Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002412.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002412.php on line 106
November 09, 2005
So, How 'Bout That War?

No, of course we didn't use the banned white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja. We used it for "target-marking" and "illumination" over the city. If some of it fell on people, well that's gravity's fault. Something falling on someone isn't our fault. They shouldn't have been living where we wanted to bomb.

Sigh. War. Did we have to? I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan and would have agreed if we'd hung around there and finished the job thoroughly (which we did not). I never supported (this will come as a surprise to you), I never for one instant supported invading Iraq. It was a stupid idea then, the "reasons" we were being given were patently false, and it's created a mess the world will be decades cleaning up. (The U.N. says, you broke it, you fix it.)

Looks like the U.K.'s Blair has jumped on the Evil French bandwagon. He's saying it's the fault of the French that the USofA (and U.K.) invaded Iraq. Because we all believe that a U.N. resolution would have stopped the Bush Administration. Mmmhmm, sure we do. (France is Blair's Clinton.)

War crimes. That's a reasonably "new" concept in history. In the past, almost nothing that happened in the course of waging "war" was considered to be a "crime. We have a different view of the situation these days, and even though I'm aware of the dissonance of a "legal war" or a "good war" the truth is that, human beings being what they are, it's still necessary to resort to violence in order to accomplish some goals.

But I don't think the media should minimize war crimes. People have to know the true cost of the action they've undertaking. They need to understand that "crimes" go along with war, and that that's one good reason why we should never go to war except as a desperate last resort.

The Bush Administration's approach to elective slaughter in the name of corporate profit doesn't really make the cut as a decent reason.

And they certainly shouldn't forget, or allow us to forget that we've been torturing people. We've killed prisoners.

Under the "management" of the Bush Administration and with what's sounding like the complete and whole-hearted support of Vice President Dick Cheney. (Which approach, from our CEO-in-Chief, probably explains much about why every business venture he laid his hands on went down in flames. He's incompetent. Anyone starting to grasp this?)

Bottom line? If you're the "world's sole remaining superpower" as the USofA is so often said to be, you can't just act unilaterally, deciding to kill tens of thousands of people because you're aggravated. We have a responsibility, to ourselves and to the rest of the civilized world, and we're not living up to it.

And everyone hates George Bush, which gives the country a black eye. Not even Reagan's warmongering Admininstration(s) were so thoroughly loathed.


The current conundrum is how to check the drift toward the emergence of three separate geographic and political entities -- Iraqi Kurdistan, Sunni Iraq and Shiite Iraq -- as they were more or less before Winston Churchill drew lines on a map after World War I.

Why check the drift? Who are we to decide what other people's countries should look like? If Spain decided, after all these years to give the Basques the separate nation they've always wanted, would we be intervening? If the U.K. separated entirely from Ireland, would we go to war over it?

Could we, just for one moment, really give up our delusions of empire and realize that even brown people of non-christian religions are entitled to autonomy and self-determination?

Posted by AnneZook at 09:51 AM


I think many Americans are scared of seeing maps and countries change because it shows a possibility that in the future all our States won't be as United as they are now, and that's a frightening thing for them to admit to themselves.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at November 11, 2005 07:04 PM

We're not that United now but I take your point.

History is the chronicle of evolution, and evolution means change. No matter how hard the reactionaries and the frightened little boys struggle to turn the clock back to some imaginary time of social perfection, things are going to change.

The only question is whether we're going to pick where we go, or be the victims of historical forces and our own cowardice.

Posted by: Anne at November 12, 2005 11:06 AM