The Really Big Political Rant
Mar. 19th, 2003 03:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rushthatspeaksOr, my thoughts on the war. I've been avoiding commenting on the subject to this point because I wanted to make sure that my beliefs were well thought out and my arguments clear and decisive, and I have come to the following conclusion: this war is, in fact, a really big mistake.
Reasons why:
International
1.) The United States is not the world's policeman. We do not, repeat, do not, have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. I agree that Saddam Hussein is an extremely bad ruler, and that his own people do not at the moment have the power to depose him. However, an organization does exist, with military powers, that has been appointed by treaty and by international law to serve as the world's policeman. That organization is the United Nations. The U.S. is not the U.N. Much of the purpose of the U.N. is to deal with human rights injustices taking place within nations. This is why there is an International War Crimes Tribunal. Does anyone honestly believe that if U.S. forces capture Saddam Hussein they will deliver him to The Hague for a fair trial by judges from nations who were not involved with the conflict? I don't. The U.S. has been usurping the U.N.'s international role, and has been ignoring the decisions of the U.N. when they don't match up with U.S. decisions. In short, the U.S. has declared itself outside the rules that much of the rest of the world has set up to deal with this sort of question. Now, the U.S. has every right to act without the mandate of the U.N. However, in that case, why is the U.S. still trying to maintain membership in that organization? For that matter, why is the U.S. still maintaining membership with significant voting powers in the U.N. when we owe them more than 10 billion dollars in back dues? If we withdraw from the U.N., we can ignore its existence and anything it suggests we do. But membership in an organization implies a willingness to follow the rules of that organization, and right now, the U.S. is trying to have its cake and eat it too-- be a member of the Security Council, yet act independently in every particular. This is low. If another nation tried to pull this on us, we'd be thinking about going to war with them, but we're getting away with it, because nobody really has the power to stop us.
2.) Going to war with Saddam Hussein because he might have weapons of mass destruction is not a sufficient excuse. We know that North Korea have weapons of mass destruction, and they hate us too. We know that Pakistan does, and they're not terribly fond of us either. We are not making any moves in particular to try to make either of these nations disarm. The U.S. has also demonstrated in recent days that it will accept no possible proof of disarmament; Bush has now flat-out stated that there will be war unless Saddam steps down and leaves the country. This indicates to me that the 'weapons of mass destruction' argument has always been an excuse-- and one that has just fallen through. If the war were really about weaponry and nothing else, we'd be looking for ways to find honest proof as to whether or not the Iraqis were disarming, and not making ultimatums that pretty much state that the Iraqis would be stupid to disarm right now.
3.) Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaida. The two groups hate each other. They've said so repeatedly. Consequently, if Al Qaida was really responsible for 9/11, a war with Iraq will not do anything useful to prevent the future occurrence of this sort of terrorism. It may well make more of the world upset with us and consequently more liable to consider terrorist tactics. I don't think we should be trying to placate people; far from it. There is a lunatic fringe out there who are going to hate the U.S. no matter what. But the best way to deter future terrorists is to catch the last set of terrorists and do something about them.
4.) Many of the major powers of Europe have united against us on this. Europe is full of nations that have spent centuries involved in long, involved, and bloody wars. Europe has maintained a fragile peace since WWII, and is becoming ever more strongly knit together due to institutions such as the Euro and the European Union. These people know something about war, the reasons behind it, and how to avoid it while still solving problems-- look into the reasons why Greece did not go to war with FYROM if you want to see a genuine miracle of diplomacy. Taking the advice of people who could pull that one off is probably a good idea.
5.) The rest of the world do not share the American mindset. There are certain basic cultural assumptions that the U.S. operates on that are simply not applicable in other parts of the world, such as the idea that after a nation is reduced to a certain level of economic devastation it will capitulate. Much of the Islamic world feels that it has God on its side. People who feel that they have a direct line to the Almighty are likely to do surprising things, which could make the course of the war drastically different from what is expected and could make it last longer. And if the war lasts a long time and Hussein really has weapons of mass destruction, then we are all well and truly fucked.
Internal
6.) Our President also thinks he has God on his side. This is a real problem, since people who think that are not liable to change their minds easily nor to act in a terribly rational manner. I would rather not have a Commander-in-Chief who commands according to his own religious beliefs, thank you. This country is based on the separation of church and state. They ought to stay separated, or the country will instead be based on the personal beliefs of its leaders, as it is starting to be now. No one faith has the right to dictate the national policy of this democracy. Bush's religion is not shared by a vast number of the citizens of America, and we should not have to shape our lives to things we do not believe in.
7.) The xenophobia present not only towards people of Middle Eastern extraction but towards European countries that are against the war in this country at the moment is starting to become both pronounced and upsetting. The attitude of 'if you're not with us you're against us' is being taken to extreme lengths; these are not rational actions. France has been a U.S. ally for generations. Throwing that away is foolish.
8.) I know of multiple cases of students on this campus and on Haverford's campus, including students I know personally, having been arrested or having had materials confiscated for 'security reasons' when said students were carrying out class assignments that involved sketching or photographing in public places. These assignments have been given out for years and involve such dangers to national security as, in the case of one Haverford student, attempting to determine the traffic patterns in 30th St. Station so that he could figure out how the architect had decided where to put the bathrooms. The Deans of the college received an email from the Philadelphia police recently stating that any more students picked up on these charges will be prosecuted for suspicion of espionage. I am not joking. These are the public places of our own country, that have always been open to the public for examination, and this is censorship-- censorship conducted by officials and apparently unquestioned by a good percentage of the public. This frightens me. And if you have any photographs of 30th St. Station that you would like to send to me, please do so and I will post them on this website.
9.) The people I see speaking in support of this war do not, so far, seem willing to put themselves where their mouths are. One of the reasons I have spent so long in debate as to whether this war is a good idea is because, if it turned out that I felt it to be a just war, I would have felt honor-bound to enlist. I know that the military would not accept me, as I have been an out lesbian for years. If I felt this war were just, I would presently be in the process of suing for the right to serve my nation. I would have cheerfully perjured myself to sign up for WWII. Where are the people who believe this war to be so morally right that they are enlisting for it? These people have been very vocal in previous wars. What are the pundits who speak out for this war doing out of uniform? Where are the people who are willing to die themselves for what they say is the right thing to do? For that matter, if it comes to the draft, what percentage of the people who have been speaking out for this war will fit into some category of deferral?
Comments, queries, and raving flames welcome. I am considering emailing the Cities Department to try to get together a group to go down and make a civil protest by taking photos at 30th St., but I think I will wait to see how the political and international situation progresses in the next few days first, as there may be other things to worry about.
Reasons why:
International
1.) The United States is not the world's policeman. We do not, repeat, do not, have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. I agree that Saddam Hussein is an extremely bad ruler, and that his own people do not at the moment have the power to depose him. However, an organization does exist, with military powers, that has been appointed by treaty and by international law to serve as the world's policeman. That organization is the United Nations. The U.S. is not the U.N. Much of the purpose of the U.N. is to deal with human rights injustices taking place within nations. This is why there is an International War Crimes Tribunal. Does anyone honestly believe that if U.S. forces capture Saddam Hussein they will deliver him to The Hague for a fair trial by judges from nations who were not involved with the conflict? I don't. The U.S. has been usurping the U.N.'s international role, and has been ignoring the decisions of the U.N. when they don't match up with U.S. decisions. In short, the U.S. has declared itself outside the rules that much of the rest of the world has set up to deal with this sort of question. Now, the U.S. has every right to act without the mandate of the U.N. However, in that case, why is the U.S. still trying to maintain membership in that organization? For that matter, why is the U.S. still maintaining membership with significant voting powers in the U.N. when we owe them more than 10 billion dollars in back dues? If we withdraw from the U.N., we can ignore its existence and anything it suggests we do. But membership in an organization implies a willingness to follow the rules of that organization, and right now, the U.S. is trying to have its cake and eat it too-- be a member of the Security Council, yet act independently in every particular. This is low. If another nation tried to pull this on us, we'd be thinking about going to war with them, but we're getting away with it, because nobody really has the power to stop us.
2.) Going to war with Saddam Hussein because he might have weapons of mass destruction is not a sufficient excuse. We know that North Korea have weapons of mass destruction, and they hate us too. We know that Pakistan does, and they're not terribly fond of us either. We are not making any moves in particular to try to make either of these nations disarm. The U.S. has also demonstrated in recent days that it will accept no possible proof of disarmament; Bush has now flat-out stated that there will be war unless Saddam steps down and leaves the country. This indicates to me that the 'weapons of mass destruction' argument has always been an excuse-- and one that has just fallen through. If the war were really about weaponry and nothing else, we'd be looking for ways to find honest proof as to whether or not the Iraqis were disarming, and not making ultimatums that pretty much state that the Iraqis would be stupid to disarm right now.
3.) Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaida. The two groups hate each other. They've said so repeatedly. Consequently, if Al Qaida was really responsible for 9/11, a war with Iraq will not do anything useful to prevent the future occurrence of this sort of terrorism. It may well make more of the world upset with us and consequently more liable to consider terrorist tactics. I don't think we should be trying to placate people; far from it. There is a lunatic fringe out there who are going to hate the U.S. no matter what. But the best way to deter future terrorists is to catch the last set of terrorists and do something about them.
4.) Many of the major powers of Europe have united against us on this. Europe is full of nations that have spent centuries involved in long, involved, and bloody wars. Europe has maintained a fragile peace since WWII, and is becoming ever more strongly knit together due to institutions such as the Euro and the European Union. These people know something about war, the reasons behind it, and how to avoid it while still solving problems-- look into the reasons why Greece did not go to war with FYROM if you want to see a genuine miracle of diplomacy. Taking the advice of people who could pull that one off is probably a good idea.
5.) The rest of the world do not share the American mindset. There are certain basic cultural assumptions that the U.S. operates on that are simply not applicable in other parts of the world, such as the idea that after a nation is reduced to a certain level of economic devastation it will capitulate. Much of the Islamic world feels that it has God on its side. People who feel that they have a direct line to the Almighty are likely to do surprising things, which could make the course of the war drastically different from what is expected and could make it last longer. And if the war lasts a long time and Hussein really has weapons of mass destruction, then we are all well and truly fucked.
Internal
6.) Our President also thinks he has God on his side. This is a real problem, since people who think that are not liable to change their minds easily nor to act in a terribly rational manner. I would rather not have a Commander-in-Chief who commands according to his own religious beliefs, thank you. This country is based on the separation of church and state. They ought to stay separated, or the country will instead be based on the personal beliefs of its leaders, as it is starting to be now. No one faith has the right to dictate the national policy of this democracy. Bush's religion is not shared by a vast number of the citizens of America, and we should not have to shape our lives to things we do not believe in.
7.) The xenophobia present not only towards people of Middle Eastern extraction but towards European countries that are against the war in this country at the moment is starting to become both pronounced and upsetting. The attitude of 'if you're not with us you're against us' is being taken to extreme lengths; these are not rational actions. France has been a U.S. ally for generations. Throwing that away is foolish.
8.) I know of multiple cases of students on this campus and on Haverford's campus, including students I know personally, having been arrested or having had materials confiscated for 'security reasons' when said students were carrying out class assignments that involved sketching or photographing in public places. These assignments have been given out for years and involve such dangers to national security as, in the case of one Haverford student, attempting to determine the traffic patterns in 30th St. Station so that he could figure out how the architect had decided where to put the bathrooms. The Deans of the college received an email from the Philadelphia police recently stating that any more students picked up on these charges will be prosecuted for suspicion of espionage. I am not joking. These are the public places of our own country, that have always been open to the public for examination, and this is censorship-- censorship conducted by officials and apparently unquestioned by a good percentage of the public. This frightens me. And if you have any photographs of 30th St. Station that you would like to send to me, please do so and I will post them on this website.
9.) The people I see speaking in support of this war do not, so far, seem willing to put themselves where their mouths are. One of the reasons I have spent so long in debate as to whether this war is a good idea is because, if it turned out that I felt it to be a just war, I would have felt honor-bound to enlist. I know that the military would not accept me, as I have been an out lesbian for years. If I felt this war were just, I would presently be in the process of suing for the right to serve my nation. I would have cheerfully perjured myself to sign up for WWII. Where are the people who believe this war to be so morally right that they are enlisting for it? These people have been very vocal in previous wars. What are the pundits who speak out for this war doing out of uniform? Where are the people who are willing to die themselves for what they say is the right thing to do? For that matter, if it comes to the draft, what percentage of the people who have been speaking out for this war will fit into some category of deferral?
Comments, queries, and raving flames welcome. I am considering emailing the Cities Department to try to get together a group to go down and make a civil protest by taking photos at 30th St., but I think I will wait to see how the political and international situation progresses in the next few days first, as there may be other things to worry about.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Oh, for...!
Date: 2003-03-19 03:29 pm (UTC)Oh, for...! Jesus H. Christ! *considers starting to froth at the mouth and decides shakin her head in stunned disbelief is the safer option* Please, please tell me someone has contacted the news about this. Please. Because ridiculous is ridiculous here. I think a scholl getting told that if another student gets charged for doing an assignment given for years, then that ought to be made public.
What the hell is America coming to? I mean, look at this poll that came out yesterday. Now, all of a sudden, the majority of Americans are supporting Bush and his crapola. Also, there was a pretty good article in Newsweek this week about America as the Arrogant Empire.
Arrrrgh. America. You scare me.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 03:52 pm (UTC)1. I agree with you that the U.S. should drop out of the United Nations. The U.N. has become worse than worthless. In some ways, it's a deterrent to good policy. For an absolutely fascinating Hegelian account of what the U.S. is doing here and why it's necessary, with which I don't entirely agree, see Lee Harris's article "Our World-Historical Gamble".
2. Again, I agree - this is not a sufficient reason for going to war with Saddam Hussein. But it is a legitimate part of the reason. I wish we could rid North Korea and Pakistan of their weapons as well, but the details of their situations just don't permit it. North Korea is located only 30 miles away from the capitol of South Korea, a city of several million inhabitants, and is close to Japan as well. If we attacked them, these allies of ours would be seriously at risk. Pakistan I see as a little more safe, since its leader, though not nice or democratically elected, is at least not insane. In any case, we have to take these things one at a time. We can't effectively disarm the entire axis of evil at once.
3. I believe that the Bush Administration has a lot more information than they're giving us.
4. The word "unilateral" has somehow undergone a stealth redefinition to mean "not doing what France wants." Colin Powell listed the following 30 countries which have provided material support, either in troops, equipment, or otherwise, for the Iraq war: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan. He stated that there are 15 others who did not want to be so publicly named. Eastern Europe is strongly with us. The only large powers against are France, Germany, and Russia. Check out this interesting map of the European alignments.
5. Economic distress won't topple a government when the government doesn't care about its people. That's why war has become necessary - Saddam was willing to starve his own people to keep his power. The same thing is happening in North Korea. And if the Iraqis think that Allah is going to protect them, well, they're about to find out just how wrong they are. In any case, I don't think the average Iraqi ground soldier thinks Allah is going to help much. They're deserting and surrendering by the dozens. There are confirmed reports of at least 16 Iraqis who have surrendered to Kuwaiti authorities already, and estimates that up to 75% of some troop divisions have fled.
6. I agree once again - this is scary. But I judge the President mostly by his actions, which I think have been good. He went to extraordinary lengths trying to pass a U.N. resolution, when he could have started the war months ago and had it over by now.
7. I'm not xenophobic, I just don't like to buy things from people who want to stab our nation in the back. That's my right.
8. It's tough. I don't know what the right tradeoff is. Neither do you. That's why we have elections. If it's too much for people, someone will pay eventually.
9. I don't think it's true that you have to enlist if you think it's a just war. I've actually considered enlisting, but I decided that I would be a pretty lousy soldier. I have a hard time taking orders, I'm lazy, I'm not physically fit, and I have this tendency to get lost in philosophy and forget about what I'm doing. I think it's better for me to support the war in other ways - helping to boost morale, sending presents to the troops, and keeping America running while they're overseas.
Stay safe. I believe it will be over soon.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 04:28 pm (UTC)I'd make a lousy soldier, too. But if I really thought this war were a good idea, I'd be trying. I have problems with authority, but I'm sure there'd be some way for me to do something-- instrument work, translation, stuff like that if I failed the physical training, which I probably would. As it is at the moment, I am going to sit here, be a student, and see what I can do about the damn censorship thing.
Lila
Pictures
Date: 2003-03-19 07:42 pm (UTC)I'd like to do that protest with you. I'd also like to not get arrested. I'm quite torn.
My response, Part 1
Date: 2003-03-19 08:16 pm (UTC)1) Ah, yes, the age-old "the US should not be the world's policeman" argument. To be honest, I agree. But very few people are consistent about this; it seems more as though they really just want the US to do whatever they tell them to do. It's interesting: whenever we don't act, we get yelled at, and whenever we do act, we get yelled at all the same. I do wish people would make up their minds about that.
There's no love lost between me and the UN either. While certain programs associated with the UN have done a great deal of good, the UN itself -the General Assembly and the Security Council- has yet to do a single demonstrably good thing for world politics. A lot of corruption, a lot of navel-gazing, and little if any substantive action, in part because they have no teeth.
And as for your quote "If another nation tried to pull this on us, we'd be thinking about going to war with them, but we're getting away with it, because nobody really has the power to stop us.": um, hello? That's exactly what Iraq has been doing for the past twelve years?
2) That Saddam might have such weapons wouldn't be a valid excuse. He has the weapons. Everyone knows this. The inspections needed to find hard evidence are fundamentally flawed, but they are this way by design (don't forget, Iraq insisted on having a major role designing the process). Meaningful inspections haven't taken place in years, and this is just one of the signs that diplomacy has failed. Do I support the war? I wouldn't say that. But neither can I in good conscience oppose it. Over these past twelve years, every diplomatic options has been tried, and every one has failed. Two million innocent Iraqis have died in the process from Saddam's abuse of the oil-for-food program, and by not removing him when we had the chance, it could be argued that we are just as guilty of those deaths. Must two million more die before we act? I cannot in good conscience support that, and it's the road that the anti-war types, who insist on continuing paths which have already failed, would lead us on.
3) Iraq has nothing to do with al-Qaeda at the present time. al-Qaeda wants nothing to do with Iraq. The reverse isn't true, and this isn't even a secret. The open invitations from Hussein are well-documented. They've also been documented as supplying weapons and other supplies to other groups. It is quite true that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; frankly I don't see how anyone doesn't know this, since the media in the US and abroad have all been bending over backwards to make that point clear, as has the US government. I don't know where the idea that Iraq might have had something to do with it comes from. But we know Hussein wants this role, and he wants it badly.
4) Irrelevant. Are we to be slaves to the world? I see no reason that we, or anyone else, should be. That goes against the very spirit of humanity: the right to be one's self without interference from others, so long as one doesn't actively hurt others. Only then can force be used, and then only what is needed.
5) See point 4, above. Also, this idea that the rest of the world is united against the US is not true. It's true that large portions are, but when all is said and done, it actually comes down to about half and half, give or take 10%. It's interesting how U.S. media is downplaying this -most people probably didn't even know Spain was backing the US until the Azores meetings- but most of the European media I've seen is definitely trying to paint a picture of the US being against the whole world. That is false.
As for the US operating on the idea that a nation will capitulate after reaching a certain level of economic devastation: that's a belief shared by the entire UN, actually. The embargo is one of their major weapons, ineffective though it is, because the leaders of embargoed nations just squander what trickles through, passing the suffering meant for themselves on to their people. That's where the aforementioned two million deaths in Iraq came from: Saddam is known to have diverted the humanitarian aid from the oil for food program away from his people, to buy loyalty from his staff and his generals. And so, his people suffer.
Re: My response, Part 1
Date: 2003-03-20 04:46 pm (UTC)2.) Either we recognize the other countries of the world as sovereign nations or we don't. A sovereign nation has power over its own people, much as we all may regret the fact. If the U.S. decides that after a certain point another country should no longer have control of its citizenry, it needs to be decided consistently at what point that is, and then actions need to be carried out consistently. And so far in the history of the U.S., that point has been 'when your government says nasty things to our government'. We didn't go into Cambodia. We didn't go into Rwanda. We didn't go into Sri Lanka or Indonesia. We didn't go into Chechnya. We took over a decade to go into Afghanistan. Active 'ethnic cleansing' and other major human rights violations, in the first two cases to the level of genocide, have gone on within the last twenty years in each place, sanctioned by the respective governments, and continue to go on in the last four. Either the U.S. should decide that it is the world's policeman-- a decision I think would be wrong-- and go to all of the places whose people need help, or we should treat the rest of the world as sovereign nations, whom U.S. citizens can help as individuals but with whom diplomatic relations are carried out as nations interact with one another. This latter way is how we treated Iraq after the last war. We stopped it from military infringement on its neighbors and left its affairs to itself. We had no right to take away its leadership unless we were willing to conquer it entirely, and we did not conquer it-- and not conquering another nation is not something about which one can just say, 'Oops, that was wrong, I should go invade now'.
4.) We are not to be slaves to the rest of the world. But we should listen to and genuinely value the opinions of the rest of the world. That is part of living in a community of nations.
Love,
Lila
Re: My response, Part 1
Date: 2003-03-21 04:20 am (UTC)1. The atrocities going on in that nation.
2. Our interests in the nation and the region.
3. The amount of damage they might be able and willing to do to us and our allies if we attack them.
4. The amount of damage they might be able and willing to do to us and our allies if we don't attack them.
5. Our domestic political and economic situation.
6. World opinion, and the number of allies who would cooperate with us in an attack.
All this means that there could be some really bad shit going down in places where it doesn't make sense for us to intervene. And we can feel really bad about that, but we can't go in and help people solely for their own sake. The U.S. government and military exists first and foremost to protect American citizens, and only far down the line in its purposes is the ability to bring freedom and justice to non-Americans in their own nations.
My response, Part 2
Date: 2003-03-19 08:17 pm (UTC)Throughout history, pretty much every army, sports team, or side of any conflict whatsoever has generally had the idea that they were favored by a higher power or calling of some kind. It's the nature of humanity to see things from its own perspective; even a camera can only take pictures in the direction it's pointed. You have your biases, and I have mine, just as he has his; to call him on this is for the pot to call the kettle black.
As for his religion not being shared by the vast majority of Americans: while the particular sect might not be, the basic religion itself -Protestant Christianity- is still in the majority. This isn't relevant to anything whatsoever; I'm just pointing out a factual error.
7) The xenophobia is frightening, yes. However, this is one thing you cannot blame Bush for. This is individual people, turning hysterical and overreacting to phantoms. A great shame, but there is nothing the government can do about it. The best any of us can do is make sure we do not fall into that same trap, and to help those who are victimized by it.
8) Touche on this one, neechan. This is freaking ridiculous. I have a question for both sides of this: what is so important about 30th Street, anyway? Honest curiosity, as I don't know the layout of Philadelphia. What is there that's of interest to photographers and artists, and conversely, what's there that would be of interest to spies or terrorists?
9) Be careful that you do not lump those who support the war with those who neither support nor oppose. I cannot, in good conscience, do either of these things. I do not believe this war to be just or good, but neither do I see anything else that would work. I cannot justify the deaths of 25,000 innocent Iraqis in a war. But that many people have already died this year -a year less than three months old- because the world refused to act, and 125,000 more will follow them if that inaction continues. I cannot support that either.
I do not support this war. I will not aid it in any way that I can avoid. But neither can I oppose others who are doing what is, as far as I can see, the only thing left that has not failed already. Not when the alternatives have already cost far more lives than this ever can.
What is Iraq, anyway? A fake nation, arbitrarily carved out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire by people hundreds of miles away, who neither knew nor cared for the people there. Peoples with ancient tribal hatreds going back for thousands of years, kept in check only by the Ottomans, and the Romans before them, and the Greeks before that. When no longer held under the thumb of imperial rule, the hatreds turned them at each other's throats, and most of the Middle East now is a testament to that. The great failures of Iraq, of Iran, of Israel and Palestine, of Pakistan and India; all of these failures took their tolls long ago, because the nations are themselves failures in their own ways. All that remains is the sad duty of cleaning up.
(Sorry about the split, but this went way over the reply length limit)
Re: My response, Part 2
Date: 2003-03-20 04:58 pm (UTC)9.) No one has a right to call any nation a fake nation, no matter when said nation was made up or by whom. All nations were created at some point; the ones that have not disintegrated messily have reasons that they have not disintegrated messily. We may disapprove fervently of the Iraqi government, but it exists, it is a government, and it has power over its people, and this must be remembered during our dealings with it.
Love,
Lila
Re: My response, Part 2
Date: 2003-03-20 07:39 pm (UTC)I stand by the rest of my wording. All nations came into existence at some point, but generally they come into being under the impetus of their own people. Iraq -and most of the Middle East- are another story, having been carved out of an empire by people not from there, with woefully inadequate knowledge of the peoples and cultures
That is why I call it fake; it was not created by its own people. If the Iraqi people were ever truly allowed self-determination, something that have not possessed for thousands of years but should have, then Iraq as we know it would cease to exist. It would disintegrate -perhaps peacefully, but sadly, probably not- into smaller states based on the culture and history of the people who live there, rather than some European politician's sense of geopolitical aesthetics. And maybe it would be better that way; it certainly would have been better if this had happened at the very beginning. Alas, it did not, and we must live with the consequences of that: there is an Iraq, and we must deal with that reality. The question becomes, what to do about it?