Yesterday, the space shuttle Columbia broke up and crashed on re-entry. Within less than an hour, the CBC blamed "American arrogance" for the crash.
People who I know who feel profoundly emotionally affected by the crash of the shuttle and the loss of these seven astronauts have already turned the "compassion" of the president around to "Will the president have compassion for the men and women he wants to send to die in war?"
The Columbia crash has not affected me emotionally as it seems to have affected many. I can think of a few reasons for this. For one, I do not remember the explosion of Challenger in 1986. I was four years old at the time and in kindergarten, and we didn't have televisions in our classrooms. I don't remember knowing anything about Challenger and I don't remember anyone telling me when it was lost. I am not thinking back to that day 17 years ago when the nation mourned.
What I am thinking back to is September 11th 2001. This is not because the event is of a similar nature, obviously it is not... but watching the news coverage, knowing that so many other people across the country were watching the same thing, the repetitious footage of *falling debris* playing over and over, the feeling that something big and "tragic" has just happened... that brought me back to that Tuesday. I experienced flashes of anxiety, not sorrow.
People are using this as a jumping off point for anti-war rhetoric. The CBC is the most obvious and disgusting example, but I want to talk about the closer to home type, the more honest (if, in my opinion, misguided) type, the kind that people I know and truly love are engaging in.
From the people with whom I have the most contact, the issue seems to be the belief that "death is bad" overall, and the relation between the crash of the Columbia and the imminent war is that both are situations that (will) involve death which those to whom I am referring see as a universal negative.
Here's what I don't understand about this: Saddam Hussein's regime has taken more lives than we ever could in a sattelite-guided missile strike (which is the current plan) without intentionally targeting hundreds of civillian targets (which is not the plan) unless thousands upon thousands of civillians decide to create a human shield around government and military targets. (which I doubt the Iraqi people would do.) Death being a universal negative doesn't seem to raise in these people a strong desire for Hussein's removal. Oh sure, they say "listen, I'm not saying that Saddam isn't bad... he is. He's really really bad." Some might even go so far as to agree with the president that he is "evil," though usually not without the qualifying statement that he is no more "evil" than our own president. They will concede that Hussein is really really bad and that he has killed lots of people, but they don't seem to want us to do anything to remove him.
I know what you're thinking. "Yes, yes we want Saddam Hussein removed... but not with a unilateral war... or not with war at all. We want the US to work with the UN. We want the UN to do it peacefully, we don't want the big clumsy evil US barging in and wrecking everything. We want a nice, clean, peaceful UN solution."
Because of course, if the UN said to Saddam Hussein "Look, Saddam, you really can't do this anymore, it's really not nice," he would suddenly see the light. "Oh, why didn't you say so?" he would ask, in tears, as he either packed up his bag, or better yet, as the powers of love and peace transformed him from a twisted gargoylesque force of darkness to a happy handsome prince with flowers in his hair leading his cheering people to the celebratory feast in which all have plenty to eat and all is right with Iraq and the world, while the villainous US sits in a corner sulking, or better yet, is locked in the dungeon to think about what it tried to do.
It's a lovely fantasy, but the reality is that the scenario above was tried... Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm voluntarily and everything was going to be alright... but he didn't. We could very easily blame the US for this thuogh, if that is your bag, as it were: shame on us for not finishing the job.
As for the UN, they have become so obsessed with not being a puppet of the US that they have forgotten what they are there to do. They have made a joke of themselves by electing Libya to chair the leading UN human rights body. The UN is not the glorious peacekeeper I grew up thinking that it was. The UN is just another Bureaucratic body. It seems that if there was a resolution passed in the UN that dictatorship and mass murder for the sake of power were ok means of governance, the UN would have no problem with that as long as the resolution were passed in the proper bureaucratic manner. Absolute moral relativism doesn't work. The fact that most of the leaders in the UN say something is so, something is right, something is wrong, does not make it true. "But it's illegal," I hear you cry. The supreme law of the land dictates that if Bush goes against the UN he is in breach of treaty and therefore in violation of the constitution.
The UN has failed to keep peace and has failed to uphold its own resolutions. Explain to me how the UN is not in breach of treaty already.
"Alright, alright G, lets just say for the moment that everything above is true," you may be saying... "That would all be well and good if Bush's motives were as noble as you seem to want to believe, but the fact is they are not. Bush is in it for oil! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" And the chanting fills the room.
Listen very carefully... I don't know that Bush is in it for oil... i wouldn't be suprised if he was, if in fact that was his primary motivation. Here's what I have to say to that, listen carefully now:
So What?
I'm serious. So what? Does Bush have to be a saint in order for the US to lift a finger, to make any move? Funny, I don't see you holding anyone else to the same standards of conduct. No powerful nation on Earth has a clean record, no powerful nation on Earth moves for purely altruistic motives. Should we all therefore just sit still with our hands folded neatly? Perhaps, but that is not the way the world works. We could sit still with neatly folded hands until we turned blue, but the rest of the world would not. Your conviction that no person has the right to take the life of another will not prevent the serial killer from murdering you and your family.
"Aha! We got you!" you exclaim triumphantly. "You are now invoking self-defense! But we are not under direct attack from Iraq! The only legitimate motive for going to war is self-defense!"
Imagine this scenario: What if the UN was overrun by leaders who desired the destruction of a group of people, any group of people, who are ganged up on and virtually defenseless? A large nation like, say, the US... no, forget the US... lets say Russia, hypothetically. Russia wants to step in because they see that this is a truly fucked up situation. But no, Russia isn't under direct threat, they have no business stepping in. They have to stand in line, put in a request at the DMV... er... UN that a peacekeeping operation be deployed... but the UN wants these people destroyed. Okay, forget wanting them destroyed... lets just say that the leaders of the UN have proven indifferent or apathetic or so mired in bureaucracy that they do not care to lift a finger to try to protect this group of people. "But that's not what's happening here!" someone might say. Isn't it? Well, even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter. It is a reason, a demonstration of why the UN can't be the end-all be-all of everything. They have proven themselves untrustworthy in matters of human rights and maintaining peace by their own methods, what exactly makes them qualified to say when a third party can and can't step in? No nation can be ruled by the simple principle of majority rule, and neither can the world. That leaves no protection for the minority. The UN is not about to do anything to save the Iraqi people from their "leader." The UN would not be saving lives by preventing the US from entering Iraq, it would be sacrificing them.
Finally, I hear a voice in the back of the room call out "How can you use the tragic crash of the space shuttle Columbia as a jumping off point for pro-war rhetoric?"
I smile sadly.
It must be my American Arrogance.
People who I know who feel profoundly emotionally affected by the crash of the shuttle and the loss of these seven astronauts have already turned the "compassion" of the president around to "Will the president have compassion for the men and women he wants to send to die in war?"
The Columbia crash has not affected me emotionally as it seems to have affected many. I can think of a few reasons for this. For one, I do not remember the explosion of Challenger in 1986. I was four years old at the time and in kindergarten, and we didn't have televisions in our classrooms. I don't remember knowing anything about Challenger and I don't remember anyone telling me when it was lost. I am not thinking back to that day 17 years ago when the nation mourned.
What I am thinking back to is September 11th 2001. This is not because the event is of a similar nature, obviously it is not... but watching the news coverage, knowing that so many other people across the country were watching the same thing, the repetitious footage of *falling debris* playing over and over, the feeling that something big and "tragic" has just happened... that brought me back to that Tuesday. I experienced flashes of anxiety, not sorrow.
People are using this as a jumping off point for anti-war rhetoric. The CBC is the most obvious and disgusting example, but I want to talk about the closer to home type, the more honest (if, in my opinion, misguided) type, the kind that people I know and truly love are engaging in.
From the people with whom I have the most contact, the issue seems to be the belief that "death is bad" overall, and the relation between the crash of the Columbia and the imminent war is that both are situations that (will) involve death which those to whom I am referring see as a universal negative.
Here's what I don't understand about this: Saddam Hussein's regime has taken more lives than we ever could in a sattelite-guided missile strike (which is the current plan) without intentionally targeting hundreds of civillian targets (which is not the plan) unless thousands upon thousands of civillians decide to create a human shield around government and military targets. (which I doubt the Iraqi people would do.) Death being a universal negative doesn't seem to raise in these people a strong desire for Hussein's removal. Oh sure, they say "listen, I'm not saying that Saddam isn't bad... he is. He's really really bad." Some might even go so far as to agree with the president that he is "evil," though usually not without the qualifying statement that he is no more "evil" than our own president. They will concede that Hussein is really really bad and that he has killed lots of people, but they don't seem to want us to do anything to remove him.
I know what you're thinking. "Yes, yes we want Saddam Hussein removed... but not with a unilateral war... or not with war at all. We want the US to work with the UN. We want the UN to do it peacefully, we don't want the big clumsy evil US barging in and wrecking everything. We want a nice, clean, peaceful UN solution."
Because of course, if the UN said to Saddam Hussein "Look, Saddam, you really can't do this anymore, it's really not nice," he would suddenly see the light. "Oh, why didn't you say so?" he would ask, in tears, as he either packed up his bag, or better yet, as the powers of love and peace transformed him from a twisted gargoylesque force of darkness to a happy handsome prince with flowers in his hair leading his cheering people to the celebratory feast in which all have plenty to eat and all is right with Iraq and the world, while the villainous US sits in a corner sulking, or better yet, is locked in the dungeon to think about what it tried to do.
It's a lovely fantasy, but the reality is that the scenario above was tried... Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm voluntarily and everything was going to be alright... but he didn't. We could very easily blame the US for this thuogh, if that is your bag, as it were: shame on us for not finishing the job.
As for the UN, they have become so obsessed with not being a puppet of the US that they have forgotten what they are there to do. They have made a joke of themselves by electing Libya to chair the leading UN human rights body. The UN is not the glorious peacekeeper I grew up thinking that it was. The UN is just another Bureaucratic body. It seems that if there was a resolution passed in the UN that dictatorship and mass murder for the sake of power were ok means of governance, the UN would have no problem with that as long as the resolution were passed in the proper bureaucratic manner. Absolute moral relativism doesn't work. The fact that most of the leaders in the UN say something is so, something is right, something is wrong, does not make it true. "But it's illegal," I hear you cry. The supreme law of the land dictates that if Bush goes against the UN he is in breach of treaty and therefore in violation of the constitution.
The UN has failed to keep peace and has failed to uphold its own resolutions. Explain to me how the UN is not in breach of treaty already.
"Alright, alright G, lets just say for the moment that everything above is true," you may be saying... "That would all be well and good if Bush's motives were as noble as you seem to want to believe, but the fact is they are not. Bush is in it for oil! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" And the chanting fills the room.
Listen very carefully... I don't know that Bush is in it for oil... i wouldn't be suprised if he was, if in fact that was his primary motivation. Here's what I have to say to that, listen carefully now:
So What?
I'm serious. So what? Does Bush have to be a saint in order for the US to lift a finger, to make any move? Funny, I don't see you holding anyone else to the same standards of conduct. No powerful nation on Earth has a clean record, no powerful nation on Earth moves for purely altruistic motives. Should we all therefore just sit still with our hands folded neatly? Perhaps, but that is not the way the world works. We could sit still with neatly folded hands until we turned blue, but the rest of the world would not. Your conviction that no person has the right to take the life of another will not prevent the serial killer from murdering you and your family.
"Aha! We got you!" you exclaim triumphantly. "You are now invoking self-defense! But we are not under direct attack from Iraq! The only legitimate motive for going to war is self-defense!"
Imagine this scenario: What if the UN was overrun by leaders who desired the destruction of a group of people, any group of people, who are ganged up on and virtually defenseless? A large nation like, say, the US... no, forget the US... lets say Russia, hypothetically. Russia wants to step in because they see that this is a truly fucked up situation. But no, Russia isn't under direct threat, they have no business stepping in. They have to stand in line, put in a request at the DMV... er... UN that a peacekeeping operation be deployed... but the UN wants these people destroyed. Okay, forget wanting them destroyed... lets just say that the leaders of the UN have proven indifferent or apathetic or so mired in bureaucracy that they do not care to lift a finger to try to protect this group of people. "But that's not what's happening here!" someone might say. Isn't it? Well, even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter. It is a reason, a demonstration of why the UN can't be the end-all be-all of everything. They have proven themselves untrustworthy in matters of human rights and maintaining peace by their own methods, what exactly makes them qualified to say when a third party can and can't step in? No nation can be ruled by the simple principle of majority rule, and neither can the world. That leaves no protection for the minority. The UN is not about to do anything to save the Iraqi people from their "leader." The UN would not be saving lives by preventing the US from entering Iraq, it would be sacrificing them.
Finally, I hear a voice in the back of the room call out "How can you use the tragic crash of the space shuttle Columbia as a jumping off point for pro-war rhetoric?"
I smile sadly.
It must be my American Arrogance.
posted by G at
3:41 PM
