Saturday, 16 December 2006

Paranoid Maniacs, and how to repeat yourself like a drunk

If we have to wait to make judgements.. maybe next time we'll wait before we bomb another country that's not actually a threat to us?
Afganistan wasn't. The government wasn't strong enough then on now to control everyone within it. (concerning terrorists within, please read on)
Iraq wasn't, what we had was a weakened dictator, with a poor military, not a regional, and certainly not a world, threat.
I was reminded of the 1980s war against Grenada: Somehow the US government convinced people this little country was a threat! It was ridiculous, like all US activity in South America (and also very sad - people died).

What I would like to see from a world superpower is less enthusiasm for brute force.
Maybe sometimes you have "to fight fire with fire" - but VERY rarely! Like Wouter says, we's usually use water or foam. Fighting Hitler's regime was necessary, he was very powerful and threatening.

Iraq, Iran, Venezuela... they're just not a major threat to the US. If they are a threat to their neighbours, well that's their neighbours' problem. You can't use the excuse of terrorism, which disgusting as it is still causes much less harm than war, to send your military to a country you don't like.
Again, I'll use the parallel of Northern Ireland. At no point, to rid us of a terrorist organisation which regularly attacked mainland Britain, did the British Government bomb the civillian population of Northern Ireland.
It would have been ineffective (breeding hate), and morally reprehensible to punish the population at large for a tiny minority's actions. (and one which US groups were funding, you fuckers!)
The peace process there is still ongoing, and it will taka a generation of hard work to build trust and goodwill so peace stays. It looks like that will happen.

In Iraq (also Palestine and Lebanon), whatever the evils of the indigenous governments, they are not the ones who destroy the cities and countries, and kill civillians en masse.
With the heavy handed "solution" of war, the US/UK in Iraq, and Israel in Palestine(or what would be) and Lebanon, are creating hatred which will cause problems for years.
And for what? Because "we thought they were a threat". Well it turned out they weren't. Nobody really thought they were. If Iraq was a threat, well perhaps Syria or Iran might have thought about going to war first?
What, unfortunately, some people in the US have not learnt is that pre-emptive war is misguided, dangerous and wrong.

To give up some weapons would be suicide, eh?

You are a paranoid maniac if you believe that:

Why would another country attack the US? For territory? No, there are no arguements over that.
Would they attack you because they "hate freedom"? That's a fucking stupid arguement. Noone hates freedom, and Bush is a facetious shit to suggest it. If the US had no nukes, would France invade? There's no reason! There's no reason for other countries either.
However, some terrorists and perhaps countries, though I don't know of any, might threaten the US now, because they are scared of the US. They have good reason.

If the most powerful nation on earth can only exist by threatening the rest with terrible violent power, well frankly I hate America too. Luckily, not all US administrations are like this, and I hope the next one tries to make peace with the world instead of bullying it.

No comments: