Bush's "Struggle for Civilization"
Little did I know that in only the sixth year of the new millennium the United States would be consigned by George Bush in his 9/11 speech to the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the call of our generation." If this is a "struggle for civilization," hell, get the nukes out and let's get it over with George. Meet you at Armageddon.
What a cynical ploy to scare voters into voting for an ideologically bankrupt political party again. It also, however, gives you a good insight into how the Bushies want us to buy their Manichean view of the world. There is only good and evil in the world, no shades of gray. We are good, "they" are evil.
The United States is the most powerful country in the world, and yet Bush insists on using rhetoric that attempts to make us feel as though we are the weakest and most vulnerable.
As the world's most powerful nation, we have the power and influence to shape this millennium in many different ways. We can build alliances, or go it alone as we did in Iraq. We can be a force for peace in the Middle East, or we can de-stabilize it as Bush has done. We can use negotiation and diplomacy to resolve differences that will always be with us, as long as mankind survives, or we can continue to use force first, and possibly bring about the end of our standing as a great power, if not the end of mankind.
No one, especially citizens of the greatest power on earth, should buy into Bush's apocalyptic view of the world except apocalyptic-types like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson. We have had enemies from the beginning of our existence as a country. Some, like the Soviet Union, have had nuclear weapons. Neither they nor we ever launched one at the other. Why? The answer is obvious. No one would win.
Iran may end up with a nuclear weapon. So what are they going to do with it? If they launch one, at us or at Israel, there won't be an Iran the next day. It will simply be an area of the world that glows in the dark for the rest of the millennium. The Iranians aren't that crazy, no matter how our conservative reactionaries like to portray them.
Iran will slip a nuke to al-Qaeda? Do you really think we wouldn't retaliate against Iran with only minimal proof? Iran knows better. They are not that crazy, nor are they as apocalyptic as our President. We didn't let Ghadafi go unpunished when he killed our soldiers in Germany, even though he proclaimed his innocence. It would be lights out for Iran in that instance as well.
North Korea? Despite the Republican reactionary propaganda, Kim Jong-il is not crazy either. Note how the reactionaries try to portray any enemy as crazy. They used to do it to the Soviet Union and China also.
How do we know that Kim is not crazy? When we invaded Iraq, Kim hid underground for more than 30 days, terrified that we were coming for him next. Hiding to survive is not the action of a crazed lunatic. It is the rational reaction of a man who has enemies on the march. He's a big talk, no action guy. If we haven't learned anything else about the North Koreans we know that.
As I wrote at the beginning, America will have a lot to say about how this millennium turns out. And it won't be decided by November 7 or even by November, 2008. There will still be 92 years left after the 'o8 elections, George.
Bush doesn't have to create an apocalyptic atmosphere in this country and the world to win what he insists on seeing as an endless War on Terror. There can be a much lower key, less crude, more "civilized," approach to winning against a bankrupt ideology like Islamic fundamentalism.
Barren ideas, like communism, end up in the dustbin of history. Islamic fundamentalism is also a barren idea, sure to invent its own destruction and to settle into the same dustbin. We need only time, patience, and vigilance for it to collapse of its own irrationality.
Don't make Islamic fundamentalism more than it is, George.
Contain it. Be vigilant. But be not afraid.
What a cynical ploy to scare voters into voting for an ideologically bankrupt political party again. It also, however, gives you a good insight into how the Bushies want us to buy their Manichean view of the world. There is only good and evil in the world, no shades of gray. We are good, "they" are evil.
The United States is the most powerful country in the world, and yet Bush insists on using rhetoric that attempts to make us feel as though we are the weakest and most vulnerable.
As the world's most powerful nation, we have the power and influence to shape this millennium in many different ways. We can build alliances, or go it alone as we did in Iraq. We can be a force for peace in the Middle East, or we can de-stabilize it as Bush has done. We can use negotiation and diplomacy to resolve differences that will always be with us, as long as mankind survives, or we can continue to use force first, and possibly bring about the end of our standing as a great power, if not the end of mankind.
No one, especially citizens of the greatest power on earth, should buy into Bush's apocalyptic view of the world except apocalyptic-types like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson. We have had enemies from the beginning of our existence as a country. Some, like the Soviet Union, have had nuclear weapons. Neither they nor we ever launched one at the other. Why? The answer is obvious. No one would win.
Iran may end up with a nuclear weapon. So what are they going to do with it? If they launch one, at us or at Israel, there won't be an Iran the next day. It will simply be an area of the world that glows in the dark for the rest of the millennium. The Iranians aren't that crazy, no matter how our conservative reactionaries like to portray them.
Iran will slip a nuke to al-Qaeda? Do you really think we wouldn't retaliate against Iran with only minimal proof? Iran knows better. They are not that crazy, nor are they as apocalyptic as our President. We didn't let Ghadafi go unpunished when he killed our soldiers in Germany, even though he proclaimed his innocence. It would be lights out for Iran in that instance as well.
North Korea? Despite the Republican reactionary propaganda, Kim Jong-il is not crazy either. Note how the reactionaries try to portray any enemy as crazy. They used to do it to the Soviet Union and China also.
How do we know that Kim is not crazy? When we invaded Iraq, Kim hid underground for more than 30 days, terrified that we were coming for him next. Hiding to survive is not the action of a crazed lunatic. It is the rational reaction of a man who has enemies on the march. He's a big talk, no action guy. If we haven't learned anything else about the North Koreans we know that.
As I wrote at the beginning, America will have a lot to say about how this millennium turns out. And it won't be decided by November 7 or even by November, 2008. There will still be 92 years left after the 'o8 elections, George.
Bush doesn't have to create an apocalyptic atmosphere in this country and the world to win what he insists on seeing as an endless War on Terror. There can be a much lower key, less crude, more "civilized," approach to winning against a bankrupt ideology like Islamic fundamentalism.
Barren ideas, like communism, end up in the dustbin of history. Islamic fundamentalism is also a barren idea, sure to invent its own destruction and to settle into the same dustbin. We need only time, patience, and vigilance for it to collapse of its own irrationality.
Don't make Islamic fundamentalism more than it is, George.
Contain it. Be vigilant. But be not afraid.
posted by Marshall Darts at
10:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home