Apologies to J.J., but anyone who reads my diary thinking that I actually believe my opinion to be infallible is just plain not reading me close enough. I'd like to think that my colloquialisms, if nothing else, make a comprehensive analysis of at least the past six months' worth of entries almost necessary to follow along. For fuck's sake, I spend so much time trying to point out the fact that my opinions are merely mine and no one else's that I sometimes fear I'm undermining my own arguments beyond any repair.
But, apparently, I'm not making any arguments, so I should take a stance before checking myself, right?
Fine.
Okay, assume for the sake of argument that the Junta is a legal regime, and that they are morally qualified to exact a regime change in Iraq. What reason would they have to do so? To protect Iraqi civilians? Hey, here's a thought: try to stop bombing the shit out of them like we haven't ever stopped doing! Better yet, how about we do away with those trade sanctions, too, because they obviously aren't helping to destabilize Hussein. They are, however, contributing to the suffering of a people who have suffered enough under the thumbs of right-wing religious fanatics.
The truth of the matter is quite obvious, really; anyone who wants war is either completely ignorant or just as corrupt as the Junta.
Alright, let's assume something else for the sake of argument: that Saddam Hussein is somehow a threat to U.S. national security. Why? Because he hates us, and what we stand for, and is working on building weapons to combat us? Sure, that's something of a security risk, but I'd say that the North Korean government is a bit more of a security risk than Iraq. I could be biased, because they've already admitted their willingness to launch a pre-emptive strike on us, and I imagine a lot of their nuclear missiles are pointed at the west coast, but I don't think I'm saying anything new when I say that North Korea worries me a hell of a lot more than Iraq. Sure, with Hussein in power, there's a moderate risk of Muslim extremist terrorists attacking this country, but are they really going to be so stupid as to use Iraq for anything these days, what with the spotlight that's been placed on it? Furthermore, is the terrorism risk any higher than it normally is? No. I guaran-fucking-tee you, though, that once U.S. troops set foot on Iraqi soil, we're going to face a terrorism wave more frightening than we can imagine. Because those Muslim extremists know we're vulnerable, now, and blood is in the water.
Just look at what motivates Usama Bin Laden. He's said outright that one of his key motivations for hating the United States is all the shit our government pulled during the 'Die For Oil' Gulf War, not to mention how the same government used the Afghani citizens as cannon fodder against the Russians. The U.S. government's support of Israel REALLY pisses him off, too, but even more moderate Muslims are pretty irked about that. Bin Laden is a textbook example of what happens when you give extremists a reason to be angry; you get very dangerous individuals who distort the truth to justify their own abuse of power.
Which leads me to talk about "solutions." Right-wingers are really big on demonizing leftists because they "merely talk about problems and don't offer any solutions." In my case, I don't offer any solutions because, quite frankly, I don't think I'm qualified to do so. Furthermore, to say that one person can solve problems as far-reaching and complex as the ones our government faces today is about as stupid as it gets; I think the most telling evidence of that contention is the fact that Republicans are so fond of relying upon individual opinions. But, since conservatives insist, I'll offer some thoughts on resolving this whole 'war' situation.
1) Okay, it's obvious that Saddam Hussein isn't going anywhere through any action of our government short of marching into Baghdad and marching out with his head on a pike, and that seems to be the eventual end of this little situation. I hate to break it to the bloodthirsty, but, that won't be the end of it. When has killing one man ever ended anything? And don't say Hitler, because I'll counder with "does the word 'neo-nazi' ring a bell?" The truth is that we're talking about war, and the only way to win a war convincingly is to kill every single one of your enemies. The thing is, the enemies of U.S. citizens aren't as easy to spot anymore, so, in order to kill all of our enemies and eliminate the threat that Ridge, Bush, Ashcroft, etc. are talking about, we'd basically have to kill every single person who at least might disagree with U.S. government policy. At last count, I'd say that includes France, Germany, a good deal of the U.K., a lot of people in the U.S. (including me), China, Korea, and the entire Muslim world. Am I forgetting anyone? Oh yes; the entire African continent, but it seems that we've already started that project.
So, my option? Start doing some of the shit that people ask the U.S. government to do. Picking up its' messes, for instance, in Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Central America. I wonder if Jordan or another Muslim nation would mind spearheading a humanitarian aid campaign in Iraq and other nations decimated by U.S. policies. It could help salvage our image in the Muslim world, and, since we wouldn't actually have to be there, we might cut down on the distrust factor. I imagine that, once the Iraqi people as a whole can have things like schools and food and medicine, they'd be a little better-equipped to tell us what they think of Hussein.
2) For fuck's sake, we need to do something about Israel. Their government is getting to be almost as bad as Iraq. Get them the fuck out of the West Bank. Their War On Terror isn't going to end until they stop terrorizing people, and even then, that won't guarantee anything until they realize that they won't always have the imperialistic interests of the U.S. government on their side. This, of course, depends upon the U.S. govenment doing the right thing and telling Israel to chill the fuck out. They've been fighting since they became a country, and it hasn't solved dick.
3) The obvious solution to a lot of th world's problems is the complete re-assembly of the U.S. government. These days, it's about as far from being "for the people" as it can get unless you tack on a parenthetical "rich" to the phrase. It's equally obvious that the capitalistic representative democracy is doing little to undermine the rampant corruption, which in turn breeds worldwide contempt for all U.S. citizens. The answer is simple, folks: get them the fuck out and put a more-progressive, wholly secular government in its place. Sure, it would make things difficult initially, and sure, it might even spawn a new breed of problems. But, to be honest, I live in fear every day as it is, so that really wouldn't change much (and I suspect, for others, something similar is true).
This is all top-of-the-head conjecture, I hope you all realize. I'm well aware of the fact that I don't know everything, least of all the solutions to the world's problems. I've said it way too many times before, but since it seems that I have to, I'll say it again: I don't think I'm a brilliant man. Quite frankly, I don't think I'm much of a man at all. But even I can see when things are going to shit, and the time for a change has come.
25.09.2003-Epilogue.
30.08.2003-Exeunt, the Moor.
28.08.2003-why?
27.08.2003-Last night, and august in general.