« link of the day | Main | Horrorscopes: Astrology for the criminally Insane »
four thousand holes in blackburn, lancashire
by mg at 03:43 PM on October 11, 2002
The consistently unfunny Mark Fiore has a new animation up at his site that is also making its syndicated way around the web (notably, on the front page of the Village Voice's site this week).
The cartoon posits that the only way to really hit Saddam Hussein where it'd really hurt him is to go back in time and not do all the things the U.S. government supposedly did for him back when we and Iraq were all palsy-palsy, or at least had a common enemy in the Iran/Soviet Union alliance.
And, if time travel were possible, I'd be all for that idea. Unfortunately, the laws of physics don't quite support moving through the continuum in any way but forward and at any pace that the universe isn't deciding.
Maybe I'm taking a cartoon entirely too seriously, and I'm sure there is a bit of that going on (I still weep uncontrollably whenever I watch the Fox and the Hound), but I've seen this type of rhetoric in more academic circles as well. It is a big argument against military involvements in various nations that, for whatever reason and through whatever means, the U.S. had been responsible for "creating" the terrorist or dictator that came around to bite us in the ass later.
And you know what? I'm willing to give you that.
Back in the 1980s the U.S. supported the Afghanis against the Soviet Union, and some of those we helped later went on to form the Taliban and Al-Qaeda of recent years. No lo contendo. Fifty years ago the CIA had a hand in a coup in Cuba that resulted in putting Fidel Castro in office. I agree we did that, and plenty more.
But, now, see here is the thing, if we are responsible for creating those guys, and I make no argument that we aren't, in at least some part, responsible, then aren't we then also responsible for correcting our mistakes? If Iraq really had absolutely nothing to do with us, the peace-mongers would have a perfectly valid case for not going into Iraq. But our hands are already in the cookie jar, have been for thirty years, so we might as well grab a cookie while we are there.
If Saddam is a product of American intervention, we have a moral imperative to go in there and stop him now. This isn't about oil, it isn't about revenge, and it isn't about an American president subverting the Constitution. No, this is about putting things back the way they should have been before we put our nosy little faces in business they didn't belong.
This is about correcting mistakes and righting wrongs. Except for the time travel (which is impossible, see above) and Scott Bakula (who is horrible, see Enterprise), it's just like Quantum Leap.
comments (14)
Hmmm, this surprises me coming from you. It'd be great if we could just get rid of him and make things all shiny and new there. But more likely we'd get rid of him, kill lots of other people, have lots of our people killed and leave their country in shambles. And we won't do enough to correct THAT mistake either.
Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize today & it's in no small part because of his stance against Bush on Iraq. The rest of the world thinks our president is a unilateral fucker.
by Linz at October 11, 2002 4:32 PM
Linz makes a good point... it seems to me that US-made dictators result from exactly this kind of situation. We take out previous bad government and A: install second bad government or B: leave unstable climate in which second bad government can prosper. When I hear a good plan for restoring Iraq after the removal of Saddam, I might change my dove-like ways.
by RightElbow at October 11, 2002 9:48 PM
This post was over my head. I went to community college, and even so, I barely got by. mg, you suck. Your highbrow political posts suck. Oh wait. I suck. No, wait. You suck.
by Eviltom at October 12, 2002 7:30 PM
The rest of the world, and probably most people in this country too, think Bush is a dumbass, and maybe he is, but as much as they may bitch and complain, they'll all be glad after we do whatever it is we are going to do. People get on the CIA and FBI for not doing anything with the info with had pre-September 11th, but then get on Bush for taking a proactive stance on what we know is going on in Iraq. You can't have it both ways.
by mg at October 14, 2002 11:17 AM
I never got on the CIA or the FBI.
But rest assured I will get on your ass if this whole Iraq thing causes WWIII. I will hold you solely responsible.
by Linz at October 14, 2002 3:54 PM
I wasn't talking about you, specifically. Do you really think this is going to cause WWIII? Remember how long the first Gulf War took? 100 hours. Only a little more than four days. Remember back to last October, when everyone was claiming if we went into Afghanistan, we'd never get out? How long did it take for the Taliban to be removed from power, a month? Sure, there more be terrorist reprisals, but at this point, I think everyone is at risk no matter where what we do.
What does everyone suggest we do instead - put more sanctions in place? Sanctions haven't worked in the history of the UN - see Bosnia, North Korea, Somalia, Cuba.
We can't not go in because something bad might happen now. It's pretty obvious that if Iraq develops nuclear capabilities, something bad will definitely happen. Why would we allow them to do that?
by mg at October 14, 2002 4:17 PM
Oh. I was talking about you, specifically. hee...
I just think messing with someone we suspect of harboring weapons of mass destruction might end up in that person using them. I also think it's ironic that WE are allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. How about this. How about NO ONE can have weapons of mass destruction? It's crazy motherfucking shit no matter who has it.
I definitely don't believe in punishing Iraqui people (more) with more sanctions.
I am not denying that he's crazy and bad. I don't really know what to say, actually. I just hate thinking of anyone dying that shouldn't.
by Linz at October 14, 2002 4:54 PM
I agree with you completly; no one should die that shouldn't die. But, say what you will about America's foreign policy, it isn't our goal to go around killing people for no reason. War sucks, is what it comes down to. And, while everyone bitches about the US beforehand, once we've gone in and done the business that no one else wants to do, people are better off.
by mg at October 14, 2002 5:13 PM
1) other countries (Pakistan, North Korea) around the world also possess weapons of mass destruction (I second Linz: WHY exactly should anyone have them?!) and it's been said that their leaders are just as crazy and apt to use them as Saddam Hussein. Not all that likely, if unprovoked. However, why aren't we picking on anyone else? oh yeah... there's that oil thing.
2) we're still in Afghanistan. in 2001, 3500 civilians were killed by our attacks. More have died since. So much for "get in, get out." In recent news, our military bases have been the targets for missiles. (not like they haven't been for the last year, but there's still shit going down there). Luckily, al Qaeda (or whoever it is) has bad aim.
by leaffin at October 14, 2002 11:38 PM
1) It is just so easy to say this is all about oil. Why would we have gone to Afghanistan? They don't have any oil. Why did we go to Bosnia? Somalia? The US Gov't may have ulterior (and selfish) motives when it does things, but sometimes they are pretty altruistic and purely dogmatic. Iraq is dangerous and a way bigger threat to world stability if left to its own devices then US action there would be now.
2) I didn't say we'd gotten out, just that they'd accomplished their objective in a much shorter time frame than anyone had expected. I'm not going to say anything about your numbers, I'll take them for what they are worth, but don't forget this is a war. People die. Whether it is actually 3500, or the much smaller number I'm guessing it really is, it is sad, unfortunate that anyone had to die, but hardly avoidable.
by mg at October 15, 2002 12:15 AM
I read this entry yesterday just after getting out of a class where we'd talked all about PR campaigns (like Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which created and swayed US public opinion the last time we were involved with Iraq) and the amount of propaganda involved around wartime. We also talked about the current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq (that's where i got my numbers... and i double-checked that. My sources say that 3950 Afghan civilians died in 2001 as a direct result of US bombings. So, the number of victims approximately takes care of the "an eye for an eye" thing. Can we stop now?). So I was a bit riled up due to that. But it makes me wonder what part of the whole story we're not getting.
HOWEVER, I'm wondering how many countries we can/will attack under the guise of fighting our War Against Terror. When will we stop? Yes, there are all sorts of problems around the world, but should we be the ones to "correct" them?
On a completely unrelated note, there was a survey conducted in November 2001. I thought the results were fascinating and very scary:
59% of Americans surveyed said that the US government was censoring news from Afghanistan.
80% said they thought censorship is a "good idea." That's another thing about war that scares me. Our civil liberties not exactly existing in their entirety and a lot of Americans being entirely ok with that.
alright, i'm done.
by Leaffin at October 15, 2002 10:39 AM
I'm with Leaffin. I worry about the bias of the news we get and the way we filter things to our own design. Iraq is still reeling from the sanctions we placed on them and even now, when we've tried to modify these sanctions to only impact big oil, we still hurt the people inadvertantly. I know, mg, you don't like the sanctions either, I'm just saying I hesitate to be self-congratulatory.
I know it's totally utopic, but I do wish that we could find a way to go down in history as the country that used its clout, its brains and its "civilization" to put an end to the cycle of violence.
by Linz at October 15, 2002 11:13 AM
I've got my share of theoretical and practical knowledge of Public Relations. Can you really compare the level of propoganda put out by the US gov't to that put out by Al-Queda and most of those ultra-fundamental Arab states? These are places that have doctrines that require stoning a woman for appearing in public without covering her face. Our progoganda says Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction and that they'll use them if given the chance. Their propoganda is that American's are evil, immoral, and are the cause of all their problems. Which of those do you think is closer to the truth? Neither is probably quite completly true, but which line would you be rather getting fed?
As for believing we are getting censored news. I think we are too. And I'd be one of those who say it is a good idea that we aren't getting the whole story. Did you read that article last week about the sheriff in Maryland who yelled at reporters for printing leaked info about the sniper? He said by printing information the police were intentionally keeping secret, they were helping the murder evade capture. I truley believe that are some things that are more harmful if revealed than kept secret. Sorry, but it's true.
by mg at October 15, 2002 11:19 AM
I agree. But not reporting the negative things the U.S. does abroad is not the same as not leaking information that could save someone from getting a bullet from a sniper.
by Linz at October 15, 2002 11:42 AM