(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}
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.