The RipZAW |
|
|
Guaranteed Fair and Balanced, or your money back. Send a letter to the Editor... err, Writer. Blogger. Something.    Links to StuffNewsSalon.com Google News CNN International The Onion The Motley Fool Slate Fun Stuff Mark Fiore's Cartoons Homestar Runner.com Daryl Cagle's Pro Cartoonist Index Internet Bumper Stickers Belief System Selector Odd Todd As the Apple Turns Where's George? Oddlots Irregulars Citizen's Survival Tools Project Vote Smart Congress.org Government Information Awareness Clicks for Charity The Hunger Site Ecology Fund Things I'm a Member of American Civil Liberties Union League of Conservation Voters MoveOn.org Our Campaigns Other Blogs The Homeless Guy Spinsanity The Moderate Republican Where is Raed? Granny D Atrios Daily Kos Talking Points Memo Political Animal IMPORTANT Cartoons We Drink Ritalin The End of the World Super Mario Brothers: [1] [2] [3] All Your Base 
Visitors:
Archives
|
Saturday, March 22, 2003
Attended a number of speeches and panels on US foreign policy today. As of this moment, I can't find the program or remember the any of the speakers' names. The keynote speaker was going to be Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), but he cancelled about an hour before he was scheduled to come on. We don't know why he cancelled yet, but I halfway expected it. How on Earth did a college of 1,200 students get a Senator to come speak? From another state, no less? But regardless of Hagel's absence or my inability to remember anyone's name, the day was quite enlightening. The first speaker was India's ambassador to the UN. He was generally supportive of the US, drawing parallels between September 11th and the attack on the Indian parliament. He did, however, stress the need for multilateralism and the international hole the US was digging itself into by acting alone. The second was a professor from Yale law school. I was quite impressed by his ability to state controversial opinions in a rational manner. He argued that the US, since the second world war, had engaged in a policy of "strategic multilateralism, with occasional forays into tactical unilateralism." He claimed that under the current Bush administration, that policy had changed into "strategic unilateralism, with sporadic use of tactical multilateralism." The effect, he said, was a dramatic drop in international trust in the US, a drop which would make it much more difficult for the US to accomplish anything beyond our borders. Why should anyone help us in stopping international terrorism or drug trafficking if we won't listen to them in the security council (or on the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Treaty, or anything else)? I know this is quite unprofessional but I'm really too tired to complete this post right now. I'll finish, with descriptions of an NYU economics and political science professor and the US editor of the British Financial Times tomorrow. 'nite. | Thursday, March 20, 2003
One item I have to add on here, despite its rather insignificant stature compared to other world events: Al Gore has joined the Apple Computer board of directors. What's up with that? | In other news, it looks like ANWR oil drilling was defeated again, for now. The ANWR drilling proposal had been inserted into a filibuster-proof budget bill, meaning it either had to be amended out, or it would become law. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California introduced the amendment to remove it. After much debate and a major push by the White House to defeat the amendment, it passed 52-48, thanks to the support of 8 republicans overpowering the opposition of 5 democrats. John McCain was one of the supporting republicans, again reinforcing my respect for the man. He has been outspoken in support for this war, an issue I continue to disagree with him on, but as with Colin Powell, I have to assume that they are simply coming from a different angle than I am. I can't bring myself to accuse them of warmongering - unlike others in the current administration. | A good night's sleep is a wonderful thing. I woke up this morning ready to face the world again, and conscious that whatever happens in the long term, that world currently continues to turn the same way it always did. There's been constant news coverage of Iraq, of course, but surprisingly little covered in it. As far as I can tell, we're really not doing a whole lot right now. I'm not complaining, of course, or criticizing the military's strategy. I'm only wondering what exactly their plan is. I, along with quite a few others, was expecting the gates of hell to open towards Iraq last night; instead, it feels more like someone forgot to lock the front panel on the heater. We'll see what happens. | Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Well, it has begun. Operation 'Iraqi Freedom.' He seems to like that. Last time it was Operation 'Enduring Freedom.' Crap, what are these, military operations or cheerleading chants? So far, there's not much information to go on except the little that's dribbling in to confused newscasters. Bush has made his speech, however. It started as the cameras panned in, through photos of cute little girls with puppies, presumably the Bush daughters in earlier years. As he began to speak, he seemed to be fighting off a smile. It was as if he was thinking "hehehe, look what I did! I'm a big boy!" My friends were rather impressed by the speech. One asked where his speechwriters were back when he was supposed to be convincing the rest of the world. I have to admit, for a George W. Bush speech, it was above average. But all the rhetorical brilliance in the world cannot make this speech into more than it is - a clumsy excuse for a terrible mistake. | Now is no longer the time for loud. Don't make this another Vietnam. Put a light in your window. Hold a vigil. Put up a sign and wear a ribbon. But whatever you do, don't take your frustrations out on the troops. They're the bravest ones among us, going to do their duty regardless of the risk or reward. They are deployed, and they are going to fight, regardless of what we have to say about it. Yesterday's mantra was "no war." That no longer has any meaning. "End the war" is not a possibility. It is not nearly so easy to pull out as to go in. No, today the words to speak are "we will remember." We will remember the selflessness of the troops who fought this pointless war, and we will remember the duplicity of the officials who so carelessly threw out their lives, and we will do whatever we have to do to make things right again, because we will remember how in the years from 2001 to 2003, they went terribly, terribly wrong. | I don't know what to do. Curse our leaders for letting it come to this. I can only hope and pray that the war is mercifully swift and everyone comes home safely. It's unconscionable that common soldiers and airmen, and Iraq's conscript troops and defenseless civilians are going to pay the unltimate price for this lunacy. Please let it be quick. Please let it be the end of the madness. | Tuesday, March 18, 2003
I wonder what is going to happen to the Kurds? They're the only group in the Arab Middle East that's shown any proclivity toward democracy, but we haven't done much to support them. Will we sell them out to the Turks? If they declare independance, what will we do? A Kurdistan comprising Northern Iraq, Eastern Syria and Southern Turkey probably would be an island of progressive democracy in the region, but setting it up would rile our erstwhile allies. George Washington said that America has no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. I would say that in our position of strength, it fits America's interest in promoting freedom to support the Kurds, even at the expense of those nations who claim sovereignty over them. But I'm afraid our current leadership is more worried about our interest in maintaining pliable dictators than in introducing true freedom to the world. | Monday, March 17, 2003
I've been against this war from the beginning. I've written about it, I even participated in a Philadelphia anti-war march. But one thing I don't get is the "direct action" approach to protest. The first contact I had with it was during the march in Philly, when I was approached by an entusiastic woman passing out flyers and recruiting people to blockade the Philadelphia federal building the day after we declared war. "We're all going to get arrested!" she cheerfully announced. OK, civil disobedience has a long and honorable past. But what kind of sense does this plan make? This isn't sitting at a table until someone gives you the same lunch they're giving everyone else. This is standing in a door and keeping a bunch of people who are just trying to do their job from getting to work. News flash: The Joint Chiefs of Staff don't work out of the Philadelphia federal building; the local Welfare and EPA bereaus probably do. That's who you want to shut down? Maybe what they really want is just to prove they're willing to go to jail for their beliefs. But that's not civil disobedience. That's just grandstanding. Now let's look at the plan to break into Vandenberg AFB in California and destroy as much equipment as possible before being arrested. OK, at least the target makes sense here. But looking at the full picture, this one's even worse. First, this isn't even nonviolent anymore. This is breaking and entering and vandalizing. It's a complete surrender of any legitimacy the protestors may have had. Second, they're trying to break into a military base. Military bases are full of "soldiers", who carry "guns", which they use to "shoot" "people" who are trying to "break" onto the "base". My point is, these protestors may be setting up a bloodbath. Third, even if they somehow got onto the base undetected and managed to do damage to the base facilities, what would that accomplish? It would, in the best case scenario (from the protestors point of view), hurt our forces in Iraq. What does that mean? It means maybe an Army tank isn't where it's supposed to be, and one of our units gets overrun and killed. It means maybe an Air Force fighter squadron loses communications, so it accidentally shoots up a US column. It means maybe a marine runs out of ammunition just as his buddy yells "cover me!" and jumps out of his foxhole into enemy fire. In short, it means the war lasts a little longer, and a few more Americans (and no one who beleives every soldier is there because they want to be should be allowed in this debate) will die. Despite the cries of the far right, I refuse to beleive that this is what anti-war protestors want. With that in mind, I demand they put a little more thought into their actions before I grant these particular protestors an ounce of respect. | Sunday, March 16, 2003
According to a Dick Cheney press conference, we need to invade Iraq before they attack our troops. Right. And maybe they'll guillotine themselves while they're at it? In the same conference, he again says that no one else is really qualified to judge the proper course, because "They didn't face the attacks of 9/11. They didn't suffer the death of 3,000 of their people in a matter of hours." The relevance of that fact to the situation in Iraq rather escapes me. The fact that we're still one of the most domestically peaceful countries in the world seems to put the lie to that statement as well. But then again, this is coming from the same guy who just told us that Bush's "cowboy" reputation is a good thing. Dicky-Boy's been busy these last few days, hasn't he? Every time I think Cheney can't get any slimier, there he goes. | Well, CBS News just confirmed the Observer article. Bush just had a press release calling tomorrow a 'moment of truth' for the world. What that means, he didn't specifically say, but the implication is hard to miss - we're going to war really soon. God damn. I don't know what else there is to do. I only hope everything he said about humanitarian aid and ending the sanctions and rebuilding and democracy are true, and that this war won't earn him a re-election. I fear that neither of those hopes will be reflected in reality. | If this article from Britain's Observer is true, Tony Blair has announced the UN has 24 hours to back war or we're going to do it ourselves. Don't know what to say about that. Have to see what develops. Damn. | |