hail presidents?
so... in celebration of the upcoming president's day... i want to talk a little about politics... yeah i know... new and different...
my background: in the past year alone i have taken a class on history of the mid-east focus on Iraq in 2003 and the history of the pal-il conflict... i went to jordan this summer... i took an anthropology of people of the middle east class last semester that went into history, politics, and relations among mid-east peoples and nations, and most recently i took an intensive intersession course on the entire history of iraq and current situations. oh, one more quick note... i've written probably at least 5 or more major papers (>10 pages) on different factors of middle eastern conflicts... earning top marks on all of them.
situation: the lebanese ex-prime minister is killed in a bomb in beirut. 15 other civilians die. this is the prime minister who was responsible for practically rebuilding lebanon post-civil-war. loved by all.
my theory: do i think it was the syrians? who knows... but i do know that due to the occupation of syrians in lebanon, with this bombing, it gives america an AWFULLY convenient excuse to go into syria... which was publically announced that it was on our president's agenda just a few weeks ago... well, that sounds convenient also. this asshole-agenda being put forth is really getting to be too much... i swear... if america goes into syria soon... i'm just gonna give up on politics all together. and my life-goal. whats the point of peace? bush would just call me a terrorist organization and send troops over to make the world safe for tyranny, i mean democracy.
pres's day: yeah. celebrate the past... the future or present, i wouldn't be so quick to jump on... BUT
pink martini is coming into town this next weekend. and i WILL be jumping on that train. HELL YAH. and i recall seeing last year that it is some sort of benefit concert, but i haven't seen anything since. either way... it IS pink martini.
so... hang on little tomato.
my background: in the past year alone i have taken a class on history of the mid-east focus on Iraq in 2003 and the history of the pal-il conflict... i went to jordan this summer... i took an anthropology of people of the middle east class last semester that went into history, politics, and relations among mid-east peoples and nations, and most recently i took an intensive intersession course on the entire history of iraq and current situations. oh, one more quick note... i've written probably at least 5 or more major papers (>10 pages) on different factors of middle eastern conflicts... earning top marks on all of them.
situation: the lebanese ex-prime minister is killed in a bomb in beirut. 15 other civilians die. this is the prime minister who was responsible for practically rebuilding lebanon post-civil-war. loved by all.
my theory: do i think it was the syrians? who knows... but i do know that due to the occupation of syrians in lebanon, with this bombing, it gives america an AWFULLY convenient excuse to go into syria... which was publically announced that it was on our president's agenda just a few weeks ago... well, that sounds convenient also. this asshole-agenda being put forth is really getting to be too much... i swear... if america goes into syria soon... i'm just gonna give up on politics all together. and my life-goal. whats the point of peace? bush would just call me a terrorist organization and send troops over to make the world safe for tyranny, i mean democracy.
pres's day: yeah. celebrate the past... the future or present, i wouldn't be so quick to jump on... BUT
pink martini is coming into town this next weekend. and i WILL be jumping on that train. HELL YAH. and i recall seeing last year that it is some sort of benefit concert, but i haven't seen anything since. either way... it IS pink martini.
so... hang on little tomato.
posted by bitterhoney at 12:31 PM
2 Comments:
it made me think...in a long round about way. i'm sure this won't make sense...its off the cuff:
Where do you stand on the Syrian issue? Do you wish to see Syria out of Lebanon, or should Syria remain? If Syria remains...are we pursuing an option of peace at any cost? If Syria remains, we more than likely will see a temporary peace within the area...
"Much is being said about peace; and no man desires peace more ardently than I. Still I am yet unprepared to give up the Union (in this instance the individual rights and sovereignty of a people) for a peace which, so achieved, could not be of much duration." - Lincoln
But, unfortunately, we are living a legacy that the sins of our fathers have left us. Our politics of the last half of the twentieth century have created and proped up governments. At some point in time the system will break. It always does and we are witnessing the total collapse of the old system. Bush Sr. wasn't far off when he discussed the topic of an approaching new world order.
"But we cannot lead a new world abroad if, at home, it’s politics as usual on American defense and diplomacy. It’s time to turn away from the temptation to protect unneeded weapons systems and obsolete bases. It’s time to put an end to micro-management of foreign and security assistance programs, micro-management that humiliates our friends and allies and hamstrings our diplomacy. It’s time to rise above the parochial and the pork barrel, to do what is necessary, what’s right and what will enable this nation to play the leadership role required of us.
The consequences of the conflict in the Gulf reach far beyond the confines of the Middle East. Twice before in this century, an entire world was convulsed by war. Twice this century, out of the horrors of war hope emerged for enduring peace. Twice before, those hopes proved to be a distant dream, beyond the grasp of man."
At some point in time, that system must be fixed. I'm not trying to say that what we are doing now is the right way. I don't really know what I'm trying to say...
"We cannot ignore the fact that even without our encouragement there has been and will continue to be repeated explosion against repression and dictatorships. Any system is inherently unstable that has no peaceful means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases, the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to resist it, if necessary, by force.
While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings."
I guess its that peace is always the preferred option, but there will always be a time when the right decision does not lead to a peaceful action, when the preservation of individual liberties and life is a greater concern than that of war...Right is more precious than peace.
How does this apply to the Middle East...
1-at some point we have to fix our fathers mistakes.
2-and since I believe we are dealing with past political errors, our motives in the Middle East have less to do with the Middle East and more to do with the Far East.
Do some research on the China issue, why we are attempting to cut our ties with the Saud family, and what we will be facing economically and politically in the next 25 years. I think we will have an interesting discussion with that one.
side note: I was in D.C. with your sister last weekend...and again from Lincoln:
"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
my questions: who dictates who is supposed to enforce a peace in the region, temporary or permanent.
i would like to see syria out of lebanon, but if in fact it is an occupation, that isn't any single countries work to fix. same as any other occupation. and if a certain country is to get their feet wet in one they should at least finish that and prove that they did a good job before starting on the next. i can assure you almost 100% positively that these countries are not cases that are new and seen as a threat to america presently, but rather it is a strategic move that has been planned for years. and what empire doesn't plan strategic moves. i'll be ok with america once the real reason for occupations is brought forth, world domination more than it already has and empire building/strengthening. all this freedom bullshit is just that. freedom bullshit. once again i bring forth the cases of israel, or rwanda, or any of the other african countries in violent states. where the hell is the freedom then if that is such a big goal?
so georgie says:
"America has never been an empire. We may be the only great power in history that had the chance, and refused – preferring greatness to power and justice to glory." g.w.bush
but then you gotta remember:
"This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." - voltaire
Post a Comment
<< Home