First off, let me make something clear: I like Lictor. He’s a good friend of mine. But as Sun Ra pointed out, "Lictor is generally on the side of the black hats." And in his latest column, he straps on the black hat, the black shirt, the black pants, and the black, spiky underwear.
Now, I’m not going to argue that everyone should hang on Ms. Streisand’s every word. However, Lictor argues that she shouldn’t say anything, and that’s just ridiculous. As the United States is (supposed to be) a democracy, her opinion should carry the same weight as that of any other citizen. It would certainly be nice if everyone would exercise due judgment and seriously evaluate the opinions expressed by media figures. That would certainly eliminate almost all of Rush Limbaugh’s audience.
I don’t know exactly what Streisand said; Lictor didn’t provide a link, and I’m not going to interrupt my buildup to a rant to find it. But what angers me about the current overuse of “patriotism” is that our unelected president is using the term in a most McCarthyite way: Either you’re a Patriot, and willing to allow Bush to attack wherever and whenever he wants, or else you hate America and want terrorists to infiltrate our country and blow up buildings and and kick our puppies. If you dare question this, then you’re not a true Patriot.
In this sense, "Patriot" has come to mean "Thug." So while I’m a patriot, and think that America is a great country (currently being lead by fools), I’m not a Patriot, willing to adhere to "My country, right or wrong" and smear dissenters as un-American.
The proposition that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to remove monsters like Saddam Hussein is one that flies directly in the face of everything that Western civilization has stood for since the end of the Second World War.
Bullshit. Are we prepared to go to war to defend ourselves? Of course we are. But it’s the prospect of initiating a war, against the wishes of the rest of the world, that flies directly in the face. Look how well that worked in Vietnam: we had no international support, the Vietnamese didn’t want us there, and we threw away tens of thousands of lives in a futile effort to stop the fall of South Vietnam to communism. All because successive administrations shouted that if we didn’t keep the Commies out of Vietnam, all of Asia would fall to the Communist Menace. Now we’re being told that if we don’t oust Saddam, then all of the Middle East will fall to the Terrorist Menace. But, again, we have no international support, and the Iraqis hate the US more than they hate Saddam.
Oh, wait, what about Tony Blair? He supports us, right? Well, not if Bush keeps slapping him around. To wit: Bush veto on Middle East talks. In short: "Mr Blair is pushing for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks, backed by an international conference, before the end the year...Mr Bush has blocked the initiative and has made it clear to Mr Blair that he does not want such talks to be held in the near future." So Bush goes and undermines our one ally, although it looks like the British aren’t all that interested in supporting us, anyway..
This isn't about proving that America is right, it's about proving that the way of life chosen by Americans is the right one.
And we need to force that way of life on everyone else. It’s the White Man’s Burden, after all. It’s rare to see anyone advancing Colonialism these days. Just because it didn’t work before doesn’t mean that it can’t work now, right?
It's not ok to abdicate responsibility to the UN.
Did we abdicate responsibility in Bosnia? Going to the UN is not abdicating responsibility by any means. Obtaining international support for our military actions is exactly what Western Society has stood for since the Second World War. I’ll remind Lictor that, contrary to what the current administration seems to think, it wasn’t a bunch of terrorist-loving anarchists who established the United Nations. The point of the UN is to foster communication and collaboration between nations of the world; to say that it shows weakness to go to the UN is what flies in the face of the last half century of progress, however uneven that progress has been. To say "We’re going to attack because we just don’t like them/we want their resources" is to regress to 19th century imperialistic views, and will do irreparable harm to our standing in the world community.
He is guilty of the same crimes, the same ruthless, self-serving ambition, the same absolute disregard for moral limits, the same sneering, cynical contempt for the rest of the world.
Which is a very accurate description of Bush. Let’s see: Crimes? Cocaine use, drunk driving, deserting from the National Guard (when you’re gone for more than a year, it’s no longer merely AWOL, it’s desertion). Oh, and detaining people indefinitely, stomping on some of those pesky Amendments (Remember, Lictor, in this country, we have a few guaranteed rights). Ruthless, self-serving ambition? I think the 2000 election covers that issue, but don’t forget his antics as CEO of Harken, where he gave himself the same executive perks that he’s now saying should be punished. Absolute disregard for moral limits? Lying about Iraq’s threat to us as a way of starting a war, one that Bush claims is a war for peace. Lying about “barely knowing” Ken Lay. Avoiding personal responsibility for a host of issues by blaming Clinton for everything under the sun? Hell, not to mention the proposal to reduce forest fires by cutting down as many trees as possible. Bush definitely believes in the "destroy the village to save it (and help my contributors)" camp, where morals are an unnecessary burden. Sneering, cynical contempt for the rest of the world? You don’t need me to list examples of this one, do you?
So, I guess Lictor is ultimately right: we certainly do need a regime change. He’s just pointing his finger at the wrong country.