Why does America think it has the right to dictate terms to the international community. The UN is the only forum for civil negotiation between countries. That Bush said "if the UN doesn't follow our lead, it will be irrelevant" simply reinforces the beliefs many non-Americans have concerning America: gung-ho, ignorant, blindly nationalistic, and very dangerous when provoked. None of these characteristics are positive; don't think that you need to look "tough" to the international community, as such prexsentations are immature and emotionally insecure.
War should never be taken lightly; neither should it be precipitated by simple emotional reactionism. Iraq has done no harm to the international community, but rather the reverse is true, as sanctions have decimated the poor and vulnerable within the country. There has been absolutely no proof provided to the international community to demonstrate the contrary. Weak appeals such as "Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction" ignores the fact that most western nations, especially the US, already *have* weapons of mass destruction. A bit hyprocritical, no? Once again, America demonstrates that it only likes playing by its rules, and then doesn't play fairly within them. If nuclear and chemical weapons exist, then either everyone has them or no one has them, from a nationalistic point of view. Anything else will be deemed violent action by the have-nots.
Violence will not solve this or any other issue, it will just lead to more hate, isolationism, and more violent action. NO WAR IS EVER JUST
The US needs the UN precisely to check the greed, ignorance, and arrogance which many American leaders display. America does not run the planet. America is not morally or ethically superior to the rest of the planet. America's "freedom" is neither free nor universal, and consequently many people in the world reject American imperialism. Just the other day Prime Minister Chretien publicly spoke out against the greed which the West demonstrates -- and which leads to desperate actions by poorer people who are humiliated and oppressed by the West -- and was lambasted for it. We need more such talk within public discourse.
If America leads the world into violence, we need to hit them where they will most feel it: the pocket book.
DO NOT BUY AMERICAN PRODUCTS. Check your food, your clothing, your electroncs, and your cars for their origins. Do not allow the only democratic power available to the average person in western 'democracies' -- namely the use of your money -- to be paid in taxes to this violent and greedy government.
WHAT AMERICA CALLS FREEDOM OTHERS CALL GREED
Watch out that your facts are indeed "facts", whether any such truths ever hold relative meaning.
As for the wars that were ennumerated in a grocery list manner, try not to forget that their "justness" was written by those who emerged victorious. Viewed objectively, there is no "justice" by killing others. (By the way, it was the Russians who helped France more than the US, try some more research...)
Interestingly, some have pointed out that my pacifist attitudes are in fact hate filled pedantisms; perhaps these people should question their notions of hate and love, for the people of Iraq will not be saved by bombs. Even more astonishing is the violent reaction to violence: does that not appear ontologically hypocritical? More importantly, what right do countries like the US and others have to dictate terms to countries in which their legislatures do not apply? For not having "legal" governments, perhaps? Or for not agreeing to outside trade terms on products such as oil. Or maybe that the people of such countries are too ignorant to understand their plight; maybe they shouldn't even be allowed to vote until they can vote in *the right people*.
Let's not forget that good ol' Dubya was illegally voted into office and the recount which was published in the NY Times on Sept 15 demonstrated that the democrats won. (Not that they are better than the republicans, but frankly their recent history has been much less tarnished by corruption and immorality, presidential sexual lives excepted...)
It's sad that the most violent country on the planet wishes to export its "freedoms" in a violent manner to those it deems inferior. Let the voices of the 85 million poor and homeless in America be counted. Let the 70% non-white prison population have a voice. Let those who fall through the porous cracks in the health and educational systems have a voice. The only agendas that mainstream Americans listen to anymore are the news media, which are controlled by 0.00004% of the population. Maybe some "facts" on this conflict need to be gathered from sources other than CNN or NBC.
How many still believe desert storm and the present day situation in the Middle East have "justice" as their aim and not hegemonic control over oil reserves. Buy another SUV ignorant American and drive until the planet chokes (in the instance of commodity fetishism, we're all American on this continent, north, south, and south again).
Maybe we need a war on our own soil in order to learn what war really is, and what are the resultant consequences. Death is not pretty, violence even more abhorant. Violence is mutually destructive; there are never any victors, as those who emerge from the fighting as just as scarred as those they killed.
Freedom = Democracy
the problem with this argument is that the exemplification is outside of what you wish to say. what i mean is that you are indeed correct in your relation of freedom to human dignity and achievement, but you do not address the issue of its application. Therefore you convince yourself of the validity of the first statement "freedom" and equate that with a positivce correlation to American capital democracy. That's called a CNN napalm death, mi amigo.
Where does this mystical "freedom" exist? Not within western democratic states, although they have come the closest to perceived ideals. Neither is it extant whithin the "less powerful" nations, which are almost universally economic colonies controlled by certain imperialist impulses within governmental policy. Freedom does not exist in a country in which there is poverty, for we are all bound by its repressive claims upon certain segments of our population. Do the rich not modify their behaviour in relation to the poor? Crime invariably follows the centralization of wealth, and the poor in relation to the rich within such circumscriptions may react in desperate manners. And so can the rich, as I hope you might see from whats emerging as corporate criminality within popular discourse. Nothing has chaned except the means to dissipate wealth more efficiently to every member of a population. If such is what creates robust and healthy economies, then it seems natural to desire a state-politik in which such conditions are formed.
Is American-of-anywhere-or-anything-else free? Not to muddy the discussion with philosophical debate, but freedom certainly cannot exist within a consumerist culture in which the vast majority of people spend their time working to buy cars to get to work.
(N.) American freedom should include:
1. The freedom to achieve the greatest developmental potential during youth; universally accessible education does not exist in America.
2. The freedom to bear tides of uncertainty when the immediate needs of the individual can be averaged amongst the population, thus greatly reducing their statistical occurence. I mean in this manner an insurance of food, health, education, and shelter despite exterior fluctuations such as job loss or personal crises.
3. The freedom to study any information which impacts the greater culture. Films, books, plays, radio, games, music, televison, are all censored by hegemonic and closed cultures which exclude broader democratic inclusion.
4. The freedom to denounce any public object-subject which threatens the stability of the political system. This would allow critisism of personal as well as governmental institutions. Capitalist culture as reified by corporate hegemonic exclusionism procludes the possibility of criticism and the exchange of free information.
5. The freedom from violence and imprisonment, which are themselves mutually inclusive in an ontological manner.
6. The freedom to allow difference of opinion and representation. Most North Americans have interiorized the institutional racism, sexism, and "otherness"-ism which proliferates amongst hegemonic political structures.
7. Freedom for open discussion.
Peace and understanding,
"Annabelle Partager"
No comments:
Post a Comment