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.
