The War - How do ya like it so far?

Hello blatham--

Hey. Tell me what you really think.

You said:
And, of course, when one asks why stabilize this area (but to heck with East Timor or AIDS ravished Africa) then other factors start to become visible, eg oil and client-state Israel.

**************************
I'm thinking we are desperate to stablize the ME because THEY ARE THE ONES CREATING, PAYING FOR AND PERPETRATING MOST OF THE WORLD'S TERRORISM. It would be nice to stablize Africa. We've certainly been trying long enough. But war is not necessary to stablize there. Cash, and it seems sex education is what they need. Unless we strap them up in Chastity Belts, I don't think we can do much more for them.

Did East Timor attack someone?

other factors start to become visible,... You don't have to look hard. It's terrorism. So there. Myeh!

Sofia

I'm afraid I don't agree with your dismisal of Tartarin's post. Objective criteria can be brought to bear on many of these questions (consistency, or lack of it, between statements and actions, or with foreign policies towards country a versus country b). Historical events are interpretable, but all versions except one will be wrong.

And it is clearly not the case that 'average' Americans (sorry for the generality, but I'm sure you'll undersand it in the manner meant) have sought out education and experience in political and foreign affairs matters to the level which Tartarin has.

Differences in viewpoint are to be forwarded and encouraged, of course. But I think one ought not to be happy about the difference between a typical European's knowledge of the world outside it's borders and the typical Ameican's matching knowledge (again, pardon the generality, but it does speak to something important and real).

As an American, I support your right to express disagreement.

I think it is ooky that you feel continentally superior. (I thought that was supposed to be an American phenomena...)

But, I am enjoying you and Tartarin. :wink:

Sophia

Several points to argue. First, I think you are conflating a bunch of issues here. The reference to East Timor and to Africa were to make the point that the US is very selective in where it sets out to 'do good'. The quest for 'stability' has quite clearly been determined by self interest, not some humanitarian good. Thus administration justifications of this nature are merely facile means of achieving an agreeable domestic perception of reality. East Timor didn't attack anyone, it was attacked. Very many were brutally killed and the West watched. That is not at all an uncommon story of course. It happened when Sadaam gassed the Kurds, and, it doesn't need being mentioned again that his chemical and bio programs were supported partly by US corporations and government.

As to world terrorism, of course you'll know that the US was held responsible in the Hague for supporting terrorism in Central America.

All of the above just as a reminder that what is claimed to be so, often is not.

Now, who in the middle east are you thinking of when you say 'they are the ones creating and paying for ...etc'? And upon whom are these acts being committed?

Sophia

I'm Canadian, so not continental. If your suggestion might be that a cross section of American high school students would perform equally to a group of students from Britain or the Netherlands on world geography and western history or current events, I am rather certain you'd be wrong. Canadian students would not do well by this comparison either.

It's not a matter of 'superiority' in a prideful sense, but it is an important difference in an isolated area of education, but an area which isn't advantageous for a democracy where such knowledge is less well distributed than it could be. We cherish and have hopes for education. We do so because we know we'll have a better citizenry (and a better life) if so.

Blatham-- Referring to a few of your points:

The reference to East Timor and to Africa were to make the point that the US is very selective in where it sets out to 'do good'.
I realize this. Do you not agree that the US has made financial and diplomatic attempts to assist Africa? And, you and I have addressed the inability to assist all oppressed peoples, ie East Timor...

As to world terrorism, of course you'll know that the US was held responsible in the Hague for supporting terrorism in Central America.
We all have atrocities in our closets. If past sins preclude addressing world problems, we should all sit our our hands until the end of time.

Now, who in the middle east are you thinking of when you say 'they are the ones creating and paying for ...etc'? And upon whom are these acts being committed?
Thinking of OBL and al-Quaida, Saudi, Yemen, Saddam paying for Palestinian bombers, Saudi Princesses paying Saudi families of terrorists and Israel's behavior. Of course, not all terrorism hails from the ME, but in my estimation, most does. I'm sure you are familiar with terrorists' targets.

Blatham-- If you are under the impression that I happily support all that the US administration is doing, you have misunderstood me. I am not hunkering down for this argument, because I have questions and discomfort about this war, and it's repercussions. I do wish a diplomatic solution could have been found, and I am not to be confused with a war cheerleader or a Bush apologist. I just differ with many of the specific anti-war arguments.

I see your recent post. Continental...national... I think you know what I meant. It seems as though you believe national geography tests render the US inferior in judging current affairs. Again, I deem this as ooky.

"...Releasing this country from its ignorance, opening up the system, is the difficult job for the next real president..."

Sophia -- That probably sounded pompous to you and I should have maybe added "self-imposed" or "willful" to "ignorance." But ignorance implies willful -- "ignoring" as opposed to being blind or stoopid. Ignorance isn't passive. Jeffrey Nunberg the other day did a commentary (on Fresh Air, NPR) about the deliberate rejection of correct pronunciation of foreign place names, etc., by many Americans who think that (for example) to pronounce Nicaragua correctly is to a) hate America and b) love foreigners (I'm simplifying)!

Another anecdote. A friend whose political opinions are the absolute opposite of mine (he believes that teachers who don't accept the administration's point of view in their private lives should be fired), was sympathetic with my unwillingness to work out at the gym lately (where he and I occasionally meet) because of the constant war news on TV in the exercise area, mostly on Fox. He said: "I can't believe these people who are lined up on the cross-trainers, eyes glued to the screen, mouths slack. I asked (so-and-so) about his reaction to a particular piece of news and he answered me parroting the Fox commentator -- USING THE EXACT WORDS -- apparently not realizing what he was doing."

I think (as I said above) we have the task of changing a situation in which otherwise perfectly bright people don't want to think for themselves.

That said, grateful as I am to Blatham for his support, he is Canadian and is clearly afraid that if people like me aren't kept calm and happy, we'll move up there and make trouble...!

Tartarin--
Your thoughtful clarification is much appreciated.

I still don't think American ignorance is more pronounced than any other national brand. But, I don't mind that you may. <warm hopes for good feelings and civil disagreement>

You may be right, but given the resources poured into providing us with news 24/7, our imperious willingness to flex our muscles in others' countries, and our conviction that we are better informed, American ignorance is more frightening. We are directly responsible for our government's actions. We are responsible for making sure we know what they're doing. When we ignore reality, we're not only screwing ourselves.

I give you ten unsolicited points for the content of your last post, but...
When we ignore reality, poses fodder for my unrelenting major point in this exercise...

Suppose reality is not being ignored, but viewed differently than your (and, yes, Blatham's) particular take on it? :wink:

I know.... <Why won't she just give up, Tartarin growls...>

Ain't growlin' Sof! I think your question is a good one. But I think 'twas Blatham who pointed out that there is only one reality. Either we killed the pregnant Iraqi woman or we didn't (just an example). Did we? Didn't we? Where "viewed differently" comes into play is in the less ascertainable truth: Did the soldier intend to kill her, or didn't he? Could we be sure she was carrying a grenade? Was he given orders or not? etc. etc.

But we have to begin with yes/no, did/didn't. In that sense, the soldier's intention is a irrelevant until we are talking about, Now what do we do about the soldier?

Following along the same path, what I don't like is, for example, seeing "18 civilians shot" in Le Monde, Guardian, Reuters, seeing it denied by the Pentagon for a week or so, seeing an absence of any mention of it in the NYTimes or the CSM or other of the more responsible US media, and then seeing a grudging admission by the Pentagon much later, a back page acknowledgement in the papers mentioned, no mention on Fox, a quickie on CNN accompanied by a 5 minute essay on the soldier and his cute family in rural Alabama.

See what I'm getting at? We have to avoid willful ignorance of the central truth which we need to know in order to assess the political and moral consequences of our actions. In a democracy, they are OUR actions, not the actions of a distant leader, commander-in-chief of a military which has nothing to do with "The Real Me." But that's how we're playing the information in this country, shielding ourselves from connection to the truth.

I once had to do some photos for a Brit magazine in the early, early morning in a Madrid slaughterhouse, chilled to the bone and slipping in blood and feces. That's a situation in which reality -- what's there, what one is doing about it, how one presents it, how one internalizes it -- is (in a phrase not current at that time) a wake-up call.

a seque sorta not really- i spend most of my adult life as a social worker ( a typical liberal environment) while i also farmed/ranched. i raised my own beef/lamb/pork. when it came to butchering time everyone wanted a steak or lamb chop etc but when i would bring something to work to share i would be blasted for "killing those animals that i had raised from babies" they of course wanted the good meat i brought but continued to critize me. and the simple point is that as long as the meat comes from the market all nicely packaged they can deny where it came from. we as a society do the same thing with war, we want the winning part but we dont want to know how it happens.

Dyslexia--
You got me in your crosshairs with that one.
I hate war. I get upset at news of deaths on both sides. Yet, I felt the war was necessary.

Just can't stop the screaming of the lambs....

I really have trouble with the idea that the war is necessary. Necessary how?

I have tried without success to find anything that remotely justifies this war.

Edgar there is a simple reason for that.

You got that right.

Sofi

I do appreciate that my perception or understanding is deeply incomplete. And I surely acknowledge that I may have some things wrong. Of course, I then have to be forthright and add that I, like all of us, hold opinions for what we think are good reasons, and that each of us feels that our notions reflect some important parts of reality. All of which doesn't get me terribly far, and is clearly an attempt to hand you my humility CV.

Aside from the issue of this war, I'll make a quick and unsatisfactory address to my claim about education. I regret that I cannot give you more than anecdotal, and that is never adequate. I know studies have been done comparing American and Canadian students with students from European countries, but I've not read any of them. Even if I had, we could probably argue until the cows come home about relevancy, etc.

But I was married to an American lady, and my daughter (now 20) completed her final two years of high school in LA. And I've travelled a bit, meeting folks from all over. It is, without question, my experience that (generally, sorry) Americans know very much less about the world outside their borders than do Europeans. It isn't hard to posit why that may be, but it has been my experience.

It was clearly also my daughters experience. We had not had a conversation about this matter at all previous to her heading down to LA. But within the first week of her commencing school there, she sent me an email, quite aghast at how little her classmates knew about Canada, Europe, and the rest of the world.

This isn't always critically important, of course. But (as Tartarin points out), when you are a citizen of the country which is the most powerful and influential, and which is setting out on a campaign which is designed to fundamentally alter international relationships and laws, then everyone outside of that country has justification to question how well the citizens of the US understand that world being so effected.

Most people I associate with have no knowledge of the war's genesis, yet they blindly tell me I don't have a right to disagree with the administration. They see my attitude as slightly traiterous. But, my duty is to humankind as a whole. I live on planet Earth. Screw the borders and flags.

I screw borders with you Edgar and am a fellow "traitor." Someone shoot me down when I have said this too many times, but the worst thing about all this is that Americans behave as though they have no responsibility for the war except to cheer loudly when they "win" it. How many do you suppose connect the fact that they have a vote with how their country is perceived? We aren't living (yet) under a Saddam-like leader, in a situation in which we can morally disconnect from his actions. Nothing justifies our ignorance of the world, our self-congratulatory unwillingness to learn the ways and languages of other cultures.