(no subject)
Oct. 27th, 2003 09:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
frandroidCar bombers struck the international Red Cross headquarters and four police stations across Baghdad today, killing almost 40 people in a spree of destruction that terrorized the Iraqi capital on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, police and the U.S. military reported.
Whoever did this is completely insane. This is not someone who supports Iraqis. Activists that have been protesting last weekend against the occupation of Iraq have forgot to look at one important issue: if the U.S. leaves right now, who knows who's going to replace them? Do activists think that democracy is going to emerge instantly? Democracy is not "natural" and does not emerge on its own because it's "the best way". Anyone who thinks like that, thinks like Marx who thought that Communism was the natural path of society after capitalism. Society does move forward by default, however, and there is no guarantee of progress for the people of Iraq without a concerted effort for it. Without a strong armed presence right now, this country will slip into a major civil war, or if that is averted, could emerge rapidly into a military and/or religious dictatorship. I agree that the US should never have been there in the first place, but now that they have gotten there, the situation has changed. They have destroyed the power structure there, and they have the responsibility, before they leave, to establish a new one so that Iraqis have a chance to avoid a civil war better inner factions (secularists versus religious leaders, religious leaders against each other...) And the U.S. are actually fullfilling that responsibility! Perhaps they could do a better job, but it cannot be done without a military presence, and the U.S. are the only ones with people out there. I would support a U.N.-lead international presence, but no one at the U.N. wants to go there. The European "leadership" before the war has turned into mush now. I think that Ex-Yugoslavia should be close to our minds.
That is why I think that the occupation, although emerging from a bogus war, is legitimate.
Whoever did this is completely insane. This is not someone who supports Iraqis. Activists that have been protesting last weekend against the occupation of Iraq have forgot to look at one important issue: if the U.S. leaves right now, who knows who's going to replace them? Do activists think that democracy is going to emerge instantly? Democracy is not "natural" and does not emerge on its own because it's "the best way". Anyone who thinks like that, thinks like Marx who thought that Communism was the natural path of society after capitalism. Society does move forward by default, however, and there is no guarantee of progress for the people of Iraq without a concerted effort for it. Without a strong armed presence right now, this country will slip into a major civil war, or if that is averted, could emerge rapidly into a military and/or religious dictatorship. I agree that the US should never have been there in the first place, but now that they have gotten there, the situation has changed. They have destroyed the power structure there, and they have the responsibility, before they leave, to establish a new one so that Iraqis have a chance to avoid a civil war better inner factions (secularists versus religious leaders, religious leaders against each other...) And the U.S. are actually fullfilling that responsibility! Perhaps they could do a better job, but it cannot be done without a military presence, and the U.S. are the only ones with people out there. I would support a U.N.-lead international presence, but no one at the U.N. wants to go there. The European "leadership" before the war has turned into mush now. I think that Ex-Yugoslavia should be close to our minds.
That is why I think that the occupation, although emerging from a bogus war, is legitimate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I'd like to visit a safe Baghdad some day.
Date: 2003-10-27 11:43 am (UTC)Iraq can succeed, but they got to move.. look at the 50% unemployment rate, right there, is an opportunity to hire people to rebuild the country, to build the democracy plus whatever social systems and industry/commerce they need. Those 50% of iraqi's could make the country great if they are hired, because a few thousand marines aren't going to do the job alone, they can't.
I don't know how they'll avoid a civil war. I just think the sooner they get working the more will be avoided.
I mean ideology in that Iraq was a proxy war somewhat like what was had in the cold war... But instead of capitalism vs communism we have a different idealogical war here; the modern world/democracy vs islamic fundamentalism/backwards nations. It's the war the terrorists are fighting, and now "we" are fighting. I don't know what the means for you activists, since you're "backwards" at times... :)
As for Iraq being the central front, read Osama's latest "address to the people" he admits it himself; Iraq is the frontline for the "war on terror".. I sure don't understand yet; but it seems this was the pentagons intention from the get-go (think back). What does it mean? Well this thing is only just now really getting underway so we'll see... :/
Re: I'd like to visit a safe Baghdad some day.
Date: 2003-10-27 12:22 pm (UTC)I don't think that they are fighting Islam either, or else they wouldn't ally with Pakistan. They don't want to fight against so-called "backwards" nations either, or else they'd be carpet-bombing Africa or something. (Actually, they are fighting against these nations, but it is an economic war rather than a military one.)
So Iraq is/wasn't a proxy war--it's a real, central war, on Arab and national control over oil resources. Not that Iraq is a finality in itself, but removing the state socialist government removes monopoly over oil production there. Foreign (American) companies can come in and take bigger stakes in production there. It's also about opening markets in the middle east in general. They thought that they could come in there, open up Iraq, graft a constitution on the country and make it a model of democracy and free markets in the middle east for other countries to aspire to. The very fact that they haven't left yet is not just a commitment to Bush's re-electoral campaign, but to their commitment to these ideologies. This is a twisted commitment--they don't think of democracy as "power to the people", or else they would support democratic socialism as an alternative solution. They believe in democracy as a vector for capitalism, and as a form of government that can be easily controlled by the business community. People like George Soros (a major funder for Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Institute) don't like dictators because dictators have a tendency to ignore "bribes" or other kinds of pressure (because they have themselves siphoned off the country's resources and are independently wealthy, witness Saddam's billions of dollars); they have a tendency of doing what's right for their country's economy (which is often their own self-interest, and not necessarily the population's interest) rather than what's right for multinational corporations, and currency speculators (of which Soros is one of the most rapacious kind).
I think that for a lot of people in the background, the wolfowitzes and the like, this is an ideological war. For George Bush, I think that he actually believes a lot of the crap he spews out about fear and terror and God. When you start saying those things, you have to believe in them yourself. A sign of that, pointed out by Mark Crispin Glover (I think?), is that Bush, who otherwise has a really hard time putting two sentences together when talking about things like family values, putting food on the table, etc. becomes crystal clear when it comes time to talk about dark and evil matters. I think that George Bush saw himself as a crusader going into this war. Maybe he's realized by now that even the PotUS is also a failable human being, but who knows, and who cares.
Re: I'd like to visit a safe Baghdad some day.
Date: 2003-10-27 12:42 pm (UTC)No, they aren't fighting against the religion of "islam", that's crazy. but they are fighting against backwardsness in the islamic world, "terrorists" are fighting against the modern world; read Mahathir's speech, you've probably heard about it because of the "anti-semitism", but ignore that; it's the least important part: http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2002-06-20/mahathirspeech.html (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2002-06-20/mahathirspeech.html)
It's a shame for the anti-semitism because he says some very important things there about the struggle I'm talking about.
And I am talking about the wolfowitzes and rumsfelds; because they are the ones who made the war happen in my opinion. They are the ones who have been thinking ahead since the 80's.
The economic side is the short-term. in a decade we may not even need (or have) fossil fuel if all goes well; but that's just what I wanted to hear from you.. I simply haven't thought about that side much.
As for what you have to say about democracy and capitalism, that's more than I want to write at the moment; Let's meet up sometime, k? :)
Re: I'd like to visit a safe Baghdad some day.
Date: 2003-10-28 06:59 pm (UTC)If you think that we won't need fossil fuel in a decade, please tell me: how? Hydrogen is not the solution because it needs to be produced from water using another energy source, and the other energy sources are not mature or implemented yet. There is some investment made in alternative energies, but nothing on the grand scale that we need to get rid of the reliance on oil. You are overtly optimistic.
Oil won't be gone in 10 years, it'll just be more expensive. But 10 years is a lifetime in geopolitics: that's more than one president's two mandates, and it's definitely much further down the road than most corporations' wildest plans. That's the geopolitical horizon that Bush deals with.
I'll keep your point about Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in mind for now, although from what I know, their conviction is mostly about US geopolitical advantage more than religious/cultural dominance.
--
As for meeting, sure. Weekends are better. I live much closer to you now, Bloor and Spadina.
Re: I'd like to visit a safe Baghdad some day.
Date: 2003-10-28 11:05 pm (UTC)And yeh, I can be "optimistic".. Without some ideals I won't know what future to hope and maybe fight for.
Re: I'd like to visit a safe Baghdad some day.
Date: 2003-11-01 04:32 am (UTC)1) Even if islamic fundamentalists are in a "War against the West", the West fighting against fundamentalist terrorism doesn't mean that the west is fighting against islam, it just means that it is fighting against terror. Politicians use religious, ethnic and racial differences to get support for their wars, but fighting these differences is not the end-goal, or else they would be fighting elsewhere where there is no oil too.
2) You can say Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney ran this war, but what about Blair? Blair didn't just go to war because Bush told him so. Britain has its how geo-political interests in play, and I think that was the main interest.