posted
Did anyone watch Harold Pinter's Nobel speech today? Very controversial but very...inspired. His disposition reminded me starkly about Hari Seldon. :.)
Maybe I'm a bit ahead of you, although not much of those in the UK.
It picks up after six minutes and he's in full swing by 11. I must say he holds a fast pace for a guy with throat cancer.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Unlike that other acclaimed Nobel laurete, Tookie Williams who said "yo, I founded da gangz".
Wow. they're translating speaches into Swedish and German now? Truly an age of wonder we live in, boyos.
quote:Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method.
...and right or wrong, has never been a "crime" (as he insinuates the US comitted). Who holds sway over what is a "crime" of invasion exactly? What country that's capable has not been guilty of it?
While I agree wiuith him on Guantanamo, the notion that invading Iraq was "an act of terrorism" is stupid in the extreme.
Stupid comment #1
quote:We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
Er...that was all already abundantly there- we just brought our own and upset the status quo of it. Dont agree? Ask the Kurds.
quote: The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.
Stupid comment #2 I cant speak for every american newspaper, but every death from here in Florida is accopanied by an article, interviews and opinions of the family. I've read a dozen interviews and articles on wounded troops and their problems this year alone. Nothing is "hidden" just because a funeral is not a PR event. Who would want a funeral that was not "unobtrusive"? These soldiers gave their lives doing their duty- no diffrent than any other serviceman that's died serving their country.
There are numerous good points in the critique, but to point out all that's obviously wrong or immoral and then offer no alternatives is pointless. This kind of thing is why Plato's argument (in Repubicfor censorship of the arts is so compelling (though I dont agree with it completely, obviously). Of course Plato also said "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." so mabye this will inspire some to actually demand a higher moral standard from their leaders.
But I would'nt count on it.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"Er...that [torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death] was all already abundantly there- we just brought our own and upset the status quo of it."
Therefore... George Bush is just as bad as Saddam Hussein? Excellent point.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, yeah, but it's not as if "we brought them there and it was some peaceful hamlet before then.
WIthout getting into an "ends justify the means" debate, a lot of people over there are very happy we invaded.
BUt even without taking the ongoing violence into concideration, we'd be hated by a lot of people there- the ones that were in power or had a fairly good lifestyle under Saddam.
Having lived through natural disasters, I can testify that the nicest of people turn real ugly real quick without basic services...and the US invasion took that away from millions....and have done a crappy job restoring them too.
We've brought down the quality of life for the country and no "big picture" of a free Iraq will block that out.
All that being said, no- Bush is no where close in any way to being "as bad" as Saddam Hussein.
War monger or not, he's not genocidal- he actually thinks he's doing good for the people of Iraq (weither hey like it or not).
People rarely hear first hand accounts of what atrocities went on in Iraq under Hussein (or tune them out) but Iraq is a long way from the mass graves and prisons full of children that hallmarked Saddam's rule.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
So, even though people are still dying by the hundreds, it's better because they're being buried in individual graves? Even though innocent people are being rounded up, imprisoned, and tortured, it's better because a smaller percentage (though still >0) are children?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Site me where "innocent people are being rounded up, imprisoned, and tortured" and even one instance of a child being inprisoned (much less to serve as punishment for their parent's political opinion).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
That was inflammatory and offensive. Stirring, provocative and utterly ruthless. I actually squirmed in my seat on several occasions. The Neruda reading was brutal. Can Harold Pinter regularly deliver such opinions on network news channels in the US please? Because the problem is that so few here will ever hear this message. I ache to hear the opinions of such intelligent and considered people speaking so candidly on a regular basis. Like to balance the headline (i.e. superficial) news monkeys. I have this fantasy that this is level at which politics and news are playing in other countries. But then I met this seemingly cool Polish guy (who had wonderful musical tastes, btw) in a hostel in Vienna and he was so pro-Bush it was terrifying.
Thanks for the link, Nim.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree, Balaam. This reminds me of quoted exchanges between politicians in the 1800's, fists slamming on tables and papers thrown everywhere. Too bad the people who most need to hear this are too insulated to ever get near it.
Jason:
quote:Er...that was all already abundantly there- we just brought our own and upset the status quo of it.
Right, like Abu Ghraib and Willy Pete. If they need to sort out their mess, it has to come from inside. Haven't you read Robert Pape's report?
quote:the notion that invading Iraq was "an act of terrorism" is stupid in the extreme.
Ok, let's go through the moves here. The invasion was unprovoked. They made things up as they went, counting on the world's hatred for Saddam to do the most of the work, and they were right. Then they wrap the whole operation in nice words and memos. So it's not terrorism because it is carried out in such an orderly fashion? Tis is one of Pinter's main points, the labels the politicians use to condone their work. Terrorism is what they do, we do peacekeeping and enforcing. I thought his other play with labels was good, in the last segment, his proposed Bush speech to the nation; their decapitation versus electricity and injections.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
[Direct invasion of a sovereign state] ... has never been a "crime" (as he insinuates the US comitted).
There exists such a thing as international law, or have you "prahaps" forgotten that B&B legally hinged the entire invasion on their own shady little interpretations of UNSC Resolution 1441?
Who holds sway over what is a "crime" of invasion exactly?
The international community.
What country that's capable has not been guilty of it?
A crime committed by many is still a crime.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, maybe international law exists. I mean, I'm on that side of the argument, but it's an interesting philosophical question.
Seymour Hersh claims that among the evidence shown to Congress in regards to Abu Ghraib are several videos of children being tortured. Of course, he hasn't included those specific claims in his New Yorker articles, and the New Yorker has a reputation for having an intensely rigorous fact-checking regime.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Who sets that International law you all are talking about? The UN? They've signed off on how many conflicts exactly? While I completely agree that the case for war was misrepresented as solid (by Bush's inner circle only-many in Congress voted on War with the same faulty info as the masses) it's certainly not definite that they rigged the evidence (as opposed to only focusing on whatever they wanted to see). One is willful stupidity- the other a crime (in US courts- punishible with impeachment).
There have been dozens of wars with no UN approval- I think the only actual times they signed off on a war were the Falklands and first war with Iraq- and if it's an official "crime" to go to war, it's nothing anyone has ever been charged with (including Saddam Hussein).
Invading another country, while certainly not right or moral, is by definition not "terrorism"- the author is only usuing that word to provoke a knee-jerk response. Terrorism is targeting a group of non-combatants to instill fear as a means to accomplish a goal (usually to get attention for whatever cause). Invading a country after affter a month's untimatum, and then invading while taking extreme measures to prevent civillian casualties...it's not terrorism. Not in any way. It was an extremely effective military invasion of an enemy country (warranted or not) and it's become a poorly organized occupation.
But it's not terrorism in any way.
quote:Seymour Hersh claims that among the evidence shown to Congress in regards to Abu Ghraib are several videos of children being tortured. Of course, he hasn't included those specific claims in his New Yorker articles, and the New Yorker has a reputation for having an intensely rigorous fact-checking regime.
I've not heard anything about that- not from Amnesty International who supposedly have all the photos gathered forr safekeeping (dont nayone to "misplace" evidence, right?).
Again guys, I'm not defending BusCo's policies, only taking apart what is an obviously impassioned speach with several errors in it- one that completely leaves out the good that's been done in Iraq.
Particularly bad is the nonsense about "The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark." Saying crap like that only undermines the good points to his speach and lets the Right -and mainstream for that matter- dismiss him as not knowing what he's talking about. iF he really wants people to pay attention, he needs to write something that sounds less like an ad for Moveon.org.
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I agree, Balaam. This reminds me of quoted exchanges between politicians in the 1800's, fists slamming on tables and papers thrown everywhere.
Er...you mean the wildly corrupt 1800's? the good 'ol days of colonialism, invasions for land gain and "manifest Destiny" justifications for wiping out entire cultures?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:There have been dozens of wars with no UN approval- I think the only actual times they signed off on a war were the Falklands and first war with Iraq
The problem with getting UN approval, is that the country to be invaded has to relativly debt free- otherwise shylock on the Security Council (the countries that hold real power) will vote it down (or they can kiss that money goodbye).
Does not help that almost every country has monetary and political ties with several others- it takes something really outlandish to get everyone on the same page.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
In response to Jason, since Omega totally snaked me: More likely Nim means, as he said, the days when political debates were intensely intellectual affairs.
"Who sets that International law you all are talking about? The UN?"
International law is, simply, or rather not so simply, the sum of every treaty agreed to by various states. Not every state, of course, agrees to every treaty, nor is every treaty designed to apply to every state, hence "not so simply." The UN is a product of this process, as are any and all trade agreements, defense agreements, and so on.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"...while taking extreme measures to prevent civillian casualties..."
I'd hardly say "extreme measures". "Token gestures", maybe. Sometimes "a complete lack of any attempt". But not "extreme measures".
"Particularly bad is the nonsense about 'The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark.' "Saying crap like that only undermines the good points to his speach and lets the Right -and mainstream for that matter- dismiss him as not knowing what he's talking about."
So, what's the problem this time? Because some of the flights take place during the day, they're not really in "the dark"? It's a metaphor. It means no-one gets to see them. And considering that the media really were banned from photographing the returning coffins, I don't see how you can argue that it isn't true.
Also interesting is the story that was reported by a San Diego news station recently about how, after the properly-flag-draped coffins are ceremoniously removed from the military planes at the Air Force base, they get boxed up and chucked into the cargo holds of commercial flights to be sent back to their families.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
