Hey hey. Hopefully I can think of articles to post on here fairly regularly. If not, suck it. I'll probably write about movies I like, stuff I'm thinking about, or just anything. So here I am!
And that we do.
Published on May 14, 2004 By apdelong31 In Politics
I'm so confused. I'm just a youngin', I'm too pretty.

It all started back on those household numbers, 9/11. I didn't believe it at first. I didn't know how scary it was and how significant it was to actually be living a piece of history. I had always read about the Hindenburg, Kennedy assassination, and Titanic, but all the background screams and chaos meant nothing to me. After I cried and watched TV for days on end, I didn't know what to think. I was supportive of going over and getting Osama, but that was all I felt we needed to do.

I should probably say this now, but I have NEVER been so ignorant as to wish we "woulda bombed them towelheads to the shit they eat". I've been privileged enough to travel to England, Scotland, and New Zealand before this my ripe age of 15. I've experienced what some other countries think of the U.S. and my parents have raised me well enough to be accepting of other people. And I've definitely learned that the above attitude only fuels the less than flattering feelings from foreign nations.

So now we're in Iraq. It seemed like it was going about the same as Afghanistan, relatively quick and painless. Well, troops starting dying. And they keep dying, some of them like Nick Berg (I'm almost convinced that Nick Berg wasn't killed by Iraqis, though). This is where I'm confused. I don't hate anyone in Iraq. Isn't it hard to hate people you don't even know? Just because they resist us, does that mean we should hate them and want to "bomb them even more" (as my classmate so eloquently put it)? They've done a lot of bad things, but we've killed a hell of a lot of civilians and in their eyes, we've done a lot of bad things to them.

Evil of Iraqis = Evil of Americans + 2 (unit of measurement unknown)

We've done a lot of bad things to them, and we're just as righteous about it as they are. Why can't some of the American public (at least some people in rural Ohio) open their eyes and be more accepting?

You can see how confused I am. I'm surprised this is assembled in coherent sentences, but I thank you for indulging.


Comments
on May 14, 2004
Ah, "May you live in interesting times"....an old Chinese blessing and curse....I know where ya got that one...lol. Anyway I have to agree on this one...totally. Most Americans think we're being so righteous in our takeover of Afghanistan and Iraq...but we do much the same things as they do....it's true...we just don't know about it because of good ol' liberal media...not wanting to put down America during a war...but the torture of the POWs kinda leaked out and now we realize, finally, that we do some naughty things also...I personally, am not really afraid of foreigners and their religion...I'm more of cautious about Americans...the craziness that goes on in the Motherland, here....what am I talking about hmmm: Oklahoma bombing, Columbine, Anthrax, Shoe bombs, and not to mention daily murders and rape everyday....These people of the sand did not cause this...The only thing I'm REALLY confused about is...Why haven't we captured Osama....3yrs after 9/11 and we caught the guy that was not responsible for the Twin Towers...Oh yeah...we're on the ball....anyway, that's all I have to say right now...

See ya,
~Zoo
on May 15, 2004
Yes, dear andy, I definatley see where you are comming from. I mean, we are supposed to be helping those Iraqs over there right? But if that's what we're suppoesed to be doing then why are we killing so many of them and why are they killing so many of us. Why do we have to tourture them when some of them are inocent? I guess we may never know, only God himself will unless of course it is meant for us to know. Sorry if i'm not making any sense. I mean it is almost midnight. Anyways, I think we should all understand where you are comming from and why, well at least most of us anyways.

Chao,
~carebear~
on May 17, 2004
First, I think you have to avoid overstating the case. The horrors committed by Saddam Hussein went far beyond anything the United States has done. The Bushies are kidding themselves about many things, but it doesn't help to turn around and do the same.

Second, American misconduct is symptomatic of a crucial structural problem in our democratic government. Because our voting public is educated in current affairs through visual media, most people have no knowledge or interest in ideas or depth or much of anything that lacks visual entertainment value. The first result is that voters have little sense of what is going on, so they have little sense of who to vote for -- other than paid for images. The second result is that elected leaders do not truly make a case for anything; they speak "focus group tested" lines to gain support on an emotional level, similar to the support given a favorite sports team.

Once true purposes are not openly debated, election is not closely tied to a particular platform. The idea of a mandate for any particular cause is dying. This leads to a new arrogance on the part of elected leaders, and it becomes possible for a presidential candidate tor run on a platform opposed to nation building, but to be, in truth, dead set on doing exactly that. He knows that his victory came from a successful image, and so he is wedded to the image, not to a plan for the country. Thus, he has the sense he can do anything he wants -- for himself, for his cronies, or, in the case of the prior president, with his girlfriends.

This arrogance is a more dangerous threat to our democratic system than the terrorists are, and it is not party-specific (although I have a gut sense that Bush is the worst yet). Why not turn over the jobs in Iraq to the vice president's business friends? Why not pretend that invading Iraq is a serious blow against the 9/11 terrorists? Why not flaunt the Geneva Convention? The public appears pretty much uninterested in the details, so all you have to do is manipulate the flow of pictures -- because that is the only thing that can reinvigorate the American public into their role as active citizens.

This time the pictures got out, but I am pretty sure that, behind closed doors, these people are more upset at the appearance of visuals than they are at the damage to American interests -- just like I'm pretty sure that Bill Clinton was more upset with the Lewinsky story getting out than he was sorry for the trouble his lack of self control caused.

Unchecked arrogance is a dangerous thing, and the American public no longer appears to have the wherewithal to keep their leaders in check.
on May 22, 2004
Yes, I agree with Don. BUT, I think the "do gooders" as I like to put it think that it is okay for us the U.S. to go over to Iraq and bomb the living hell out of the Iraqis people. Personally I think it is revenge on behalf of President Bush's part. What I mean is that (if you think about this) who was president when Desert Storm was going on? President Bush senior. He had the capability to kill Sadam during the 90's but did he do it? Of course not! No, when Sadam comes back and has a part in 9/11 that makes him look bad. What better luck than to have your son in office at that time. Now I'm not saying that going into Iraq is all about revenge, I should know one of my mom's cousins was on the first plane that crash landed on the World Trade Center buildings. And I hope that Sadam gets whats coming. But I think that George W. Bush is also thinking about avenging his father in the fact, and it is not all about 9/11 though a large part not ll of it is. That is my opinion. Plus Andy I go to school with you and I am a freshman so at least you have some realiziation on your part.

Love Lots,
Amandahillbilly