm not really sure that's the case. There is a fairly large Mennonite/Amish community around here. They operate two wonderful stores where I buy bulk spices and all those really nifty food items that big supermarkets don't carry. I can get Occident flour from them; it makes great bread. They have been part of the community for many years and they never say that, in order for them to continue with their life and lifestyle, the rest of society has to stop existing. They don't seem to feel that "American Culture" just by existing poses an insurmountable threat to their beliefs.
I really hate the media. I really do. I can dredge up some respect those outlets that are up front about their angle and beliefs. I don't agree with them and I generally get pissed when I read them, but at least they are obvious. It's the so-called "unbiased" media that bugs me. During the Gulf War I remember reading a rather indignant account of a reporter who was upset because the "Military Censors" wanted him to change a word -- one word -- in his copy. He used it as an example of how the "establishment" was micromanaging the public's opinion. The reporter had chosen a word that had many negative connotations and the censors wanted to change it to a much more positive word. The problem word -- and I really wish I could remember the exact wording problem -- implied a casual disregard for human life, if not an outright enjoyment of the horrors of war. Now, I'm not going to get in to trying to defend military censors here. No, what I found interesting was how indignant this guy was because "the government was trying to "manipulate" public opinion when obviously that was his job.
Then there is this whole "Human Shield" brigade that is heading over to the war zones to lay themselves out on targets in order to.... well, to die, I suppose. If anyone can really explain it to me, I'd be amazed. Do they really think that non-Muslim, non-Iraqi people are more valuable then Muslim, Iraqi people? Do they think that if a government is so willing to wantonly kill innocent women and children they would stop at killing a few dissenters? Do they really think that the Iraqi government sees them as anything other than good publicity, this conflict's "Hanoi Jane", if you will? Do they really believe that American Public will actually be more upset at their deaths? Do they really think we are that bigoted and evil?
I guess I'm not cut out to be a pacifist. If you're in an apartment building and you hear sounds of abuse and beatings coming from next door, what do you do? Do you call the police, anonymously place that call for help that brings intervention? Would you call if you had to leave your name -- and would that answer depend on how big and bad the guy was who was going to be arrested? What if you knew that there would be a fight and confrontation? Would that change whether or not you call the police? What if the police were people you loved and cared for and they were going into harms way? Or what if there were no police and you had to do it all?
There is a term: "Sins of the world" and a concept that we all carry the sins of the world around with us. I think the "sin" we carry with us is the acceptance of evil because we are afraid of the consequences of fighting it. We add to it every time we say "Those things happen" or "That's not my concern -- it's their private family business" or "They don't really want help". And we add to it every time we are unwilling to do what needs to be done because it is hard and ugly and dangerous and doesn't fit our little whitewashed vision of what "right" is.
You know, I don't know what the answer is. But you know what? Whatever the answer is, it's not going to be easy, because life isn't easy. There isn't going to be a comet falling from the sky and taking out the government of your choice.
And the next person that tells me that the answer is easy, is going to get punched.
I watch the news. I read the news. I pay attention to what's going on in the world. I listen to the opinions and pontification that appears equally in the news, the workplace, webpages, live journals and local restaurants and bars.
Everyone has an opinion. And most of them have an "I am right and only a complete moron would disagree with me" type of an opinion. They write all their little essays and articles and they go to great lengths to illustrate how right they are.
And most of them suffer from exactly the same problem: they paint the world in very bold strokes of black and white.
There is a protest group down by the courthouse every weekend or so, and they had a big rally a couple of weeks ago. Lots of signs: "No war for oil". I'd love to jump in and join them, but the cynic in me wants to know how many of them drove their cars to the rally and will head home to nice warm houses and use all those wonderful products made from petroleum. And then I'm a little confused as to how much oil we actually get from Iraq and how much more we will get once we go to war.
I'm all for this live and let live ideal. Only for that to work, both sides have to want to "live and let live", and I'm not really sure that's the case. There is a fairly large Mennonite/Amish community around here. They operate two wonderful stores where I buy bulk spices and all those really nifty food items that big supermarkets don't carry. I can get Occident flour from them; it makes great bread. They have been part of the community for many years and they never say that, in order for them to continue with their life and lifestyle, the rest of society has to stop existing. They don't seem to feel that "American Culture" just by existing poses an insurmountable threat to their beliefs.
I really hate the media. I really do. I can dredge up some respect those outlets that are up front about their angle and beliefs. I don't agree with them and I generally get pissed when I read them, but at least they are obvious. It's the so-called "unbiased" media that bugs me. During the Gulf War I remember reading a rather indignant account of a reporter who was upset because the "Military Censors" wanted him to change a word -- one word -- in his copy. He used it as an example of how the "establishment" was micromanaging the public's opinion. The reporter had chosen a word that had many negative connotations and the censors wanted to change it to a much more positive word. The problem word -- and I really wish I could remember the exact wording problem -- implied a casual disregard for human life, if not an outright enjoyment of the horrors of war. Now, I'm not going to get in to trying to defend military censors here. No, what I found interesting was how indignant this guy was because "the government was trying to "manipulate" public opinion when obviously that was his job.
Then there is this whole "Human Shield" brigade that is heading over to the war zones to lay themselves out on targets in order to.... well, to die, I suppose. If anyone can really explain it to me, I'd be amazed. Do they really think that non-Muslim, non-Iraqi people are more valuable then Muslim, Iraqi people? Do they think that if a government is so willing to wantonly kill innocent women and children they would stop at killing a few dissenters? Do they really think that the Iraqi government sees them as anything other than good publicity, this conflict's "Hanoi Jane", if you will? Do they really believe that American Public will actually be more upset at their deaths? Do they really think we are that bigoted and evil?
I guess I'm not cut out to be a pacifist. If you're in an apartment building and you hear sounds of abuse and beatings coming from next door, what do you do? Do you call the police, anonymously place that call for help that brings intervention? Would you call if you had to leave your name -- and would that answer depend on how big and bad the guy was who was going to be arrested? What if you knew that there would be a fight and confrontation? Would that change whether or not you call the police? What if the police were people you loved and cared for and they were going into harms way? Or what if there were no police and you had to do it all?
There is a term: "Sins of the world" and a concept that we all carry the sins of the world around with us. I think the "sin" we carry with us is the acceptance of evil because we are afraid of the consequences of fighting it. We add to it every time we say "Those things happen" or "That's not my concern -- it's their private family business" or "They don't really want help". And we add to it every time we are unwilling to do what needs to be done because it is hard and ugly and dangerous and doesn't fit our little whitewashed vision of what "right" is.
You know, I don't know what the answer is. But you know what? Whatever the answer is, it's not going to be easy, because life isn't easy. There isn't going to be a comet falling from the sky and taking out the government of your choice.
And the next person that tells me that the answer is easy, is going to get punched.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-05 04:26 pm (UTC)From:It is a given that: The US doesn't like Iraq (notwithstanding our gvmt having put the leader we dislike in power...shh). Iraq doesn't like the US. The US doesn't like how Iraq treats its people. The US insists that Iraq has/is developing weapons that they could (and presumably would) use to damage the US or her citizens if given the opportunity.
If we, however, attack Iraq based on that given, what is the next step?
Is it then a given that: The US doesn't like North Korea [or insert-your-own-country name here]. North Korea doesn't like the US. The US doesn't like how North Korea treats its people. The US knows that North Korea has/is developing weapons (since they told us so!) that they could (and presumably would) use to damage the US or her citizens if given the opportunity.
What other governments will assume that this paradigm, once used, might apply to them?
To what other governments will our government apply this once the precedent is set?
How long would it be before the fear of us, as the country with the most economic and military power in the world, drove countries thinking they might be next on our hit list to band together to try and stop us?
This is what scares me.
Also, just how many more people will become fundamentalists because the US is, by attacking Iraq, seeming to prove the point of those who insist that the US hates Muslims and Arabs and wants specifically to rid the earth of them? How many more terrorists will be spurred to action? How many more attacks would be levied against Americans at home and abroad in retaliation?
I do think that Saddam Hussein is bad for his country, his people, his region. I think that they and we would be better off were he no longer in power. I dislike the precedent outlined above that I believe we'd be setting to say that, in spite of that, I don't think we would be wise to attack without a specific provocation or without international support.
I am troubled by the idea of letting injustices go because it's "not our business". Of course, then the question comes of how we can exist in an international community with a cast of sovereign countries if one country is going to police their internal behavior, no matter how abhorrent. What is this country doing that is abhorrent to other countries [the death penalty, the death penalty for minors, abortion, democracy, not having state sanction/widespread practice of any particular religion].
I think that our track record for "nation-building", which started with the incredibly effective rebuilding of West Germany and Japan, has had an abyssmal track record since then.
I don't know what the good solution is. I wish I did.
I do think, though, that the precedent of taking unilateral action without specific military provocation, so basically because we don't like someone (no matter how legitimate that dislike is), put us in far greater danger in the long run, and that scares me.
Most of my thinking on this is hypothetical, but I do think that it is not far-flung "what if" thinking, but fairly grounded speculation.