![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7This was composed as a comment in response to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kittyc1978's post of a couple hours ago, weherein she responded with distress to my earlier posts linking to Osama Bin Laden's video's transcript and translation / analysis. But it was too long, and didn't fit, and I didn't want to post it in her journal after all. So it's here.
Hmm... I must say, the speech struck me in a very different way.
Don't take any of this in the wrong way! Your feelings and response are valid! I am simply presenting mine because they are different and may be interesting to you. if it's just going to make you mad, don't read! The following are just my feelings and my response and my reasoning.
First off I was indignant that he should say this now-- I mean, he killed over 2000 people in New York City, the densest blue patch of blue in the overwhelmingly blue state of NY. The fact that he's pretty much admitting he did so because he personally objects to George W. Bush is pretty fucking rich. Sure, now you get political, you bastard. When it suits you.
It angered me a great deal, and I was glad I had already cast my vote (via absentee ballot) so that I could not claim to have been influenced by it all in any way. But, it also was extremely interesting to me, and gave me a great deal of very sobering food for thought. I mean, what an opportunity-- if you think of it this way, he explained himself. To all of those who cried out, "WHY?" on September 11th (I know I screamed that word at one point on that day, as I stood wrapped in my towel staring at the TV set (it being 9 in the morning and I being a college student, I had not yet begun my day)---- here is an ANSWER, which in itself must mean something.
And so I found that reading it with something other than indignation proved to be an interesting exercise, at the least.
My boyfriend recently engaged in a lengthy argument via e-mail with one of his professors, who demanded to know how anyone in his right mind could vote against Bush. My boyfriend responded that he didn't see how anyone in his right mind could vote for Bush.
Instead of just being idiots and sniping at each other, they then proceeded to discuss current events-- mostly, those warehouses full of missing explosives, which went missing after the US occupied Iraq, and the like. (They were WMD's, no they weren't, they were missing before!, no they weren't, the world is safer now, no it isn't., etc, all done in Dave's inimitably reasonable style, and far better-written than anything I've ever done.)
What it finally came down to, once they had no more to argue about, was that a vote for Bush was a vote against the U.N. and America's heavy involvement, even (some might say) subservience to foreign powers, a vote for Us Against The World, self-reliant and powerful and isolated.
A vote against Bush is a vote for the U.N., for America's involvement in the affairs of foreign powers as something other than A Superpower.
Given this line of reasoning, Osama (and some far, far more reasonable people, many of my family and friends included-- horrible as it is to find oneself agreeing with evil incarnate) feel that a vote for Bush is in essence a "fuck you" to the rest of the world. I might point out that on the 12th of September, the entire world was shocked and horrified and poured out sympathy for the US.
That position has reversed to the point where my best friend in London no longer speaks to me because she can't stand to think about what her government has done in the name of old alliances.
The world is very small.
Can we really afford to exercise our freedom in a vacuum? Can we really say, "I must vote for who I think best, without [bowing to pressures from / taking into consideration]* the rest of the world" ?
*due to human nature, which of those phrases you think fits there will be determined by how you already feel about the issue. That's human nature. There is no right or wrong choice there.
Because the fact remains, we did bomb those apartment towers in Lebanon, with women and children in them. It did happen, although not as he says it did.
There was nothing I hated more in high school than "revisionists" having their way with American history, and I happily spent many a class period beating down these people with my vastly superior logic and grasp of American history. I believe that this country has, for the most part, upheld the ideals upon which it was founded.
But we have made mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Properly, the entire Israel/Pakistan crisis can be traced right to English mismanagement of conquered land. We are far less tarnished by colonialism than the earlier European superpowers.
But we inherited their messes, and now we are the last remaining superpower.
Our mistakes reach an unprecedented number of people.
I would therefore say that we cannot afford to exercise our freedom in our traditional isolation. We cannot bow to threats, no, but we have to make our decisions more responsibly than we have. Most of the evil done by the US has been done when we have leapt into situations saying "we must do something!" but, given our traditional isolationism, we don't understand the situation. This was brought home heartbreakingly to me by my history classes in college (particularly an awful African one that made me want to die), and more immediately by the tales my father told of Vietnam and its aftermath, and by the simple inability of my sister to explain where she is being deployed and why.
And so I made my decision to vote against Bush because I don't feel that he is interested enough in understanding the situation, and I feel that we must pay more attention to the rest of the world. The world is too unstable, and not big enough anymore.
I made that decision before this tape was released.
But I stick by it just as strongly after this tape was released.
Osama is trying to play the "reason" card and gain the sympathy of the rest of the world. We mustn't let him do that. We mustn't defy the rest of the world. We are tied to the rest of the world. My Norwegian cousin (the one who isn't an American citizen) is being sent to Afghanistan because of his country's involvement in NATO: the decisions of the US affect the rest of the world VERY concretely. The world is tiny and interconnected and we cannot continue as we have been.
There. I am sorry for going on so long and with such passion, but I had to put the thoughts down somewhere, and make an answer as best I could with the different viewpoint I have of the situation. Again, don't take offense. Your feelings are valid. The above are simply my feelings.
kittyc1978's post of a couple hours ago, weherein she responded with distress to my earlier posts linking to Osama Bin Laden's video's transcript and translation / analysis. But it was too long, and didn't fit, and I didn't want to post it in her journal after all. So it's here. Hmm... I must say, the speech struck me in a very different way.
Don't take any of this in the wrong way! Your feelings and response are valid! I am simply presenting mine because they are different and may be interesting to you. if it's just going to make you mad, don't read! The following are just my feelings and my response and my reasoning.
First off I was indignant that he should say this now-- I mean, he killed over 2000 people in New York City, the densest blue patch of blue in the overwhelmingly blue state of NY. The fact that he's pretty much admitting he did so because he personally objects to George W. Bush is pretty fucking rich. Sure, now you get political, you bastard. When it suits you.
It angered me a great deal, and I was glad I had already cast my vote (via absentee ballot) so that I could not claim to have been influenced by it all in any way. But, it also was extremely interesting to me, and gave me a great deal of very sobering food for thought. I mean, what an opportunity-- if you think of it this way, he explained himself. To all of those who cried out, "WHY?" on September 11th (I know I screamed that word at one point on that day, as I stood wrapped in my towel staring at the TV set (it being 9 in the morning and I being a college student, I had not yet begun my day)---- here is an ANSWER, which in itself must mean something.
And so I found that reading it with something other than indignation proved to be an interesting exercise, at the least.
My boyfriend recently engaged in a lengthy argument via e-mail with one of his professors, who demanded to know how anyone in his right mind could vote against Bush. My boyfriend responded that he didn't see how anyone in his right mind could vote for Bush.
Instead of just being idiots and sniping at each other, they then proceeded to discuss current events-- mostly, those warehouses full of missing explosives, which went missing after the US occupied Iraq, and the like. (They were WMD's, no they weren't, they were missing before!, no they weren't, the world is safer now, no it isn't., etc, all done in Dave's inimitably reasonable style, and far better-written than anything I've ever done.)
What it finally came down to, once they had no more to argue about, was that a vote for Bush was a vote against the U.N. and America's heavy involvement, even (some might say) subservience to foreign powers, a vote for Us Against The World, self-reliant and powerful and isolated.
A vote against Bush is a vote for the U.N., for America's involvement in the affairs of foreign powers as something other than A Superpower.
Given this line of reasoning, Osama (and some far, far more reasonable people, many of my family and friends included-- horrible as it is to find oneself agreeing with evil incarnate) feel that a vote for Bush is in essence a "fuck you" to the rest of the world. I might point out that on the 12th of September, the entire world was shocked and horrified and poured out sympathy for the US.
That position has reversed to the point where my best friend in London no longer speaks to me because she can't stand to think about what her government has done in the name of old alliances.
The world is very small.
Can we really afford to exercise our freedom in a vacuum? Can we really say, "I must vote for who I think best, without [bowing to pressures from / taking into consideration]* the rest of the world" ?
*due to human nature, which of those phrases you think fits there will be determined by how you already feel about the issue. That's human nature. There is no right or wrong choice there.
Because the fact remains, we did bomb those apartment towers in Lebanon, with women and children in them. It did happen, although not as he says it did.
There was nothing I hated more in high school than "revisionists" having their way with American history, and I happily spent many a class period beating down these people with my vastly superior logic and grasp of American history. I believe that this country has, for the most part, upheld the ideals upon which it was founded.
But we have made mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Properly, the entire Israel/Pakistan crisis can be traced right to English mismanagement of conquered land. We are far less tarnished by colonialism than the earlier European superpowers.
But we inherited their messes, and now we are the last remaining superpower.
Our mistakes reach an unprecedented number of people.
I would therefore say that we cannot afford to exercise our freedom in our traditional isolation. We cannot bow to threats, no, but we have to make our decisions more responsibly than we have. Most of the evil done by the US has been done when we have leapt into situations saying "we must do something!" but, given our traditional isolationism, we don't understand the situation. This was brought home heartbreakingly to me by my history classes in college (particularly an awful African one that made me want to die), and more immediately by the tales my father told of Vietnam and its aftermath, and by the simple inability of my sister to explain where she is being deployed and why.
And so I made my decision to vote against Bush because I don't feel that he is interested enough in understanding the situation, and I feel that we must pay more attention to the rest of the world. The world is too unstable, and not big enough anymore.
I made that decision before this tape was released.
But I stick by it just as strongly after this tape was released.
Osama is trying to play the "reason" card and gain the sympathy of the rest of the world. We mustn't let him do that. We mustn't defy the rest of the world. We are tied to the rest of the world. My Norwegian cousin (the one who isn't an American citizen) is being sent to Afghanistan because of his country's involvement in NATO: the decisions of the US affect the rest of the world VERY concretely. The world is tiny and interconnected and we cannot continue as we have been.
There. I am sorry for going on so long and with such passion, but I had to put the thoughts down somewhere, and make an answer as best I could with the different viewpoint I have of the situation. Again, don't take offense. Your feelings are valid. The above are simply my feelings.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 12:39 pm (UTC)And I'm including my father in that list.
The best reason, which I can remember (this was a conversation after a concert at 11:30 at night, three weeks ago) was that as a country itself, we don't need to occupy Iraq. However, as a strategic spot in a predominantly non-Western area, by being there we can make it Western and make it so less people will want to kill us.
Now, there's the whole argument about preservation of cultures and whatnot, but from a military standpoint, I really agree with that POV.
I also don't think it's enough to elect a president on. But you know that.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 01:05 pm (UTC)Well, why couldn't Afghanistan, the country that actually attacked us, have served as that Western oasis?
And if you recall, we didn't exactly succeed the last time we tried a "hearts and minds" campaign. Building fences around Vietnamese villages didn't work.
I mean, go ahead and make that argument, but I'd still prefer a better-researched one that actually incorporated current world opinion. The US cannot stand alone forever. As bin Laden outlines in that tape, they are trying to bleed us dry to bring us down. And, you know, it could work. How's our budget doing? As good as the economy? Perfect conditions to support an overextended military? Swell.
(I know it's not your argument.)
GOD, I can't fucking WAIT for this goddamn election to be OVER already. The suspense is killing me!!!
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 01:44 pm (UTC)Me too.
And I think your arguments are very well thought out and well stated. People I personally know who intend to vote for Bush are not well informed about what is actually going on.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 02:18 pm (UTC)Yes, that's been supported by some rather scary studies, in which for example 80% of Kerry's supporters clearly understood his stated position on a topic while only 18% of Bush's supporters clearly understood him.
But the sort of people who make their voting decisions based on poor information are the same sort of people with whom you can't hold a rational debate. If you question who they choose, they perceive you as questioning their right to hold their own opinion. They tend not to be good debaters.
Which is frustrating. It's a shame we don't learn how to debate anymore.
Politics shouldn't have to come down to being well-educated enough to put issues into historical contexts and analyze sources. It also shouldn't come down to whose advertising budget is larger.
But it does.
I think classes teaching children how to correctly analyze and interpret advertisements should be required of all junior high or high school students. But that's a tough position to get others behind.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 08:15 pm (UTC)"You're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great .... What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery." - John Stewart
-darius
Daylight come and we drop de bomb...
Date: 2004-11-02 02:26 pm (UTC)Bush has been good for bin Laden -- just when it was looking like global cooperation might really hamper Al Qaeda's ability to operate, he starts a war in the most socially progressive (yes, I know Saddam Hussein evil, blah blah...) state in the middle east. And uses the word "crusade" to describe it. That's got to be good for recruitment. Bush is a polarizing figure -- look at the effect he's had on the left. Now think about what that effect would be if he wasn't the same race and religion, and was killing our kids to boot! (Flippantly cynical moment: oh wait, he *is* killing our kids.)
The problem with the US is that we're too arrogant to grasp that the leaders of the jihadists are sophisticated, intelligent folks too. We've underestimated their organizational, tactical, recruiting, and financial skills at every turn, and we're paying for it now.
What's even more sickening is that there's historical precedent here. These cave-dwelling motherfuckers beat the shit out of the Red Army, back when they had both guns and butter! Where are those lessons being taken into account? By some accounts, the Pentagon, but Bush would rather listen to the more hawkish members of his cabinet then the actual generals. Poor Colin Powell.
In the history of fourth-generation (irregular) warfare, can you think of a time where dramatically escalating the level of violence has paid off? Sure didn't work against the IRA or PLO.
bin Laden's speech is interesting for one reason: he puts the blame squarely on us. Now, it takes a deep breath to get over the moral outrage from that, but it makes sense. In a participatory democracy, *we* are indirectly responsible for the actions of our government. We must be informed, active, and when the government does things we don't like, we must be outraged, and loud.
darius
Re: Daylight come and we drop de bomb...
Date: 2004-11-02 04:11 pm (UTC)Of course he knows what he's doing.
There are two ways to take this speech.
1) Osama bin Laden wants to retire, and is imploring the US, with real sincerity, to stop making his job so damn busy.
2) Osama bin Laden wants to undermine the US and is fanning the flames that have made this election so divisive.
I mean, I guess you can take it however you like. *rolls eyes*
Yes, I agree with what you've said and am growing hoarse from repeating it one way or another.
And yes, the Pentagon knows better than this.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 03:03 pm (UTC)What I want to know is why is a professor pushing his opinion on Bush to his students?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 04:07 pm (UTC)He was wearing a "Republicans for Voldemort" t-shirt. The professor, not being a Harry Potter fan, thought Voldemort was a local candidate and Dave was a supporter. So he made a few "my fellow conservative" kind of comments to Dave.
Eventually Dave explained the shirt, and the professor, a little embarrassed and disappointed, made a throwaway remark about how the liberals would destroy the world (I don't recall the details).
Dave took him up on it, and they had a lengthy discussion via e-mail, conducted very professionally and with the full weight of logic and rhetoric on both sides. In the end, they simply concluded that they held different opinions on what would be most beneficial to the US.
This was a professor of literature, by the way, in whose class Dave just finished reading Machiavelli's The Prince.
So, it wasn't in class, and I'm sure it won't affect Dave's grade, and both still respect one another. I'd love to post the text of the correspondence, if Dave could get permission. It was fascinating to overhear.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 05:15 pm (UTC)Always protecting our civil liberties...
Date: 2004-11-02 06:05 pm (UTC)- Z
DPK to PHD:
Date: 2004-11-02 06:06 pm (UTC)PHD to DPK:
Date: 2004-11-02 06:07 pm (UTC)DPK to PHD:
Date: 2004-11-02 06:08 pm (UTC)<http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairaq/iraqunsc25102004.pdf>
The existence of these WMDs was well-documented by the IAEA, who [inept as the government believes them to be] were somehow able to keep these explosives under control, and unused, since 1991. We — the most powerful nation in the world, leading the world in its War on Terror — were in control for less than two years, and enough explosive material to produce 100 IEDs per day, every day, for twenty years, vanishes. Would it be perverse of me to suggest that I felt safer knowing that these explosives were being handled by the IAEA [even though that meant they were in the hands of the hostile Iraqi government] than to have them in the hands of hostile Iraqi militants?
We clearly have differing opinions on the upcoming election. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Either way, I hope to God that, when all is said and done, we've chosen the best candidate to lead us through the difficult next four years.
PHD to DPK:
Date: 2004-11-02 06:10 pm (UTC)DPK to PHD:
Date: 2004-11-02 06:11 pm (UTC)And now, though I question the intelligence of entering into a political 'difference of opinion' with a professor from whom I have not yet received a grade, I hope to at least redeem myself by being able to back up my position.
So, we're down to two possibilities. In the first, the IAEA had these explosives under continuous control right up until the beginning of the second war in Iraq, implying that the US military was too inept to secure a known weapons depository. In the second, the IAEA lost track of these explosives some time before the second Iraq war, implying that the US military was too inept to be able to find thirty-eight eighteen wheelers' worth of explosives, even given free reign over the country for almost two years. Either way, it don't look good from where I'm sitting.
See, we _knew_ there were all kinds of dangerous things in Iraq before the war, Al-Qaqaa being one of them. Weapons inspectors had been keeping tabs on sites like Al-Qaqaa for twelve years, and Saddam would never have touched them, for fear of a world of hurt. The US's concern was that Iraq was holding up these well-known weapons repositories that they left alone as evidence that they were complying completely with the international community's demands for disarmament, all the while developing nukes in the back seats of Winnebagoes, these 'mobile weapons labs.' Thus far, we haven't found anything we were looking for. We've only lost what we already knew was there.
[re: Christians in Darfur]
That's terrible! And what is our self-proclaimed Christian theocracy doing to stop this slaughter of God's people, as it were? Nothing, because we are too overextended, militarily, to be able to actually _do_ anything besides throw money at them and hope it goes into the right pockets.
PHD to DPK:
Date: 2004-11-02 06:12 pm (UTC)DPK to PHD:
Date: 2004-11-02 06:13 pm (UTC)Another hypothesis [one that is more likely in my mind, at least] is that they were mobilized by Saddam in the runup to the war. Here's what I think about that: between 1991 and 2003, weapons inspectors knew about Al Qaqaa. As long as nothing was disturbed there, they'd give a green light to the UN, and Iraq could continue doing whatever it was that it was doing. [Making nukes in Winnebagos? Sure, why not?] In their position as a screen for whatever Iraq was, or was not, doing, the explosives were far more powerful intact than they ever would be if detonated. Once we expelled the inspectors, their disuse was no longer important, and it is, after all, the right and responsibility of every government to protect itself and its people from foreign attack. If that's the scenario, just the runup to the war was enough to ensure that these explosives, which were only intended to be disused, were brought into play.
But now, we have this tape from KSTP in the currently-pinkish state of Minnesota, showing US soldiers dicking around with the IAEA-sealed bunker, remarking on how dangerous its contents must be, then, I dunno, walking away to grab an ice cream cone or something. I don't have a whole lot to say about that. Brr.
_______________
* Future career advice: don't expect your employer to back you up after giving you a title that acronyms to DUD.
PHD to DPK:
Date: 2004-11-02 06:14 pm (UTC)QED.
Date: 2004-11-02 06:15 pm (UTC)- Z
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 02:03 am (UTC)