Jim, one of my amazing Caesar salad and Grape Juice customers, has repeatedly been bringing me down articles on the horrors of Islamic terrorism, so that I might read with wide eyes during my hour of ultimate boredom. The subject will not evade me, it seems, because I just came from listening to a Rush Limbaugh segment and he was conducting an interview with some guy who wrote a book. I think it was 'Jackson' somebody who wrote some book about the dangers of Islam; dangers most people aren't aware of. That's not what's important, though. What's important is all of that made me start thinking about how people take for granted the greatness of this country.
I think there's a great parallel between the World Trade Centers and America. Alot of people want to argue that since there have been no more major terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001, there is no longer a danger. In fact, they say there is so little danger that our troops have no business interfering on Iraqi soil. All I have to do is mention the word 'war', and many of my customers will get raised eyebrows and go off on a tangent about this 'sorry excuse of a war'. My boss' son is a soldier stationed in Iraq right now, though, so many of those customers will curb their vehemency in her presence. My point here is not that those customer do not have a right to anger, or to their opinion. Absolutely not. I think it's awesome that I can hear people contradict with me and talk about differences of opinion. I think I'm like alot of people in wishing that there wasn't such a thing as war, but I am not so clueless as to think that America is a country that can just sit by and remain great. Even our founding fathers were not sure that America would last for a few years... much less forever.
While the World Trade Center bombing of '93 frightened people, nobody took it as a declaration of war. The Trade Centers stood firm and were repaired. They were considered un-destructable. Life went on. Then 9/11 2001 came and went... the World Trade Centers sank to it's knees... and it sent American's to their knees in prayer and sorrow. The core of American resolve was shaken and on their knees they were strengthend. What happened since then? How has simply seven years weakened our resolve to keep on the offensive to prevent equally devestating attacks against our great country? I think it says alot for President Bush and our troops that America hasn't had any more major attacks on her soil since 2001. When I told one of my customers that, she exploded, "What do you call the anthrax attack?" lol. That was reaching a bit, to compare 'the anthrax attack' to 'the 9/11 attack'.
America is the greatest country in the world. There's no doubt of that. But are we seriously naive enough to think that the war has NOT been helping prevent attacks on our soil? Are we honestly content with the Jimmy Carters' of America conducting 'peace treaties' with Hamas? Are 'we the people' so content with being separated into our political parties, that when a republican in office happens to declare war, we cannot support him all the way to victory because of his political PARTY? Terrorists ARE dangerous... Islam DOES teach violence... All I can do when I hear people whine about how ritarded it is for our troops to be sacrificing themselves for a 'lost cause' is bite my tongue until it bleeds. I just feel so strongly that America is not a 'great' country that will last 'forever' unless we, the people of America, continue to fight for that greatness.
What happened to the unsinkable Titanic? It sank. What happened to the undestructable World Trade Centers? It was destroyed. Great America has been amply warned. The warm security of ignorance is no longer ours. There IS a war, and we ARE winning it. Daily, terrorists (who are often defined in the main stream media as 'innocents') are killed. That's awesome. You know why? Because terrorists are TRAINED to KILL Americans! This is not just a 'war' to them... it is a way of living. We may retire from war, but until they (and their way of thinking)are no longer living, innocent people are in danger. One terrorist killed is quite possibly two Americans saved. I wish these people could be 'untrained' and spared... but where the security of Americans and war is involved... it is not something we have the authority to risk. We cannot just introduce a Bible and immediately retrain the way these terrorists think. They are programmed for death.
I have often heard people complain that the democracy we are implementing there is pointless, and America has NO right to interfere with their politics. WHAT politics? I don't really care about the democracy... that's just something that's supposed to help the citizens get back on their feet. That is the compassion of America in action. Our OBJECTIVE is to destroy Al Qaida and other terrorist regimes. Their main objective is to oppress their citizens and inspire Muslim Extremists to eliminate the real INNOCENTS of America. It makes me sick when I think of how many journalists cannot sit back from their political bias and just look at America as their country that they must defend at all costs.
We want to secure a safe, strong nation for this generation, and the generations to come, don't we? Absolutely. So let's stop pretending that our good name is going to keep us safe. It is our good men and women that are fighting for us even as I write these humble words that are keeping us safe. Greatness is a pursuit, not a fact.
13 comments:
Hello Andi!
Firstly, apologies for disappearing amidst our previous conversation, which I was enjoying.
I have been on a road trip for a few weeks, with no internet access; interetingly, I thought I would point out that, in relation to your earlier post, I saw the home of Fox Talbot, father of photography, and one of the earliest ever photographs, in his home town of Lacock, just outside of Chichester.
Anyway, I'll wade deeper into this later, but I don't get everything you say.
Firstly: "Our OBJECTIVE is to destroy Al-Qaida and other terrorist regimes."
So why Iraq? There was no Al-Qaida in Iraq.
If you're destroying all terrorist regimes... then why invade Iraq? America is not an inexperienced player on the world stage, there are other ways of removing Saddam's dictatorship than a full-scale invasion. Or, why not invade Saudi Arabia, a regime equally brutal.
Second, whilst I don't support Hamas in any way, I find it interesting that Hamas was elected by the people. What does that say about democracy in the Middle East and America?
Third, you say "Daily, terrorists (who are often defined in the main stream media as 'innocents') are killed. That's awesome." How do you decide which are terrorists and which are innocents? You tread a thin line here almost implying that there are no innocents, that they are just invented by the media: that ever person in Iraq, "innocent" or not, is in fact a terrorist. Which is really sad I think, to dismiss so callously the scale of the loss of innocent life in Iraq.
Finally, you say "America is the greatest country in the world. There's no doubt of that."
But by what measure? The greatest in size? No, China. The greatest in economic power? Certainly on the wane. The greatest in happiness and the way it looks after it's people? No, I'd look to many more European countries/scandinavian countries for those measures. The greatest in faith? It seems to me that those who hold the strongest faith are possibly those that are willing to commit suicide for their faith. But we all know they're wrong.... don't we???? The greatest in literacy and education? Again, I think europe might be a better place to look. The greatest in innovation? The asian technological boom is fast overtaking Americas contributions.
I'm not saying America isn't a great country - I love it, New York is one of my favourite cities in the world. But I think blanket statements like "America is the greatest" miss a whole lot of things out of the equation, and appeal to blind nationalism.
I think Australia is the greatest country in the world, but probably for very different reasons you think America is.
Sorry, just sticking my finger in the broth again: there's not nearly enough comments on your blog!!
Hope you're well!
voltare44
Hey voltare44! Wow, you're right, it's been a while. The road trip sounds pretty wild. ;) Did you go down south to warmer weather? I hear you when you said there were too few comments. I'm not sure how to inspire people to conflict with me. I'm sincere when I say it's nice to hear from you!
"...but I don't get everything you say."
Apparently little has changed with you, lol. First of all, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that Al-Qaida is in Iraq. That specific terrorist regime is in Afghanistan. From what I, in my limited albeit expanding perspective, am led to believe, our objective in Iraq is "...to remove the current Iraqi regime and replace it with a more U.S.-friendly government. Washington has also expressed its desire to occupy Iraq until the Middle Eastern state is stable enough for self-government." (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=28&language_id=1)
The article I found also went on to say: "If Iraq were to become a regional power, it would weaken U.S. control in the region, as Iraq would have an increased ability to take actions opposed to U.S. interests." Actions opposed to U.S. interests we can clearly interpret to be terrorist threats and attacks towards America.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Qaida, have managed to keep clear of U.S. Intelligence and are rumored to be living in Pakistan. So that raises the same point. Why not attack Pakistan, and root out these leaders?
My theory is this. According to reports, Al Qaida is not without its' influences in other terrorist regimes which spread throughout the Middle East (including Iraq). This explains why cutting out the ONE terrorist regime out of the ONE country is a little bit unrealistic. So, why NOT Iraq?
This does not mean that I want America to be at war with the entire Middle East until every last Muslim is wiped out. That is not America's responsibility. America's primary responsibility is to protect her own soil and her own people, and she is doing her best to eliminate immediate and active threats against her people.
It is, admittedly, a difficult and controversial decision to keep our boys at war; a decision which has enflamed much hate for President Bush. However, the main thrust of my article was that I believe too many people rush to degrade our cause in Iraq because they don't like the man who sent us there.
Such degredation can do nothing to embolden our troops, and may do everything to embolden the forces of the enemy.
You said: "America is not an inexperienced player on the world stage, there are other ways of removing Saddam's dictatorship than a full-scale invasion." How is she incapable of a full-scale invasion victory? What is the alternative? I'm not demanding an answer from you personally, because it is ridiculous to demand the correct alternative of an individual. But imagine how much governmental officials were tortured over this very topic. Any president would logically pursue the simplest way of rooting out this terrorism. Why should President Bush WANT to increase his lack of popularity through this war? Doesn't make sense, does it? It makes sense that he would have exhausted all other options before exhausting his powers as commander in chief, and calling on Congress to declare war.
Your second point was: "Second, whilst I don't support Hamas in any way, I find it interesting that Hamas was elected by the people. What does that say about democracy in the Middle East and America?" I'd say that makes it pretty scary. Better to do something about it than sit idly by, eh?
And here, "Third, you say "Daily, terrorists (who are often defined in the main stream media as 'innocents') are killed. That's awesome." How do you decide which are terrorists and which are innocents?". When you say this, I think you are reading far too defensively into this. I by no means said that ALL 'terrorists' are called 'innocents' and vise versa. I said 'often', which you could interpret as 'fairly regularly but not always'. Pretty cool, huh? I can't take the credit for it. One of my customers brought me down an article claiming to the afore mentioned statement. And may I assure you, Voltare44, I am by no means 'callously dismissing the innocent civilian lives lost in Iraq'. My heart is broken when I hear about the women and children that were put in harms way through the actions of terrorist groups. I'm not like some who will jump at the chance to blame our troops for willful violence against unprotected women and children.
I love what you say for your last point here. I can't believe THIS is your objection: "Finally, you say "America is the greatest country in the world. There's no doubt of that." But by what measure? The greatest in size?"
lol, Voltare44, you're just really looking to push some buttons here aren't you? I suppose on this one I will concede. You're right. I am spouting that statement more out of a great loyalty to my country than as a person with charts and statistics in front of me. Sadly, I agree that America relies more on its' avowement to 'greatness' than on its own power to do great things. Then again, there are many ways you could define great (as you touched on). What is more important? To be... Great economicaly? Great religiously? Great geographicaly? Great socially? Hmm... Can't really answer that question. But I think America is the greatest potentially. We have so much freedom in this country that we take for granted. I don't think America is a lost cause. I don't think it can't become greater. I believe greatness is within our grasp, because we have the freedom to choose it.
Our Constitution is one of the most daring governmental articles produced, since it is the author of the first successful, long-lasting democracy. Our system is an intricate blend of citizens and government which are all bound by law.
With all of that aside, I like how John Adams puts it:
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
That's pretty cool. Thought provoking and all that...
Anyways, Voltare44, I appreciate your good-sport-like endurance. I like these conflicts we have. You made some intresting, albeit pointless, thoughts. lol Hope all is fantastic with your Monday and you're settling in after your road trip! ttyl
Actually, I was down South - the south coast of the UK being where Chichester is; and no, it was not warm, it tended to snow and hail on and off! But in terms of North Amercian latitude, I think my "South" was still in Canada!
First of all, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that Al-Qaida is in Iraq. That specific terrorist regime is in Afghanistan. From what I, in my limited albeit expanding perspective, am led to believe, our objective in Iraq is "...to remove the current Iraqi regime and replace it with a more U.S.-friendly government. Washington has also expressed its desire to occupy Iraq until the Middle Eastern state is stable enough for self-government."
I can't dispute that the Afghanistan war is directed at Al-Qaeda, which "grew up" there out of the Soviet-Afghanistan war. And I can't dispute the "goal" of Iraq is to install a US-friendly regime; and they're unfortunately finding out just how hard that is. It is interesting how that was NOT the primary motivation behind the war - if you remember your news broadcasts in the lead-up, and the speeches from Bush, Iraq was sold as a natural progression: go from Al-qaeda in Afghanistan to Al-qaeda in Iraq, continuing the "war against terror." You make it sound like deciding to go to war was a torturous decision for Bush et al. I can't speak for them of course, but it is hardly the impression one gets - looking back at the sequence of events, there is a very clear message that they wanted to go into Iraq, and that they were willing to find any excuse to do so. The nebulous "Al-qaeda" threat (despite no evidence of them having anything to do with Iraq) provided the back-drop; non-existent weapons-of-mass-destruction provided the "excuse"; and now, given that the other two reasons ended up being proved invented, "regime change" - which happened years ago, but they haven't got much further. You say "Why should President Bush WANT to increase his lack of popularity through this war?" But, correct me if I'm wrong, there was nothing but a surge of popularity for Bush in the lead up to and the initial stages of the war - and then he proclaimed "victory" what was it, months later? And here we are 6 years later. What it shows is an enormous lack of foresight and planning from the Bush administration, and huge self-delusions, which unfortunately I think you reflect in your writing. "How is she incapable of a full-scale invasion victory?" Well, 6-years later, I would say we are incapable of a full-scale invasion victory.
And I don't blame the soldiers for the violence. Of course not, but one can squarely lay the blame at the administration, again in lack of planning, foresight, and encouraging a culture of arrogance amongst US soldiers, that lead to the terrible stories such as Abu-Gharib etc, which have no doubt played a large part in reinforcing distrust of the US.
I guess you're right - the thrust of your article is against the degradation of troops; and too right, no-one should have to fight without feeling they are doing the right thing and supported. It's just too obviously questionable as to what is the right thing, whether the right thing was done in the first place.
"If Iraq were to become a regional power, it would weaken U.S. control in the region, as Iraq would have an increased ability to take actions opposed to U.S. interests." Actions opposed to U.S. interests we can clearly interpret to be terrorist threats and attacks towards America.
So it's ok for the US to maintain control in the region by supporting the Saudi regime, despite a human rights record just as questionable as Saddam Hussein? And the UK is included in this. It is certainly hypocritical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
I don't really get "actions opposed to US interests we can clearly interpret to be terrorist attacks." OR, they could be something else. If a country refuses to sign a trade agreement with the US, against the interests of the US, is that a terrorist attack? I think there are so many ways of opposing US interests, and to label anything in opposition as being associated with terrorism is wrong. The big pink elephant in the corner that noone seems to mention much at the moment is Russia, who under Putin is increasingly flexing it's muscles and playing hard ball. They are certainly in opposition to US interests, but now they're not communist, people find it harder to complain about them!
America's primary responsibility is to protect her own soil and her own people, and she is doing her best to eliminate immediate and active threats against her people.
I just fail to see how in any way Iraq WAS an active threat against the US. It clearly is NOW!! And so you will be stuck with it for many many years, and it will cost you dearly, and I really feel sorry for America that it happened at a time when the country was susceptible to accepting bad decisions from an arrogant leadership, who did not listen to advice.
It is, admittedly, a difficult and controversial decision to keep our boys at war;
I don't think it is that hard: really, you have to stick with it. You got into the mess, you have to try and see it through.
I am by no means 'callously dismissing the innocent civilian lives lost in Iraq'
Good! Because it certainly didn't read that way.
lol, Voltare44, you're just really looking to push some buttons here aren't you? I suppose on this one I will concede.
Of course. Buttons are their to be pushed! But if they're not pushed they go unpressed. And I'm glad you concede that America has some serious obstacles to being called "greatest country in the world," depending on the measure used. It's important for me that things are never black and white, because they are. The reason why I push the buttons, is because what I read feels like it has little or no awareness of the other sides of the various pictures, and the shades of grey in between. The impression one from overseas gets of America is much like that. The image of Americans being people who don't know anything about any country outside their own, of being arrogant and generally ignorant, is SO prevalent, that when I read your posts like this, my interpretation of them can't helped be coloured by that image. I know you're not ignorant, although I do get the impression that you tend to limit your reading to a pool of one-sided commentators, like Rush Limbaugh etc etc.
It's so EASY for Americans to think they are great, and to make sweeping statements like "Our Constitution... is the author of the first successful, long-lasting democracy" when for eg England has had a perfectly successful democracy since 1689, well before your consitution was written in 1788. That's not to say that the US system isn't better (although it seems to outsiders to be a system in which money has a far greater say than it should, compared to the UK/Australian system); but it is to point out that such sweeping statements, while they may make you feel good as an American, in fact have all sorts of shades of grey.
My points are a little bit rambling, I'm sorry :) comes from typing in a stream of conscience: maybe I should sit down and plan what I'm going to say more, but my wife doesn't let me have the computer for long enough!!
I comment because I feel statements like It makes sense that he would have exhausted all other options before exhausting his powers as commander in chief, and calling on Congress to declare war demonstrate that you seem to be quite naive in many ways, and have listened to far too much Fox News or whatever your regular source of "journalism" is!!!
Voltare44. I suppose the debate continues. I'm totally unsure what we're debating, though, but wth, here goes. I have just a sec, but I'll touch on a little bit of what you said.
Okay, you said: "You make it sound like deciding to go to war was a torturous decision for Bush et al. I can't speak for them of course..." No, unfortunately you can't and I can't.
Then you said, "I just fail to see how in any way Iraq WAS an active threat against the US." But before that you contradicted yourself by saying, "Iraq was sold as a natural progression: go from Al-qaeda in Afghanistan to Al-qaeda in Iraq, continuing the "war against terror." If the goal in Iraq was initially to root out Al-qaeda, then how is that not a legitimate reason to go to Iraq? Doesn't it make sense if we were attacked on our soil by those of Al Qaeda that we should make every effort to eliminate the ACTIVE THREAT against America?
Moving on: ..."the country was susceptible to accepting bad decisions from an arrogant leadership, who did not listen to advice." Wow! That's making alot assumptions, don't you think? I think during the time of 9/11 any president would have sought advice.
You pointed out that I had said: "It is, admittedly, a difficult and controversial decision to keep our boys at war;
And you paried: "I don't think it is that hard: really, you have to stick with it. You got into the mess, you have to try and see it through."
I actually agree with you some here. I do think that it is absolutely necessary that we finish this war out, however the criticism of the main stream media are making it difficult for the government to get popular support for the effort in this war. This IS a democracy, isn't it? (laced within a Republic, I know) If the people absolutely disagree with the governement, then a controversy has been created.
I said: "I am by no means 'callously dismissing the innocent civilian lives lost in Iraq"
And you said: "Good! Because it certainly didn't read that way." Ouch, Voltare44, did you really read that closely?
You went on to say: "The image of Americans being people who don't know anything about any country outside their own, of being arrogant and generally ignorant, is SO prevalent, that when I read your posts like this, my interpretation of them can't helped be coloured by that image."
It is so unfortunate that you have this image of Americans... I guess I took for granted in our first few debates that you were an American. Oops, sorry about that. You're right. I am naive. I admitt it. I have alot to learn. But that's what's great fun about writing and pursuing these subjects of 'controversy'. No man has ever agreed with me on every issue, and no man ever will. I like it that way, because then my knowledge of people and their opinions are expanded. That's a bit of a selfish way to look at things, I know, but I figure if I can walk away from an experience with new knowledge, I have gained.
I still believe in America, though. It has greatness to be achieved, and some greatness that cannot be percieved by those not presently experiencing it.
La, I love free speech. I have to run to my sisters house now, though. Hope you have a great weekend, Voltare44! ttyl
Just so you know:
Now we REALLY know that the American media have been a conduit for propoganda from the Bush administration. Really makes America seem no different to China, or Burma, or any other heavily media-controlled, anti-freedom/democracy country.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts/
Of course, America isn't any of those countries yet. But that's exactly the sort of behaviour that America likes to condemn in countries like Iran and China. Hypocritical?
From an overseas perspective, it is AMAZING how much channels like FOX news etc in the US seem simply like propoganda, it's STAGGERING the blatant manipulation of the public, non-disclosure of facts, and willingness to tow the governement line. That's not what makes a democracy function: one of the cornerstones is a free and rigorous media, to inform the public, and ask the hard questions of the government. You who watch FOX are sorely shortchanged.
I think it's a dangerous mix of government directive, as evidenced by the article above, and simply lazy journalism. FOX etc don't want to even bother investing in investigative journalism, they are interested in sensationalism: Many people suggest that Rupert Murdoch was very keen for a war for the US, as nothing plays better in the news ratings than a war. I wouldn't be THAT cynical; but I really think you need to start opening your eyes to some of the nonsense your media feeds you! You're still young, you still have time to start thinking for yourself - properly!!! ;)
Time for bed! I have to go to a CHURCH tomorrow!!! Dum-dum-Duuuuuhm!!!
Sorry Andi:
that link above should read:
...2008/05/10/analysts/index.html
the last bit got chopped off.
This one is interesting.
Isn't it mysteriously CONVENIENT that the entire email record of the Bush administration has gone missing for the period surrounding the start of the Iraq war? All the backups, poof?!
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/05/8165_white_house_adm.html
(in case that gets chopped off too, it should be ...2008/05/8165_white_house_adm.html
WHO would trust your current government??
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/
(should be ....8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/
Hi andi!
Found the article about the cost of the Iraq war that mentions what I was looking for: about soldiers who get $40,000 a year, and have to buy their own armour if it gets damaged, vs contractors who get $400,000 plus their insurance paid etc. Both paid by the US government, in it's weird out-sourced war.
The whole article is quite interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan
(again, if it's chopped off, it should be
2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan
Note:
This reply was intended to follow directly from your last post. I don't know why it didn't show, I only just noticed. So, in case you were thinking I had gone all weird and conspiracy theory on you, I haven't just been randomly spamming you with links: they all follow on directly from my main reply which should have appeared earlier; which goes something like this!! :
Andi!
I suppose the debate continues. I'm totally unsure what we're debating, though
We're not really having a debate as such, we're just having a conversation in which we disagree with each other!
Okay, you said: "You make it sound like deciding to go to war was a torturous decision for Bush et al. I can't speak for them of course..." No, unfortunately you can't and I can't.
Neither of us can. But what I'm calling you on is your assumption of "making sense." You said earlier:
It makes sense that he would have exhausted all other options before exhausting his powers as commander in chief, and calling on Congress to declare war.
It certainly makes SENSE that a commander in chief would do that. But it's sad that that's not what happened. There are many many documents that show that Bush and his circle in the Administration made the decision to go to war with Iraq well before they had a good reason to. Iraq simply was not a terrorist threat to the US - did it have capabilities to launch weapons at US soil? Of course not! It was simply an unpleasant place amongst all the other unpleasant places in the world. The only way to imagine a possible terrorist threat is that if Iraq were possibly to sell weapons to other "threatening" countries, like Syria or North Korea. Weapons that Iraq DID NOT HAVE. After a decade of sanctions from the West, that were keeping Saddam Hussein very-much under control, the country didn't have the infrastructure left for "weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspections were in the process of demonstrating the absence of weapons. Saddam was being difficult, but he was relenting to inspections. When Bush threatened war, Saddam caved in and said he would allow full weapons inspections across the board. In fact, he effectively surrendered. Did Bush "pursue all available options" then? Did he say, "Good, now we can stave off a war, because we've forced Saddam to fully disclose the weapons that we hope he has, but he says he doesn't?" No, the drums of war were already beating.
No-one was in direct threat. The concept of an "attack on america" by Iraq was laughable at the time - Iraq was a country in despair, downtrodden, sanctioned, only kept in check because of it's oil supplies. The "threat" to America was from Al-Qaeda, a loosely networked Islamic terrorist organisation across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia etc, whose goal is to establish an Islamic State across the world. Saddam Hussein was directly opposed to their aims: his regime was secular, he didn't want an Islamic government. He wanted nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
There were PLENTY of other options other than directly invading Iraq. Bush chose to invade, at the behest of a lot of people who would make a lot of money out of it. He was sold the idea of a quick in-and-out, replace Saddam, deliver democracy and take the oil. Couldn't have been more wrong.
Then you said, "I just fail to see how in any way Iraq WAS an active threat against the US." But before that you contradicted yourself by saying, "Iraq was sold as a natural progression: go from Al-qaeda in Afghanistan to Al-qaeda in Iraq, continuing the "war against terror." If the goal in Iraq was initially to root out Al-qaeda, then how is that not a legitimate reason to go to Iraq? Doesn't it make sense if we were attacked on our soil by those of Al Qaeda that we should make every effort to eliminate the ACTIVE THREAT against America?
No, you miss my point: I said Iraq was SOLD as a natural progression. By SOLD, I mean, the public were convinced. You STILL think that Iraq was invaded because Al-Qaeda were there. That's what your government told you, and what your press bought and told you. In the rest of the world, we're well aware that that is simply not true, and we have been for years. Your country is only just catching up: Read again: Al-qaeda had NO base in Iraq, Saddam Hussein had NO connections with Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden etc. You were lied to by your government to justify starting a war that they had been wanting to do for YEARS before 9/11 even. There was no ACTIVE THREAT.
Moving on: ..."the country was susceptible to accepting bad decisions from an arrogant leadership, who did not listen to advice." Wow! That's making alot assumptions, don't you think? I think during the time of 9/11 any president would have sought advice.
He got advice: from all the desperate-to-go-to-war people behind him.
You pointed out that I had said: "It is, admittedly, a difficult and controversial decision to keep our boys at war;
And you paried: "I don't think it is that hard: really, you have to stick with it. You got into the mess, you have to try and see it through."
I actually agree with you some here. I do think that it is absolutely necessary that we finish this war out, however the criticism of the main stream media are making it difficult for the government to get popular support for the effort in this war. This IS a democracy, isn't it? (laced within a Republic, I know) If the people absolutely disagree with the governement, then a controversy has been created.
It is a democracy, and if the people disagree, the government can and should be voted out. The people were lied to - they deserve to kick the current administration out. I'm sorry that the soldiers might feel unsupported: but they of all people know that they're fighting for a very confused set of principles. Do you know how much a US soldier gets paid for risking his life? Do you know how much in comparison the US government pays private mercenaries/contracted fighters in Iraq? I don't have figures handy, but I'll look them up if you're interested. The government has been treating it's soldiers like dirt from day one - but it's content to run the "support the troops, don't criticise the war" propoganda machine.
You went on to say: "The image of Americans being people who don't know anything about any country outside their own, of being arrogant and generally ignorant, is SO prevalent, that when I read your posts like this, my interpretation of them can't helped be coloured by that image."
It is so unfortunate that you have this image of Americans... I guess I took for granted in our first few debates that you were an American. Oops, sorry about that. You're right. I am naive. I admitt it. I have alot to learn. But that's what's great fun about writing and pursuing these subjects of 'controversy'. No man has ever agreed with me on every issue, and no man ever will. I like it that way, because then my knowledge of people and their opinions are expanded. That's a bit of a selfish way to look at things, I know, but I figure if I can walk away from an experience with new knowledge, I have gained.
Well, me too: i didn't say earlier, but meant to, that I believe that IS Americas "greatest" strength: it's commitment to free speech. From what I read of the US, the only people I see threatening that freedom at the moment are the religious right. :)
I was thinking about this the other day: I'm not massively older than you, BUT, I forget just how long this war has been going. You wouldn't have been much more than 12 or 13 or 14 when it started? So you probably don't remember much about the lead-up. It's interesting that the lead up to the war was presented in a VERY different way from within America, as opposed to say in the UK or Australia, who have a much free-er and more rigorous press. This is my point. There are large sections of American society who are amazingly ignorant. Look at all the democrat voters in West Virginia who wont vote for Obama because they think he's a Muslim?!?! The number of people who think that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11? Amazing how many people in the US think that. But then, that's what their news channels probably told them, so who do we blame? Bad journalism or the government? Both in fact. (as is being revealed even as we speak.)
All the best,
voltare44
All right, Voltare44. Out of all the deliciously insightful things you expressed, I want to touch on this statement:
That's what your government told you, and what your press bought and told you.
And: But then, that's what their news channels probably told them, so who do we blame? Bad journalism or the government?
I'm drawing from what you have said that you believe that our press has a strong influence in my country, right? They can either lie or merely color the facts and we, the people, will believe it. Sadly, you'll get no opposition from me there. I believe it was Hitler that once said, "If you tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough, the people will believe it." This is true both in any political, religious, or free speech system. That's why I believe so strongly that America deserves to hear the truth... America needs organizations that have nothing to benefit from by telling the facts how they are. My country is faced head-on with moral, spiritual, and quite possibly political decline, but that does not stir me to fall to my face and declare my country's inevidable weakness.
That stirs me to learn more about my country to benefit it as best I can. I'd love to own a newspaper someday. That would hopefully be one newspaper you could always count on to say what's true, whether one likes it or not.
I'm curious though why you think 'the religious right' are such a detriment to my country's free speech. Just hoping for your refreshing perspective.
My brothers' trying to kick me off the computer with blatant verbal assaults. (sigh) I've been babbling anyway... I'll write more later.
Listen to David Horowitz on May 15,2008 on this site.
http://www.wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.cfm
I'm drawing from what you have said that you believe that our press has a strong influence in my country, right? They can either lie or merely color the facts and we, the people, will believe it. Sadly, you'll get no opposition from me there...
...that's why I believe so strongly that America deserves to hear the truth... America needs organizations that have nothing to benefit from by telling the facts how they are.
I look forward to you running that organisation. So, what is your regular news-source? Do you get everything through Limbaughs megaphone? What other sources do you read/watch/listen to?
In the UK and Australia, there are institutions that attempt to serve this purpose: the BBC in Britain, and the ABC in Australia. Both are funded by the taxpayer, through direct taxation in Australia, and through tax and a television license in the UK. Their charter is such that they are independent from the government, and from any business interests. It is in their duty to provide balanced coverage of different sides of all issues etc.
There is probably only one truly independent newspaper in the UK - The Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk)
The Guardian is owned and run by The guardian media group, which is a charitable trust, set up to ensure editorial independence; a different voice to the many other newspapers in the UK owned by Rupert Murdoch (who owns FOX, and most of the Australian media.) The Guardian is actually a consistently loss-making newspaper; their primary motivation is not profit, as the trust covers the losses made by the paper. I sincerely hope that you aspire to one day be a journalist for the Guardian or the BBC, if truth and independence of thought is what you care about.
My country is faced head-on with moral, spiritual, and quite possibly political decline, but that does not stir me to fall to my face and declare my country's inevidable weakness.
Unfortunately, declaring your countries weaknesses is the first step in trying to address them.
I have a friend who recently moved to America, Missouri I believe. She is Australian, and she came back really really scared for your country. You have a country that is, - in no small part thanks to Bush encouraging TAX CUTS during a WAR?! - sprialling uncontrollably into masses of debt, both national and personal; you have probably the worst healthcare system in the developed world; you have millions of people living in poverty/third world conditions; you have ever declining literacy rates in your young population; you have declining scientific literacy; you have generally enormous levels of ignorance about the world around you; you have one of the most biased, government-influenced media in the west; a media that spends just as much time lying on behalf of the government as it does convincing the population that Britney's new hair-colour is important and news-worthy; you have the most astonishing addiction to oil, in a time when (whether climate change is manmade or not) we are fast running out of it; you have a government system where candidates can only get elected with millions of dollars of support, and where policy appears to be enormously at the behest of lobbyists, whose money backed by business interests calls the shots on policy.
When you add all those things together, it's bad, but of course not that bad: you're not Iran, or Afghanistan, or Bangladesh, or Ethiopia/Eritrea, or Sudan, or The Philippines, or any other country that has masses of problems. But what you do have is a bury-the-head-in-the-sand mentality: "Let's do more tax cuts" "We didn't lie to the public when we went to war" "Everything is fine" "America is the greatest country in the world". Combine this with the sense of fear that seems to pervade America at the moment: fear of terrorism, fear of oil prices no longer being in control, fear of debt; fear and ignorance don't go well together. An ignorant, fearful country is something that gets us other western countries just a little nervous.
That stirs me to learn more about my country to benefit it as best I can. I'd love to own a newspaper someday. That would hopefully be one newspaper you could always count on to say what's true, whether one likes it or not.
Good luck to you! Send your CV to the BBC/Guardian. And I hope you are learning about your country from a wide variety of sources, not just Limbaugh.
I'm curious though why you think 'the religious right' are such a detriment to my country's free speech. Just hoping for your refreshing perspective.
So, if, say, an Atheist community group purchases a billboard that says something like "Imagine No Religion", do you think it's right for Christian groups to complain and force it to be taken down?
Do you think it's not even a LITTLE scary that some people believe very strongly (I hope you're not one) that Jesus will return only after an apocalypse, and that the quicker we can encourage war in the Holy Land the faster we can all get to paradise? And that some of these people are in government, or have the ear of the government?
jawguard
I listened to David Horowitz... not sure what you want me to take from it; much of it was people slanging each other as leftist tree-huggers and rightists. Some of the callers sounded a little nutty, certainly incoherent in whatever they were trying to say. Horowtiz seemed to just repeat that Bush was justified in going to war. There are plenty of people that disagree with him. Further more, theres plenty to suggest that there was enormous manipulation of evidence, to try and bolster the case for the war. More importantly is perhaps what one caller at the end mentioned: that of the atmosphere at the time, when any criticism of the war plans was "unpatriotic" and "unamerican" - a campaign aided by the media such as FOX, at the behest of the government. They needed to sell the war to people. While there were millions of people marching in protest around the world, America seemed to swallow it all, hook-line-and-sinker, and here we are, six years and six trillion dollars later.
I can't believe that ANYONE would seriously consider voting again for that government, after what Bush and co have done to your country.
Post a Comment