Warning: this is a rant and it's very political. You might want to just ignore it.
I was at the Portland, Oregon peace rally yesterday. Estimates on attendance vary quite a bit. The Oregonian, our local daily, always reports lower numbers for turnouts compared to other sources. The Portland Police Department stopped issuing estimates because every second guesses them. In any event, it looks like there were about 30,000 to 40,000 people at the protest. I also noticed very few pro-Bush supporters. We're a fairly liberal town.
What is really sickening to me is that Bush and friends don't seem to care. Fears of war are dividing our nation, turning the world against us and according to the Federal Reserve, further depressing the US economy. How can we possibly benefit from a pre-emptive strike against an impoverished regime when the much of the "threat" seems to be detailed in forged and plagiarized papers? We're making fools of ourselves.
And for me, it just got personal. Today, my father is landing in Dubai (a city in the United Arab Emirates). He should be there for a week, but even in a "pro US" Arab country, the danger to US citizens can be enormous. I know it's his job, but I don't want him there.
The Bush administration is busy destroying our civil liberties, selling us out to the Christian right, destroying any goodwill we have with the rest of the world, has no economic policy to speak of and is pretending that environmental policy is best dictated by business considerations. Now many innocent (and some not-so-innocent) people are going to die and much of the world has no idea why. Is there any good associated with this White House? If there is, I can't see it. This is a very dark time for our country.
"Depression" means something very specific in economic terms. Looking at the latest BEA data for GDP (not GNP; that's a little harder to find in Google) shows increases in 3Q and 4Q 2002. That's not even a recession.
I agree that war is an ugly thing, that unemployment is terrible, and that things like Total Information Awareness are nasty, horrible things.
There's really no excuse for an intelligent, reasonable person to make things up to support an argument. "The White House wants to kill orphans for oil" is one of those unsupportable claims.
My problem with the anti-war movement is twofold. First, I think a great deal of its arguments are simplistic and completely at odds with history. (Why is there no longer a League of Nations?) Second, I find its rhetorical tactics deplorable. "Bush is scarier than Hussein"? Please.
I don't mean this as a personal assault on you, Ovid. You're about as reasonable person as I am. (Sorry
It's really tiring to be considered a baby-killing, warmongering, hateful fool when all I really think is that some people will never budge without a show of force.
Re:Rhetoric
Ovid on 2003-03-16T22:12:34
chromatic, I consider you a friend, so I trust you won't take this personally!
When I used the phrase "further depressing the US economy", I did not mean that we were experiencing a depression. I meant, very explicitly, to "Lessen the activity or force of; weaken". In fact, for this definition, dictionary.reference.com specifically uses the example feared that rising inflation would further depress the economy. I was not implying that we were experiencing a depression. As reported in the Washington Post and many other news sources:
The Federal Reserve said Wednesday economic activity around the country remained subdued in January and February as concerns about a possible war in Iraq slowed spending by consumers and businesses.I must confess that I do not understand your comment that "There's really no excuse for an intelligent, reasonable person to make things up to support an argument." If you're referring to my comments (I assume you are), then I can assure you that I am not making any of this up. I wholeheartedly agree with you that much of the anti-war movement is a joke. When a congressman from Georgia, John Lewis, spoke at the peace rally, I thought that he spoke well, but still provided a completely content-free speech. Yeah, I know war is a bad thing. I didn't need to hear it again. I wanted the speakers to lay out their case. The anti-war movement, in this regard, has done as pitiful a job as the Bush adminstration has.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the British did not plagiarize any intelligence reports? This has been widely covered in the news and since Colin Powell cited this paper further evidence that we should go to war, it's important to acknowledge that plagiarism gussied up as an "intelligence report" does not lend credibility to the "pro-war" cause. If the British government is copying a post-grad student's papers from the early 90s, I think it's only fair that this be admitted up front.
It's also fair to ask why we claimed that Iraq was trying to covertly buy uranium and Powell cited documents that our intelligence agencies uncovered as further proof of the need to go to war. When it turned out that these documents were crude forgeries, we again have to be honest and ask ourselves, why is the US government so intent on rushing into a war when we don't know what we're facing in Iraq but we do know what we're facing from the rest of the world?
I do have to say that the League of Nations analogy is not totally wrong. The League of Nations was crippled, in part, because the US refused to support it. If we were to be honest and eliminate the veto power held by the five permanent security council members, the UN would be more likely to act. Of course, the US would have pulled out a long time ago, too. Some, though, feel that ignoring Hussein is similar to the appeasement of Hitler in the 30s that led to World War II. This is ridiculous. Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait in the early 90s and we've not had any indication that their impoverished country is in a position to launch a war. As soon as Italy invaded Ethiopia or Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, action should have been taken. If Iraq decided to reclaim anything outside of it's territory, action would be taking -- again. (Though this begs the question of why we focus on Iraq and ignore so much of this behavior in the rest of the world.)
If, however, we use the "Hussein is a really, really bad man" argument (which I concede that he is), then why do we remain silent about many other nations headed by brutal dictators? Pakistan, our newfound friend, is hardly headed by a benevolent man and why don't we try to suppress their Weapons of Mass Destruction -- or ours, for that matter?
I have to ask, is this what Bush meant by "kinder and gentler"? Of course, it's hardly out of character given past US behavior.
Re:Rhetoric
chromatic on 2003-03-16T23:59:38
I misunderstood your intent with "depressing". It's a word with connotations in this context.
Most of my rant is against the simplistic logic found on protest signs and in the editorial pages of the Oregonian. Too few people seem to understand either economics (your focus) or history (mine). Whether that's due to institutional bias, concidental accidents, or the simple realities of publishing, it's not a place to find well-supported arguments.
Like you, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of going to war. In this case, I think the threat of force may indeed help inspections achieve their goal -- a goal that inspections without looming enforcement were unable to achieve.
Re:Rhetoric
jordan on 2003-03-17T16:40:11
- If, however, we use the "Hussein is a really, really bad man" argument (which I concede that he is), then why do we remain silent about many other nations headed by brutal dictators?
I don't think anyone but those wishing to knock down a strawman use the "Hussein is a really, really bad man" argument.
I feel that we must enforce the conditions of the original armistice. Iraq has been in non-compliance, and been warned about serious consequences for quite some time.
I believe Iraq has failed to live up to any of the conditions of the armistice, and continues to be a threat to its neighbors. Iraq has continued to assert its claim to Kuwait.
It's time to get this over with. If we don't eventually exercise some serious consequence that actually hits at the rulers of Iraq, the International community loses all credibility.
The current policy of containment is a form of war that is worse for the people of Iraq than the alternative of a shooting war. The sanctions against Iraq which are "murdering" Iraqi children, and the stationing of troops on Saudi soil, only there for containment, are some of the main reasons Bin Laden gives for fighting the west:
e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
By eliminating the brutal Iraqi regime, we can eliminate these points of contention with the 'Arab Street'. If we are successful in Iraq, expect to see our troops leave Saudi soil.
Nobody seriously believes that Saddam Hussein is using all, or even very much, of the oil-for-food money for humanitarian reasons. If he's not, what is he doing? The only credible answer is that he continues to build weapons with which to threaten his neighbors.
We are preventing Iraq from overtaking his neighbors, for now. But, it can't be lost on Hussein that a $500,000 investment, in the 9/11 terrorism, wrecks damage of $700,000,000,000 to the US economy. How much more could be done with his support? Would we be able to restrain Iraq if we were hit by repeated devastating blows at home?
Before you claim that there is no possible link between Al Qaeda and 9/11, perhaps you should consider this, this and this. Some of this information may be inconclusive, but we must remember that Hussein now has reason to work with Al Qaeda, the elimination of the US block to his regional hegemony.
James Woolsey, head of the CIA under Clinton, believes there are strong reasons to tie Iraq and Al Qaeda. Some of the reasons he believes this may be classified. I trust him on this.
Re:War != "Christian Right"
TorgoX on 2003-03-25T09:03:56
lease don't confuse Bush's actions for Christian ones.How does one tell how Christian an action is?
Re:War != "Christian Right"
Purdy on 2003-03-25T13:58:57
Mostly by relying on the Word of God, through Scripture (the Bible), but also through prayer.
Peace,
Jason
