what can one say?
It isn’t right that I feel obliged to offer the world an apology for my country, but I do. I prefer it when the foreign press attributes the war mongering to the Bush administration, but I can understand to some extent why or how the Bush administration might serve as a convenient proxy for the wishes of “the people of the U.S.A.”
So here’s my case to those of you elsewhere: the upcoming Iraq war does not have broad support in the U.S. Some polls state that Vietnam had more support than does this one. We too have large anti-war protests (which don’t get quite the coverage they should get) across the country. The last one in San Francisco was rumored to an approximate attendance of 50,000 people—the protest in D.C. is reported to have drawn over 200,000 people. Bush’s wife, Laura, has had to cancel a celebration of American poets because many of the poets invited to speak at the event were planning to use the occasion to protest the war against Iraq.
It is the case, I think, that the anti-war American public, which I would put at or over 50% of the population, is in the awkward position of not having our government represent us, but rather having to convince the government to represent us. These decisions are being made from the top, not welling up out of some great desire amongst the people.
So, my foreign friends, if you’re going to hate us anyway, hate us for our excesses, our hypocrisies, and the world policies and treaties we find convenient to “opt out of.” Hate us for our media, our S.U.V.s, our suppressed racist and expansionist history, or the fact that our culture seeps corrosively into every corner of the globe.
I ask, however, that you point your hate of our country’s current political agenda towards our administration. Many of us do.
top
10 responses
Comment posted at 16:57 on Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Really, why appologise for what politicians in your country say or do? Australians (or any other habitants of any country) realise foreign policy doesn’t come from the people of that particular country, the policy comes from the top.
This is where your voice comes in, you can either support or not support what’s happening. Or, you can sit on the fence (the Etherf@rm one heh). Then if you feel your voice is not heard and acted upon, then you can make your vote count at the next election.
I’m not sure if it’s me, or the blogs I read - however I get the distinct feeling that majority of blog owners out there are against this pending war. Many voices, which I dare say, will fall upon deaf ears.
As for Australian sentiments? Let me appologise for John Howard’s blind ambition to follow the leader rather than lead himself. Seems as though he doesn’t have the conviction to stand up and say exactly what the rest of us Australian’s want to hear.
top
roosterboy
Comment posted at 23:45 on Friday, February 14, 2003
res,
what leads you to the belief that more than 50% of the American public is anti-war? I’m not disagreeing. I’ve just wondered if the strong anti-war sentiment that I hear is truly representative of the country as a whole or a consequence of being on the Left Coast.
top
Comment posted at 00:03 on Saturday, February 15, 2003
USA Today, a publication I don’t normally read, said something fairly recently (I think) about how something like 60% of Americans opposed a war against Iraq without coalition support. I understand that opposing a non-unilateral war isn’t quite the same thing as being anti-war. In an odd display of hope for my fellow U.S. citizens, I’m thinking that the war doesn’t make sense to a lot of people, particularly those who know anything about foreign affairs. Not noticing that something’s awry with U.S. foreign policy, especially given the rift in the U.N. security council, is like not noticing your leg is on fire.
You’re probably right, though—my views on the popular support for the war are most likely influenced by being on this coast. There’s an odd discrepancy between the president’s popularity rating and the anti-war sentiment expressed by many, and maybe I’m just not ‘in touch’ with the ‘heartland’, where gun racks are standard issue on pickup trucks.
top
Flash
Comment posted at 22:03 on Wednesday, February 19, 2003
I think it just seems like everyone is anti war not just because you live on the west coast, but because of the community you surround yourself with. College, the Internet, libraries, writers…poets for god’s sake! All peace loving hippies. Let’s not forget the media, no one of any political orientation can argue that they aren’t skewed toward the left. Objective my nut sack.
Am I for war? Right now, hell yes. Mostly because I am fed up with the whole Middle East and wish it would go the hell away. That whole area just plain sucks.
Yeah, there were no Iraqi’s on board the 9/11 planes, but there is very strong evidence that it was funded and supported by them. This really isn’t what the war would be about. It’s about a country that got its ass kicked and now isn’t playing by the rules it agreed to. If they had let weapons inspectors in there and let them do their job 10 years ago, we wouldn’t have an embargo or any of these issues.
For those of you who aren’t from the US, here is the prevailing belief among many American’s right now: We don’t hate anybody. War sucks. But we are getting pissed off because of all the things we have done for the world in the last 100 years and we are hated for it. Why? Jealousy? I don’t know. Every year we give countless BILLIONS to other countries in the form of money, food, supplies, and technology and then they spit in our face while they hold out their hands for more. That’s all we hear about on TV. How much every other country loathes us, and how we should be ashamed of ourselves.
The problem is, the world is so PC that people are afraid to say what they really feel. I think your polls hint at this. 60% of people are against war, but if it actually came to a private vote, I think the number would be significantly lower. That is why the president’s approval rating is so high. There is obviously something going on in those poll #’s. Polls are notoriously error laden, anyway.
I’ll use an example of something that has been going on the Maine over the last 5-10 years. They have been trying to pass a gay rights bill every year for as long as I can remember. Last year polls showed that 80-90% of people were in favor of the bill. However, like every year, when it came time to vote it lost. Why? Because who in their right mind is going to say over the phone (they call you after all) or in a street interview that they against it? Talk about persecution.
I just had to vent there. It gets so frustrating some times. Negotiating will only get you so far, and then you have to back it up with ass kicking. If a guy walks up to you on the street and starts punching you in the face are you going to try and negotiate with him until you’re killed, or are you going to fight back? There comes a point when you do have to fight back. Talking will only get you so far.
top
Comment posted at 09:43 on Thursday, February 20, 2003
I certainly won’t argue with your point about the errors of polls. Sadly, they’re the only gauge of public opinion that anyone takes seriously.
I would take issue, though, with some of your points. Most especially the idea that “we are getting pissed off because of all the things we have done for the world in the last 100 years and we are hated for it.”
I think laws should be passed that prevent the U.S. from helping anyone only so that Americans will stop playing the “we helped you in WW II” and other similar cards. Yes, our country gives out a lot of aid. But out country is by far the wealthiest country on the planet, and I think giving out such aid is our responsibility. I don’t think it buys us the right to dictate those countries’ foreign policy, I don’t think it buys the U.S. the right to opt out of global environmental and military agreemants, I don’t think it buys us the right to usurp those countries’ cultures, and I certainly don’t think it buys us the right to say “we helped you out, now help us in our war.” We opt out of an international war crimes court, we opt out of Kyoto environmental agreements… are these exceptions rights that we buy with our aid? If so, it shouldn’t be called ‘aid’ it should be called ‘bribery’.
There are reasons the U.S. is hated that have nothing to do with the amount of aid we give people.
The world being PC? That’s crap. Many nations and people are saying that war against Iraq is not acceptable right now. Seems to me, then, that the world is in fact saying “what they really feel,” which is in effect politically incorrect because of the political fallout that can (and probably will) result from contesting U.S. policy.
Also, I should state that I know plenty of people that aren’t anti-war. They’re pro-war. They’re just not pro-war right now, and I think that’s the stance most countries are taking. The Bush administration is saying “we gotta bomb now, we gotta bomb now!” Everyone else is saying wait a while. Is there any reason that a war needs to be started in the next 2, 3, 4 months? Those hundreds of billions of dollars that will be spent on the war burning a hole in this adminsitration’s pocket? Iraq isn’t going anywhere. I say if we can wait a few months for even a SLIGHT chance that the inspections might work, saving the money (not to mention lives) sounds like a reasonable plan to me.
I certainly don’t feel like these sentiments are politically correct. I certainly don’t feel like any of my friends say what they think because they want to conform to some leftist standard. In other words, just because people don’t agree with a given position doesn’t make them liars, does it?
top
Flash
Comment posted at 05:39 on Friday, February 21, 2003
I’m not just talking about WWI, WWII, the Cold war, etc… I’m talking about the recent past as well. I’m just saying that whenever we do, we get criticized for. If we decided NOT to attack Iraq people would hate us. It’s a frustrating no win situation.
You ask why we can’t wait a few more months. Didn’t we do that once already? Back in December, every nation agreed to give Iraq one chance to come clean or get disarmed by force. Iraq lied in their report, with held information and intentionally deceived and undermine the weapon inspectors. So now what? If we don’t follow through with our resolutions, they are worthless. Why should Iraq disarm or do anything different if they know that all they have to do is keep giving the world the run around, making promises and then backing out of them.
As I said before, there comes a time when you have to do what nobody wants to do. Diplomacy will only get you so far.
top
Comment posted at 10:32 on Friday, February 21, 2003
I think I understand the argument which says that U.N. resolutions lack any real efficacy if they’re not enforced. And, to be honest, I agree with those arguments. That said, I don’t think the U.S. has been particularly forthcoming with its intelligence (if it indeed has any). I don’t think there are any good reasons for the U.S. to withold its intelligence on Iraq from the inspectors or the security council except an explicit desire to assist in the failure of the inspections. I’m not pushing a conspiracy theory here, I really don’t understand why, if the U.S. were at all interested in having inspections work, this administration would not give the inspectors information that would help them in the inspections.
So on the one hand the administration likes to say that the inspections were given their due chance, and on the other hand the administration rationalizes its decision to blindfold inspectors. When the last U.N. resolution was drafted, I don’t think it was expected that the U.S. would be as selfish with its intelligence and surveillance. In that context, I can’t say that inspections were given the chance that they were intended in the last U.N. resolution and I think that the idea of expanding the timeframe and the inspection team for a few months is entirely reasonable.
The idea that “diplomacy will only get you so far” assumes that expansion of the inspection teams and their timeframe somehow constitutes a passive stance. I highly disagree with that notion; I think that, given the U.S.’ childish secrecy in regards to its intelligence (assuming the gov. has any), increasing inspections for a determined timeframe consitutes a fair implementation of the _action_ that was supposed to have been taking place for the last months.
I still don’t understand the argument that connects the U.S. contribution to world aid with the call to go to war immediately. We should bomb people because they hate us? We should tell the U.N. to go screw itself because we subsidize a large part of their operations and still they don’t agree with us?
I’m not a pacifist. I’m not anti-war, really. I’m just anti-war right now. I think the U.S. screwed any chance of inspections working because the U.S. administration wants war ASAP. If and when we go to war, I think it would be in our best interest if the case against Iraq was taken up by more than our country. Our nation’s current stance on this war—the ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ (which, by the way, is a prime example of a logical fallacy) mentality—is not only childish in its impetuousness, it’s downright stupid.
By the way, I think a pro-war topic might prove interesting on Thalamus.
top
Flash
Comment posted at 08:35 on Saturday, February 22, 2003
There are some drawbacks to releasing intellegence. Chief among those is how you got that intellegence. By that I mean, if you got your intellegence from informants, experimental planes, satellite, etc… Iraq will then be able defend against future survelance. To defend againts informants, simply find out where the photos were taken, who has access to that site, and kill them all. So, it’s really a catch 22.
The world aid/war connection doesn’t really have much to do with the war, it just irks me that we give aid and try to help, and people hate us for it. I’m not saying that because we give money we have the right to do what ever we please.
top
roosterboy
Comment posted at 01:07 on Friday, February 28, 2003
quite a healthy discussion gentlemen.
I’ll add another nickel or two. Flash, I diasgree that there is strong evidence connecting the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks, but since that doens’t seem to be the discussion right now, I will forego a rant.
I agree with Flash that the problem with revealing the source of iuntelligence is that you can make that source useless in the future (or get someobody killed who did you a favor.) the question is, when does it become worth it to reveal the source in the interest of convincing the country and thw world. the Big Brother “trust me, if you only knew what we know…” just doesn’t cut it.
Res, do we really subsidize the UN that much or is it an instrument of convenience for the US? I thought we were way behind in our dues and always wanting concessions before we paid up.
I agree that we dish out a lot of cash each year and historically had a decade or two or truly altruistic military intervention, but as a country and a culture we take advantage of a lot of cheap labor and lax governments around the world so that we can have our cushy life. I don’t think we are so beyond reproach that we shouldn’t be criticized.
I think GW is backing into a corner. I think working for Saddam to eventually go into exile is the best solution.
Anyway, my real point in writing was to point out a CNN report today with polls showing 59% of respondents support sending troops to Iraq. (in reference to my question earlier in the chain.)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/bush.poll/index.html
top
What's This?
∗Required field
♦Email addresses are never published
§Followup comment notifications contain a link to turn off further notification
†The captcha system verifies you're a human by having you enter text which spambots cannot read.
About Comments
IPs are logged and can be banned, so be civil and don't make an ass of yourself.
Registering greatly simplifies comment entry.
Allowed Tags
a, blockquote, em, strong
Note: only the above tags will be used in submitted comments, despite what that sneaky live preview leads you to believe.
top