Posted by: twoblueday | August 24, 2007

NYNY

NYNY, originally uploaded by twoblueday.

 

So, President Bush thinks that the things which happened after we pulled out of Viet Nam were the fault of the US, and that if the “Iraquis” decide to behave similarly we’ll be at fault there, too. What? WTF? The Vietnamese had choices about how to act, and made come pretty shitty choices. The Iraquis have the same choices, and if they decide to be cruel to each other, that’s on them. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Mr. Bush said that after we left Viet Nam new words came along: “boat people;” “re-education camps;” etc. And???? So??? Because of that my neighbor’s son must die? What an irresponsible President and government we have.

Here’s my opinion: Neither I, nor anyone else in my country, has the right, obligation, or power to keep people elsewhere in the world from being cruel to each other.

The world is full of sadists, shitheels, tyrants, megalomaniacs, murderers and all manner of assholes. Our laws do not extend beyond our borders, and we have a hard enough time here at home keeping order. I refuse to step into the moral quagmire of the rhetorical question of being our brother’s keeper. It is a pure fantasy that we can make all the evil in the world go away, pure fantasy.

More Americans dying in “Iraq” is not going to accomplish a damn thing. After all the years and blood since we went in to take away Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction” and kick him out of power, “Iraq” does not, in point of fact, have a government. We remain an occupying power, without the ability to make that shithole a working nation, let alone a “democracy.”

So, I wonder where Mr. Bush ranks on that recent survey about Americans and whether or not they read regularly. I’d bet he hasn’t read a book in years, if ever.

Responses

I don’t have words yet for your words but I love what you’ve done with the city in your picture. That’s how I see it.

Of course he has not read a book. He cannot read. That is obvious from the way he slaughters the language in his speeches. Unfortunately we have the most illiterate and uninformed President in history, right at the same time we need the opposite.

I agree with all that you said. We should be tending our many problems here at home, get whole ourselves, before we shove billions out to other countries, especially to fund an unjustified war started and perpetuated on lies and greed. To Bush and company, the thousands of American lives lost in war represent nothing more than collateral damage. They couldn’t care less…

Bush was right, but not for the reasons he thinks: When Nixon’s CIA and others toppled the neutralist Cambodian government of Prince Sihanouk and installed the puppet Lon Nol, we made it possible for the Khmer Rouge to come in and take over. And the Eisenhower Administration (read John Foster Dulles) suppressed the 1956 elections (called for in the Geneva treaty) in South Vietnam because it was clear that the Viet Minh would win. We spent nearly 20 years propping up the corrupt South Vietnamese government.

Bush’s ideologues, by disbanding the Iraqi army, made the insurgency inevitable. What could have been an effective police force was turned into thousands of armed, unemployed individuals. While I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, it’s clear that we, much more than the Iraqis, botched the aftermath by insisting on ideological purity.

Personally, I believe the international community sometimes does have the obligation to stop cruelty, especially when that cruelty becomes genocide. I supported Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia (though it came too late), and I hope the United Nations will be able to stop the killing in Darfur. But such intervention should not be unilateral, (or virtually unilateral, as were our adventures in Southeast Asia and Iraq).

Steve–I don’t think we have the power to do anything about the killing in Darfur, no matter how the situation touches our heartstrings.

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories