I wish I could be annoyed forever...
Mar. 11th, 2003 11:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
misscamI'm in a foul mood. I blame you, Bush (and partly you, Saddam, as you are also a large git) and certain annoying people on a certain list who shall remain nameless and the heat and my body and MSN etc etc. Apparently, this be Annoy Cam week. I must have missed the memo (What? I did say I was in a foul mood)
Of course, I myself is an annoying spoiled git, as I have food on my plate, a roof over my head and a laptop to wuv. I shouldn't bitch. Billions starve, and probably by the end of the week, civilians in Iraq will die in a war they did not cause. And soldiers, some who might not even know what they are really fighting for (that goes for both sides). I am well off. Iraq is not.
But now that war seems inevitable, I hope my worst fears will not come to pass and that Iraq will be free *and* democratic afterwards (and not end as Afghanistan) and not forgotten a year from now but for its oil. But what will the US do to Iraq? They plan to rule it military for a while, that much is clear. Do they believe the Iraq people will not see this as removing one snake from power and putting in another? I wonder...
Not that it matter to you, Bush, but I still would say this about the war - not in my name. Norway has yet to make its position clear on this matter (Australia will probably go with the Shrub. Great). The will of the Norwegian people is unquestionable. Without a UN resolution, a large majority opposes war. With a resolution backing war, we're divided almost right down the middle. Of course, our PM has the spine of a jellyfish. Sweden has firmly backed the French/German/Russian/Chinese line, Denmark backs the American/British/Spanish/Bulgarian line. Whence will the Norwegian government go? Either way, Europe truly is divided. Not that this is a new thing. Still - I fear that America's 'with us or against us' will create a divide that will last.
We will see, I guess. Blair may be the one who will lose the most on this gamble. He faces strong opposition even within his own ranks, yet to back down now would ruin him. Too late to back down. Saddam will not back down either. I don't doubt he will pull no punches nor try to spare his people. The propaganda war has already begun, of course. I had classes on war reporting a year ago and among things, was taught the model the US uses to control the media during war. It's a highly effective six-step program. I should probably find my notes and articles on it and see how well it will fit this war. Too a tee, I'm willing to bet. The 'demonisation' step has already been at work - made easier by the fact that Saddam is a cruel tyrant, of course. Not that this stopped the US from supporting Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war.
How quickly things change...
And thus, I realise, my annoyance at things today is simply a way to buffer my fear. This week may bring a war that I fear will have a rippled effect on the Middle-east and the world and make the US the bully who reigns supreme in the class as the teacher quit over her horrible pay. Never before have I feared the future this much. Never.
It's much easier just to be annoyed. I wish I could be.
But perhaps I should take the advice of my ancestors -
Foolish is he who frets at night,
And lies awake to worry'
A weary man when morning comes,
He finds all as bad as before
Håvamål (believed to be words of wisdom to Men from Odin during the Viking age)
I'm also reminded of an exchange from B5 (between the Centauri Emperor and Sheridan, s2, if you know the show)
"No regrets then?"
"A few. But just a few. You?"
"Oh, enough to fill a lifetime. So much has been lost, so much forgotten. So much pain, so much blood. And for what, I wonder. The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast terrible inbetween. But there is still time to cease that one last fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference, as you say. And I intend to do just that."
I cannot change the minds of the US. I cannot even know that what I believe is correct. But I hope that hope itself will never be lost to me, lost to the world.
And at least annoyance is not apathy. So excuse me, I shall go be annoyed at certain terribly annnoying e-mails and certain people out there and try not to get an ulcer from worry while the present goes on weaving the future. If it's a wonderful tapestry or a web to choke ourselves in only time can tell.
Edited to add:
I missed this program on ABC Australia the other day. I wish I had seen it. Here's the transcript.
I quote:
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We have our best chance since the rise of the nation state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war.
JONATHAN HOLMES: America would abolish world conflict, George Bush proclaimed, by maintaining its own total military dominance.
and:
JIM LOBE: Another element was a doctrine of pre-emption, um, which basically said that the United States kind of reserved unto itself the right to pre-empt possible attack, or the creation of a capability for weapons of mass destruction on the part of rogue states, for example.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
JONATHAN HOLMES: And then there's a common negative. The President's West Point speech made no mention of the UN Security Council - for over half a century, the only legal arbiter of matters of war and peace.
*This* is what I fear, besides the death and the hatred. It does however raise questions about the issue of 'war for oil' and that this is not the US main agenda, though many anti-war people have claimed as such. Hmmm.
I know this however - I do NOT trust the US to tell me what is a threat and what is not. The US once supported parts of the Taliban. The US once supported Iraq. I will take the UN over the US as an authority anyday, even with the UN's slowness, snail-like tendencies and unefficiancy.
Ah, to be an ostrich and stick your head in the ground and hide till the world has become sane...
Of course, I myself is an annoying spoiled git, as I have food on my plate, a roof over my head and a laptop to wuv. I shouldn't bitch. Billions starve, and probably by the end of the week, civilians in Iraq will die in a war they did not cause. And soldiers, some who might not even know what they are really fighting for (that goes for both sides). I am well off. Iraq is not.
But now that war seems inevitable, I hope my worst fears will not come to pass and that Iraq will be free *and* democratic afterwards (and not end as Afghanistan) and not forgotten a year from now but for its oil. But what will the US do to Iraq? They plan to rule it military for a while, that much is clear. Do they believe the Iraq people will not see this as removing one snake from power and putting in another? I wonder...
Not that it matter to you, Bush, but I still would say this about the war - not in my name. Norway has yet to make its position clear on this matter (Australia will probably go with the Shrub. Great). The will of the Norwegian people is unquestionable. Without a UN resolution, a large majority opposes war. With a resolution backing war, we're divided almost right down the middle. Of course, our PM has the spine of a jellyfish. Sweden has firmly backed the French/German/Russian/Chinese line, Denmark backs the American/British/Spanish/Bulgarian line. Whence will the Norwegian government go? Either way, Europe truly is divided. Not that this is a new thing. Still - I fear that America's 'with us or against us' will create a divide that will last.
We will see, I guess. Blair may be the one who will lose the most on this gamble. He faces strong opposition even within his own ranks, yet to back down now would ruin him. Too late to back down. Saddam will not back down either. I don't doubt he will pull no punches nor try to spare his people. The propaganda war has already begun, of course. I had classes on war reporting a year ago and among things, was taught the model the US uses to control the media during war. It's a highly effective six-step program. I should probably find my notes and articles on it and see how well it will fit this war. Too a tee, I'm willing to bet. The 'demonisation' step has already been at work - made easier by the fact that Saddam is a cruel tyrant, of course. Not that this stopped the US from supporting Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war.
How quickly things change...
And thus, I realise, my annoyance at things today is simply a way to buffer my fear. This week may bring a war that I fear will have a rippled effect on the Middle-east and the world and make the US the bully who reigns supreme in the class as the teacher quit over her horrible pay. Never before have I feared the future this much. Never.
It's much easier just to be annoyed. I wish I could be.
But perhaps I should take the advice of my ancestors -
Foolish is he who frets at night,
And lies awake to worry'
A weary man when morning comes,
He finds all as bad as before
Håvamål (believed to be words of wisdom to Men from Odin during the Viking age)
I'm also reminded of an exchange from B5 (between the Centauri Emperor and Sheridan, s2, if you know the show)
"No regrets then?"
"A few. But just a few. You?"
"Oh, enough to fill a lifetime. So much has been lost, so much forgotten. So much pain, so much blood. And for what, I wonder. The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast terrible inbetween. But there is still time to cease that one last fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference, as you say. And I intend to do just that."
I cannot change the minds of the US. I cannot even know that what I believe is correct. But I hope that hope itself will never be lost to me, lost to the world.
And at least annoyance is not apathy. So excuse me, I shall go be annoyed at certain terribly annnoying e-mails and certain people out there and try not to get an ulcer from worry while the present goes on weaving the future. If it's a wonderful tapestry or a web to choke ourselves in only time can tell.
Edited to add:
I missed this program on ABC Australia the other day. I wish I had seen it. Here's the transcript.
I quote:
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We have our best chance since the rise of the nation state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war.
JONATHAN HOLMES: America would abolish world conflict, George Bush proclaimed, by maintaining its own total military dominance.
and:
JIM LOBE: Another element was a doctrine of pre-emption, um, which basically said that the United States kind of reserved unto itself the right to pre-empt possible attack, or the creation of a capability for weapons of mass destruction on the part of rogue states, for example.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
JONATHAN HOLMES: And then there's a common negative. The President's West Point speech made no mention of the UN Security Council - for over half a century, the only legal arbiter of matters of war and peace.
*This* is what I fear, besides the death and the hatred. It does however raise questions about the issue of 'war for oil' and that this is not the US main agenda, though many anti-war people have claimed as such. Hmmm.
I know this however - I do NOT trust the US to tell me what is a threat and what is not. The US once supported parts of the Taliban. The US once supported Iraq. I will take the UN over the US as an authority anyday, even with the UN's slowness, snail-like tendencies and unefficiancy.
Ah, to be an ostrich and stick your head in the ground and hide till the world has become sane...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
If it's any comfort . . .
Date: 2003-03-11 08:57 am (UTC)I agree that the real objective of the Powers That Be isn't what the "No Blood For Oil" banners would lead you to think. Bush's oil buddies would certainly like to get their hands on Middle East oil, to be sure. But I have read two independent speculations somewhere that the long-term goal may be to encircle either China or Russia, and perhaps take control of them.
I hope your country, and others in Europe, continue to stand firm despite their fear of us.
I really should reread that online translation of the Havamal . . .
Just another american viewpoint
Date: 2003-03-11 11:49 am (UTC)I second what maureenlycaon said. Myself, and many of my friends, want nothing of this war. It's extremely scary to know we're the ones with most of the power. Especially with someone like Bush running the show. I shudder at what could happen if he's re-elected.
I wouldn't trust the U.S. government as far as I could throw it. They would say anything to bring people around to their way of thinking.
Desperate to be an ostrich too,
Alice
Re: Just another american viewpoint
Date: 2003-03-13 07:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-11 02:47 pm (UTC)From an Aussie pov
Date: 2003-03-11 10:05 pm (UTC)First of all - the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden. Maybe he deserves to die. Maybe he doesn't. But Australia has a policy of NO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!!! That MEANS something, dammit! It means, no matter how evil a deed someone has done, WE DON'T BELIEVE THEY SHOULD DIE FOR IT! It doesn't mean "as long as we think it's not too bad, we will keep our squeaky clean reputation, but if ever we feel like killing, well, now, that's a different story..." I am not expressly for or against the death penalty. I am, however, against Howard's sneaky insinuation that we will be underhanded supporters of something we won't declare support for in the first place. So Australia won't have any part in the death penalty, but we'll gladly support someone else doing the dirty work for us. Pah!!
Second - He is SUCH a freakin lap dog to the US! The US can have their opinion, fine. But I expect Australia to have OUR OWN OPINION! NOT THE US's!! Australians don't want war, either, but how much of a say do we get? And what is democracy? Is it the ruler listening to the people, as long as the people agree with the ruler's decisions, and maybe sometimes if it's a small issue, the leader will give way? But as soon as something big comes up, then it's the leader in control, all the way?
I don't know if you saw the interview on SBS with John Hewson last night (Tuesday), but I have to say I really agree with Hewson here. It's not our war. It's America's war, and by declaring support for the war, we are declaring support for America, not for anti-terrorism or even necessarily Australian interests. While yes, on one level it's good to preserve America's goodwill, I agree with Hewson and believe that it's not important enough to back American in this war. We should be more concerned about events int eh Asia-Pacific - North Korea, for one!
Sigh. Why are politicians such bloody idiots? Hope France uses that veto.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-12 02:19 am (UTC)Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin. Been there, done that.
And it's funny that I don't think a single person I've personally talked (or 'typed') to thinks this war is a good or necessary idea. Still, it looks like it's gonna happen. Who are the individuals in the "mob" that allows this to happen? Do *any* of the "pro-war" countries have a majority of citizens in support? I know Australia doesn't, and I doubt Britain does. Does America? I don't know.
So I want to know, how can this happen when there's no majority in favour anywhere?
The world stinks. The system stinks.
whoever said we weren't ostriches already?
Date: 2003-03-12 06:12 am (UTC)~Amaranthinîel (http://puremassacre.pitas.com)
no subject
Date: 2003-03-12 12:53 pm (UTC)Lots of Americans don't want this war either. We were pissed as all hell when Bush said that he would not listen to the people who didn't want war.
When a President refuses to listen to the people, we have a constitutional right to remove him from office. I wish we would exercise it. *sigh*
If things go to hell, I'm hiding in Canada.
remove him from office, then!
Date: 2003-03-12 08:39 pm (UTC)~Amaranthinîel
Re: remove him from office, then!
Date: 2003-03-12 09:51 pm (UTC)Alice
Re: remove him from office, then!
Date: 2003-03-13 07:25 am (UTC)Meanwhile, you can always join Millikov and mine's Save the World, Kill a Git. We welcome regime change in the US in any shape (Bite me, Rumsfeld).
Another Aussie speaks out
Date: 2003-03-13 01:07 am (UTC)I wonder if it's too late to emigrate. New Zealand is starting to sound better and better as a place to live these days. I'm sure I could get used to the accents. I mean, really, I am sure I could get used to the accents.
*sigh*
At least I've got a good strong family tradition of conscientious objection to fall back on.
*bigger sigh*
Re: Another Aussie speaks out
Date: 2003-03-13 07:23 am (UTC)A case for war? Hah. Heard it all before. His biggest line was that if 'we' allowed rogue states to have weapons of mass destruction, chances are greater they'd fall into terrorist hands. *That's* your best argument? Gee, you sure are gonna be busy then, aren't you? Must invade Syria, North Korea, Lybia, Burma...
His other argument was how much the people suffered in Iraq. Yes, and Australia has really seen that by welcoming Iraqi refugees, hasn't it? And also, you better the get ready to invade Syria, Saudi-Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Burma, Zimbabwe...
Feh. I was seriously hissing at the TV screen. Bite me, Howard.
Save the World, Kill a Git