scratchpad
Mar. 23rd, 2003 10:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
watertankEmotional response to the second Gulf war runs very high. Why?
Even a lot of very democratic people end up defending the world's most brutal dictator, whose atrocities were proved already beyond any reasonable doubt. Why?
Some say they value human life. Well then, why don't they demonstrate against AIDS in Africa?
Some say they oppose war in general. Well then, why don't they demonstrate against the conflict in Kashmire that claimed thousands of lives and nobody seems to care.
Some say the present war is illegal because the UN didn't approve it. Well then, the Kosovo conflict was not approved by UN either, but Europe was ok with it.
Some say Saddam doesn't present an immediate danger to the US. Neither did Miloshevich, nor Taliban.
Some say it's about oil and corporations, but this argument doesn't stand the scrutiny of facts.
Some say it's going to alienate the Muslims, as if now the vast majority of them doesn't already consider the US responsible for 9/11, the misery of Arab societies, and of course, the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.
I could go on listing other arguments that look good on the surface, but don't really add up when you consider them on factual rather than emotional level.
Usually, when you encounter a messy situation like this, even the most cursory system analysis shows that it's a super-system level problem.
It appears that the "world control" system doesn't perform according to the expectations of the majority of people. More specifically, they feel that a small group of powerful, but not very bright men, can do whatever they want, without taking into account the wishes of the rest of us.
Not Fair! Democracy is not supposed to work like that. Right? Post cold war world is not supposed to work like that. Right? Consensus should rule. Right? Not Fair!
Everything used to be simple. The world's control system was balanced by MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) between USA and USSR.
...
I could continue with the analysis, but it's getting pretty late.
The bottom line is the trust is broken and it has to be rebuilt. Inside and outside. I wished it happened before the war, but the past cannot be fixed, only in the history books. We may call it UN, or something else, but even the most successful liberation, democratization, or whateveratization of Iraq is not going to do it.
We need someone shrewd like Clinton to develop more or less balanced policies, put up the appearances, and say please, pozhalujsta, svp, enough times to patch everything up. Unfortunately, I don't see any Democrat or Republican being up to this task. Maybe it's still too early to tell, but somebody has to emerge within a year, otherwise WYSIWYG.
P.S. On the practical level, the economy is not going to recover anytime soon.
Even a lot of very democratic people end up defending the world's most brutal dictator, whose atrocities were proved already beyond any reasonable doubt. Why?
Some say they value human life. Well then, why don't they demonstrate against AIDS in Africa?
Some say they oppose war in general. Well then, why don't they demonstrate against the conflict in Kashmire that claimed thousands of lives and nobody seems to care.
Some say the present war is illegal because the UN didn't approve it. Well then, the Kosovo conflict was not approved by UN either, but Europe was ok with it.
Some say Saddam doesn't present an immediate danger to the US. Neither did Miloshevich, nor Taliban.
Some say it's about oil and corporations, but this argument doesn't stand the scrutiny of facts.
Some say it's going to alienate the Muslims, as if now the vast majority of them doesn't already consider the US responsible for 9/11, the misery of Arab societies, and of course, the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.
I could go on listing other arguments that look good on the surface, but don't really add up when you consider them on factual rather than emotional level.
Usually, when you encounter a messy situation like this, even the most cursory system analysis shows that it's a super-system level problem.
It appears that the "world control" system doesn't perform according to the expectations of the majority of people. More specifically, they feel that a small group of powerful, but not very bright men, can do whatever they want, without taking into account the wishes of the rest of us.
Not Fair! Democracy is not supposed to work like that. Right? Post cold war world is not supposed to work like that. Right? Consensus should rule. Right? Not Fair!
Everything used to be simple. The world's control system was balanced by MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) between USA and USSR.
...
I could continue with the analysis, but it's getting pretty late.
The bottom line is the trust is broken and it has to be rebuilt. Inside and outside. I wished it happened before the war, but the past cannot be fixed, only in the history books. We may call it UN, or something else, but even the most successful liberation, democratization, or whateveratization of Iraq is not going to do it.
We need someone shrewd like Clinton to develop more or less balanced policies, put up the appearances, and say please, pozhalujsta, svp, enough times to patch everything up. Unfortunately, I don't see any Democrat or Republican being up to this task. Maybe it's still too early to tell, but somebody has to emerge within a year, otherwise WYSIWYG.
P.S. On the practical level, the economy is not going to recover anytime soon.
