5 posts tagged “war on terror”
5 years after “Mission Accomplished” I still marvel at how Americans feel it is their “Right” to interfere in the politics of other countries. And not just Iraq. A number of smaller countries have been subjected to their interference. It seems that if a politician can drum up a case of National Security, they automatically get the majority of their citizens on side.
How is this possible?
I can’t tell if they think it’s un-American to challenge their leaders or if they are simply too lazy to think through the logic. In Australia’s case it’s an easy call. We’re lazy. Generally folk can’t be bothered to think about the problem unless something like the Haneef case comes up where lawyers stir up the collective consciousness. Once we feel a politician has stepped over the line it’s very easy to get folk fired up but you need someone to capture the imagination of the Public to get the ball rolling. If it presents as bully boy tactics then you are home and hosed.
That doesn’t seem to be a selling point in the States. It seems the main objection of US folk to Bush’s War is the death toll of their own kids rather than any ethical view or sense of fair play. Fair enough that they are getting annoyed about the waste of their kids lives but I would like to see them question why they get involved in other countries affairs in the first place. Otherwise we will be going through all this devastation again in another country for another special interest group under a different President.
Once upon a time we could expect the US Media to do the thinking for their citizens but I don’t think they are filling that role any more, or at least they have been very slow to challenge the thinking in the Administration. It reminds me of the disgusting enthusiasm we saw when Maggie Thatcher decided to improve her poll standings by attacking the Argentineans in the Falklands. Some of the old blokes with the comment of “Give em a taste of the bayonet” were quite disgraceful.
The shallow British Press were just as bad. Some of their headlines were shockers. They even went as far as to give highly racist coverage of tennis matches played by Guillermo Vilas. I couldn’t believe such a thing from the allegedly sophisticated English commentators. The only saving grace here was this was an unusual event for the Brits. Although they are not without their sins in interfering in other peoples politics, they don’t seem to get involved quite so often these days.
But the US is a different ball game all together. It seems like they go out of their way to find a country they feel they can rearrange. Regardless of the fact they don’t seem to be able to get it all their own way or even close to what they want. US fuel prices would seem to indicate that going to Iraq to keep fuel affordable has been a total disaster.
I think that highlights a problem with the fuel theory. It looks more plausible that this is a little earner for Brown and Root. Despite his claims of concern for US troops, I think Dick Cheney is more than happy with the whole shooting match. Somehow I don’t see Tricky Dicky crying himself to sleep as he counts his ill gotten gains.
The coming election should be an indicator of how American thinking is going. If they sign up for more of the same with McCain then we have a long way to go before US Voters decide to demand more of their politicians. If they vote Democrat you won’t be able to tell if they demand more or have just got sick of Republicans killing their kids.
What the world really needs is for US Voters to simply ask WHY and demand a sensible answer. Counterproductive missions like The War on Terror don’t pass the sensible test.
Young Alexander Downer was silly enough to defend his Foreign Affairs decisions in print last week in the Age. What a slow learner he is.
Of course he started off with “We all agree Sadam had to go” excuse which these blokes use to try and get agreement happening and then even claimed the WMDs would have been reintroduced. How desperate is that argument? I guess he is safe in it not being able to be disproved so I guess he has learned something.
The clincher for me though was a claim that “If America leaves the terrorists can claim victory”. Gimme a break. Are we talking about adults or kiddies here? At the moment the terrorists can justifiably claim that the US is funding and training their “freedom fighters”. They will also claim they are winning while America stays so what is the difference?
What a tragedy our foreign policy was left to the bumbling efforts of a simple minded man such as Downer in cahoots with a US President way out of his depth.
I very nearly missed this fine production. I wasn’t sure how the Afghanistan stuff was going to play out and I didn’t know it was going to be such an effective anti-war film. Streep, Redford and Cruise turn out a fine story that gives a few pointers to why America finds itself bogged down these days.
Cruise is a Senator on the rise with another plan to win the war. This time in Afghanistan. In current American tradition his character shows how little history some of the pro war folk display. He, of course, has all those set phrases that blind some American Voters. All the “I care for our troops” stuff trips easily off his tongue and the word Victory gets a hammering too. Just your typical “glossy” ambitious go getter.
Redford plays a lecturer who’s best efforts failed to stop some good kids enlisting and his efforts to inspire the imagination of one of his students who used to be motivated. This is a very interesting part of the movie that gets some questions happening.
Finally Streep plays a reporter who is offered an exclusive which is designed to build up Public support for another surge. This part is really the most critical point of the flick. It challenges reporters for being so compliant when they could see things going pear shaped. I particularly liked this point. I’m quite critical of how our own Press has behaved over the last few years and this really highlights it.
I’m betting the “bomb them back to the Stone Age” crowd are going to hate this movie but for the rest of us it’s an important contribution in discovering how things go so stuffed up.
Give it a look it a look if you care and a big swerve if you don't care to avoid repeating history.
After watching the Aussie Prime Minister drag the reputation of pollies to an all time low, it's fantastic to see a flick that reminds you how political effort can change things for the better and that the process, though time consuming, works.
The movie follows the story of William Wilberforce's journey to end slavery in England. A process that took decades and not helped by trouble with the American Colonies and a belligerent Napoleon.
For me this was a timely reminder that Christians can be a force for change and indeed, used to be reactionary folk when they decided to get stuck in to a moral cause. Looking at the big picture, it made me realise something that has been wandering around my brain but not focused on directly. That this enthusiasm for war can only be defeated when Atheists and Religious folk get their heads together to reject the "War without end" (read War on Terror) model being pushed at the moment.
ChezzaG. This movie will inspire you. It's surprising to see that even in those days the same financial arguments were being used to not change the system. Another interesting thing is that the weight of a huge petition could not swing the Parliament but Wilberforce recognised that he needed the Public behind him to get the pressure on.
I wont spoil the flick by revealing any more of the story, suffice it to say that even when things look hopeless, consistent effort can pay off when you stand by your cause. Boy is there a lesson here for us all. In the Aussie vernacular, Don't let the bastards grind you down.
An excellent movie that stays fairly true to the real life events. Great sets. Great cast. Brilliant story. And for me, a reality check.
William Wilberforce. A man who didn't put up with bad pollies. He made a fuss.
John Howard is obviously a slow learner. Having had to pitch Kevin Andrews out of the Employment Ministry for inept drafting of the Work Choices legislation, some bright spark has decided to let the bumbling Andrews try to publically defend his statements and actions over the detention of Haneef.
Fran Kelly scored again by drawing the inept Andrews on to a trap of his own making.
The inept Andrews has been having a great time playing the War on Terror card and hiding behind "I'm not allowed to reveal this information" ploy.
Fran started to quiz him on the morality of the case and Andrews seemed surprised at the line of questioning. I think this was when he set his own trap. In an endevour to make it sound like a very serious offence, he said he will be deporting Mr Haneef after the court case.
The Radio National listners collective ears perked up. Come on Fran, there is an obvious question hanging in the air here.
Fran picked up the ball with "Minister why will you be deporting him if he is found not guilty?"
Ouch. The Minister heard the trip wire twang and desperately tried to talk off on a tangent but Fran smelt the fear and jumped straight back on the question as soon as the attempted diversion ran out of steam.
Damn. He was caught in the trap with the question being posed in quiet air space. The question is clear and no diverging allowed.
If only he was as smart as Little Johnnie. He could talk about something totally unrelated.
Okay smarty pants. Are you as smart as Howard or dumb as Downer?Suddenly caught in the trap of his own words, he fell back on “I don’t wish to speculate on future outcomes.”
A Downerism if ever I heard one.
Apparently promising deportation before an Election is not speculation but discussing being deported after being found innocent is.
I think the Government should fall back on statements made by “sources close to the Minister” from now on. Otherwise Andrews is going to blow the cover of this electoral stunt.
