on september 29th, i came across this article heaidng in yahoo news. when i tried to read the full missive (and yes i know i dont correctly use all these words, which may be an affront on philogy, but it is how i will remember best). the article disappeared for awhile, but now it is back.
U.S. Congress restricts Bush on Iraq spending 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Vicki Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress on Friday moved to block the Bush administration from building permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or controlling the country's oil sector, as it approved $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
i think this is interesting, and has not an adventitious relationship to the toppling of saddam hussien. i dont really have any more to say on why the article disappeared though i can guess. i will leave it to you to make your own conclusion...
trying to collate what i had propounded about the iraqi war, which is that while our philistine president proclaimed he wanted to allow the iraqis to redress husseins inviolable dictatorship, and live in the euphony of freedom.
i, however, after reading wikipedia had decided that our charlatan leader wanted to make sure the us, and his own family could maintain control of middle east oil interests. keep in mind when reading this, that i am aware that saddam was a megalomaniac, no ghandi, but i want to acknowledge the complexity of iraqi society and address other aspects of his regime in order to have a more capacious understanding of the current war. from wikipedia :
Saddam's authoritarian rule kept the lid on pervasive tribal, class, religious, factional, and ethnic conflicts, and destabilizing forces externally, such as hostile powers like Iran and the United States. The cost, though, resulted in one of the more autocratic of the Middle East's many autocracies. Islamic fundamentalists, suppressed through classic carrot and stick tactics, and won over eventually by co-optation and coercion, tended to reject the direction in which Saddam led the country. And the region's traditional aristocracies, both Sunni and Shiite (the kinds of aristocracies that still rule the other Arab Persian Gulf states with an iron grip), rejected the populist nature of his policies which undermined and largely eroded aristocratic privilege. In short, large segments of Iraq's population tended to reject modernization even though it dramatically raised living standards in the aggregate.
In response, his efforts to construct mosques and portray himself as a devout Muslim in more recent years have been seen as measures to co-opt more religious segments of society. These measures have seemed to work, considering that Iraq has avoided the bloody fundamentalist insurgencies seen in other secular states, such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria.
[snip]
Since Iraq is a fragmented society and a fragile state, many have linked this to Saddam's attempts to forge an Iraqi and Arab national identity for his conflict-torn country. Saddam has espoused the ideas of the Ba'ath Party: Arab unity, the belief that that the Arab world was divided into 22 countries that should be united to serve the interests of the Arab people. But Saddam has also espoused Iraqi patriotism, expressing the belief that Iraq has played a unique role in the history of the Arab world [snip]Iraq's stance in the international community had alarmed Western powers. Iraq was the leading country in forming the Arab League, an alliance similar to Europe's European Economic Community. All oil nations would share and work together and plan their own army that would include no Europeans.
so now we are loosing the war, the declivity of the iraqi society is not only dangerous to the endemic populations (which never should have been forced into being one country, but the british goverment had no problem immolating mid-east boundaries and peace to keep the population occupied while western powers dessicated the oil supply)
the disingenuous spouting of caring about iraq has taken a westernized society and created a fallow land. since its incipient was done in a precipitate manner, and we have had a torporish response to the umbraged response of the mid-eastern world to the war, i believe we have only worsened the issue of terrorism as we aide the bush administration in their goal of maintaining control of alll oil supply. this war was to bush as being set free at a five-star buffet would be to a gourmand. he needs to go to the arctic and get run over by a floe.
i am not a pedant, i dont spend my life buried in books, but i also dont buy into the unethical reality that is currently my country with mawkish words. i dont think you have to be sagacious (though i do tend to be) to see what we have done, and i believe my words will have a sonorous affect for many. i will not be somnelent in response to the voluble talk of the government. i am by nature an obstreperous person who will torque my opinion until it is heard.
have a great day
No comments:
Post a Comment