The substance of the arguments for and against an upcoming war with Iraq has changed recently. Bush's speech came pretty close to justifying it as as our obligation due to the unique role in the world as the protector or preserver of liberty. With or without the UN, Bush clearly is attracted to and convicted by the idea of Iraqi liberation and the spread of freedom. I don't believe that, in his view, this is merely rhetoric or a naive pretext. When I hear town hall-type groups on NPR or CNN, the pro-war camp (and I'm talking average folks, not paid talking heads), I hear the same thing. They tend to downplay direct AQ links and documentable WMD proof. They look more broadly at the concept of an American Destiny and find it natural that the US should remove Sadaam. The tone has a moral, almost religious, base with no doubt as to the rightness of US purpose in removing an "evil-doer". The irony of this is almost too obvious to mention when one thinks back to the isolationist strands within the same political base that were dominant just 3-8 years ago relative to Bosnia and Kosovo. Also, the position of this camp I think explains polls showing many Americans not convinced by Bush's arguments but in favor of war on Iraq anyway. The against camp focuses on specific justifications - either violation of international law (UN resolutions) or retaliation for war on terror - and lacking proof, or a direct connection of such proof to American interests, favor a limited use of military might. In this camp, the Milosevic comparison is either ignored (probably because Bush and war proponents have ignored it) or distinguished (though I can't see on what grounds). This camp usually includes "just war" proponents not willing to see a US act of aggression in terms of moral righteousness. It includes people, both Americans or non, who view any use of US military power, based on its past history, as an economic weapon. Finally, this camp also includes pragmatists who see a war producing a world that is less safe, not more so. A third camp, which I personnally believe is a small minority is simply opposed to war in Iraq as part of an overall world-view that flat-out rejects violent means to achieve desirable ends. Are we in the throes of a new Manifest Destiny and is Bush devoting the US to carrying it out by either American unilateral might or reinforcment of a renewed UN mandate to include rolling back tyranical governments? Discuss.
I Know What You Did Last Millennium And how often has "manifest destiny" sprung mainly - or wholly - from a fear of others projecting that same philosophy, and being able to make it stick? Same thing here. FEAR.
One quote I remember being thrown out during the SOU speech was, "liberty is given to humanity by God." This, of course, isn't the only example of Bush Jr.'s religiousity since assuming the mantle of Presidency and bully pulpit but it is the most obvious linkage to the new foreign policy doctrine and thus makes the analogy to a new Manifest Destiny pretty valid. What is frightening is this formulation at this historical moment. Here I am speaking of globalization and Empire (Hardt and Negri). It's evident to me that the current administration is beholden to corporate interests exclusively. Again, there is nothing more unsettling to Empire than disruption to markets and the global order of production and trade. It's also natural that our plutocratic government would hinge it's fortunes on a phenomenology that bears little threat to it's well-being. Evangelical Christianity makes a great host in defraying the costs of Empire. The particular cost now is a neo-neocolonialism. A couple of differences on occupation (and democratization) then and now: -Communism. This was the overarching political-economic threat when the US adopted the Marshall Plan and fostered procedural democracy (democracy as most know it) in West Germany and, indeed, the rest of post-fascist Europe. This ultimate goal demanded a focus of resources and political attention unheralded in the era of state intervention. Is the US prepared to do this now? (My assertions above lead me to believe not). -Colonialism. Neither Japan nor Germany were colonized nations in the modern era prior to Allied occupation. In other words, the baggage of the imagined community (bourgeois nationalism) didn't interface with social destruction, marketization and grievances of exploitation. -Ethnic homogenity. It's been noted before on BigSoccer, but this is a very important variable in successful democratic transition. A variable that Iraq does not possess. Anthropologists are particularly keen on using this concept as an industrialized building block. Regarding monop_poly's descriptors, I am straddling the two latter camp's. I don't deny there is no just war. The case against Iraq doesn't meet that threshold.
Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium You keep using that word fear. Is it fear to be concerned that a potential madman could have control of nuclear weapons AND has shown a willingness to use them, or is it prudence? Big difference.
Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium Don't want to hear me, hear them: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_5/102-0525517-8939315?v=glance&s=books http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-0525517-8939315?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._books_4/102-0525517-8939315?v=glance&s=books One provides multiple views on your notions of "security" and my assertions of our "insecurity" in the context of political economy. Another submits: "We waste tens of billions of dollars and person-hours evry year on largely mythical hazards like road rage... on programs designed to protect young people from dangers that few of them ever face, on compensation for victims of metaphorical illnesses... We can choose to redirect some of those funds to combat serious dangers that threaten large numbers of people. At election time we can choose candidates that proffer programs rather than scares. Or we can go on believing in martian invaders"...or, I would add, Iraqi "attacks." The third provides techniques on getting around the statistical psuedo-science, resting replete in the truth that virtually every poll you've encountered in the mass media is statistically a failure, and thus provides no usable data. You can choose to be frightened of Iraq if you want to, but while we fuck around with them the conspirators of the perpetration of a CRIME remain at large. Because that's, in the end analysis, what 9/11 was; a crime...the perps are DEAD. Those who supported them are still out there, and real criminal investigation ought to continue to take place to bring those folks to justice. That's what a nation who wants to lead the world to the rule of law, and from the chaos of war-like attacks and engagements, does. that's how it sets the example. When you operate under a combination of FEAR and an economic system that has NEVER demonstrated it can correct depressions in its cycle without war, however, you are left with a "world leader" whose trigger finger is itchy, and who wants to excise its fear and its downward economic trends. By the way, the only country who has "control of nuclear weapons AND has shown a willingness to use them" is America. Our citizens have to go to Germany for a semblance of a legal process regarding any 9/11 investigation... http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/30/motassadeq.relatives/index.html
Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium We have programs to combat road rage? And what are metaphorical illnesses?
Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium Why is it that if I completely disagree with you, I haven't "heard" you. I hear you loud and clear, and I think you're wrong. I do not fear Iraq, I am thinking of being prudent so Iraq doesn't provoke even greater conflict or destabilize further a tricky little area of the globe (see Israel).
Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium Let me give you just one study, on behalf of that text: http://www.technews.vt.edu/Archives/1999/Oct/99419.html Additionally, my understanding is that metphorical illnesses are "fake illnesses." "Syndromes" that are doublespeak for the medical establishment saying "well, there's a statistical 'correlation' here, but we have no fucking clue. So...call it [_______] Syndrome." Many talk about the diagnosis of "homesickness" as one. I have a much more personal example: A membe of my family was diagnosed with a new type of sickle-cell anemia; one that manifested symptom relating to STOMACH TRAUMA rather than the traditional sickle-cell issues (other than one symptom: blood-filled urea). Shuffled off like the latest zoo animal or new art exhibit to Penn, Hopkins and finally Columbia Pres., it was discovered that the actual cause was desmoplasitc small-cell tumors of the stomach. Metphorical illnesses appear when members of the medical establishment are either stumped, or hell-bent upon seeing something, new, something their peers have never seen before. Our fear of the unknown feed this dynamic, IMHO.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium Just as long as you can point to ALL your posts on various boards between 1992 and now warning us all of the same thing (from the same Iraq, who was all that time the same level of threat to Israel that you cite now), I will allow for this argument. Can't? FEAR factor must've kicked in...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium I dont get it. Illnesses become metaphorical (fake) because Dr's aren't sure exactly how to classify them? And what does any of that have to do with fear? Whos fear?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium Right. Read the post again, is all the help I can give you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium Ah, I did just read it again. I had gotten confused by your inconsistent comparisons regarding fake illnesses (homesickness, which may or may not be a "fake" illness, and your brothers obviously not fake, but initially misdiagnosed illness.) Still not sure where the "fear" comes in. Guess Ill never know.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium "Brother?" Oh yeah, you read well...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium The writer that Universal quotes wants to show that our domestic policy and foreign policy are entertwined and inseparable in a bid to prove that United States' aggressive foreign policy is systemic; that is, the only way we can change our foreign policy is via a complete overhaul of our domestic socioeconomic structure. This, of course, is not a new idea, so in an attempt to be original, the author has overreached himself in collecting evidence of a fucked-up domestic agenda. This is why he makes such misleading statements as "tens of billions spent on programs such as road rage" and compensation for victims of metaphorical illnesses.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium Not quite. Your change of the actual quote from "tens of billions of dollars and person-hours every year on largely mythical hazards like road rage" to what you wrote above creates the illusion that the author did indeed overreach, when actually his statement is alot more rational than your version of it. Secondly, "compensation" bothers you? How would you, in that more rational, balanced way, state that point?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium No it's not. He claims tens of billions spent on "mythical hazzards" and then uses a single study on road rage that probably cost 5K to illustrate his point. That's lazy rhetoric at beat. I assume that by "compensation," the author is referring to the payment of medical insurance claims?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Know What You Did Last Millennium President Bush's medical liability reform plan is part of the overhaul -- it will limit compensation for victims of metaphorical illnesses.