![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Most people in LiveJournal (at least those on my friends' list) have been keeping fairly quiet about the whole Iraq situation. And I have too, with only a few comments in other people's LiveJournal comments when they talk about it. It's a difficult thing to discuss. War is nasty, and it's never cut and dry whether or not it's the correct option.
That said, there have been a couple of things lately that have been irritating the hell out of me. So I wanted to get those things said, just so I can move on.
First is the overwhelming belief by the American public that people in the public eye - celebrities - are more qualified than the average American in making assessments about the whole situation with Iraq and the impending war. There seems to be an effort to raise up the Hollywood celebrities who are anti-war (and gosh golly gee, who didn't see it coming that they would be anti-war when the vast majority of Hollywood celebrities were quite vocal in their dislike for Bush back during the elections?) and make them the "spokesmen for the people." *groan* Come on folks, they aren't any more or less qualified to walk around with a picket sign than Joe Schmoe who lives on 53rd and Main. Just because Martin Sheen plays the president on TV doesn't mean he has a politicians knowledge of what's right or wrong. He's a celebrity. But the media has decided to make them into the voice of the people, and it irritates the hell out of me.
Then there's the flip side of the coin. Country music is a conservative medium. We may have our drinkin' and cheatin', but we're a conservative bunch. Well, the country medium is taking this level of conservativism to an absurd level. Deifying Darryl Worley and vilifying the Dixie Chicks because of their views. (In case you have no clue what the issues is with those folks, Darryl Worley wrote a song that's pro-war and the Chicks' lead singer blasted Bush at a concert. Worley is getting tons of airplay for his song and the Chicks' CDs are being bulldozed - and no, I'm not kidding. A protest was organized in which they ran over their CDs with a bulldozer.)
Look folks, it's one thing when celebrities claim to be the voice of the people. That's stupid, because they're not. They're the voice of them. I have my own voice thank you, and I'll express my views my way. But they're also allowed to air their issues. It's called freedom of speech. Just because you don't like what that person has to say doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. Granted, what Natalies Maines said was stupid to a degree (because she really wasn't speaking for the people of Texas), she still had the right to say it. And going after her when hundreds of other people have said the same thing is stupid.
You may be confused at this point as to what my views on the war are. Heck, I'm confused on what my views are. It comes down to this:
Any time lives are to be lost, it's bad. I don't like the idea of people dying. War is nasty, horrible business and should only be gone into when all other options have been exhausted.
I think that the US has bungled the War on Terror by going after Saddam. There are other terrorist hotspots on the globe that the international community would have been too glad to clean up: Sudan, the Phillipines. When citizens of a country are terrorized by those terrorists, just because it's a smaller country doesn't mean they're in any less need of help. There were other places that should have been gone to first, while slowly buildig a case against Saddam with more concrete links to Osama Bin Laden. The government really, really needs a smoking gun in order to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations.
I also think the UN has brought this situation on themselves by not being more stringent with their rules and regulations. What good are rules if you don't inforce them? The UN summits have become nothing more than a venue for whining and petty fighting among supposed super powers, while Saddam sits in the corner and laughs while getting away with manufacturing illegal weapons. The UN has not done their job, and therefore they have little leg to stand on when trying to stop the US from going to war.
It all gets muddied by the fact that Saddam *is* breaking international law. They're really good at hiding things, and they get ample warning each time someone goes looking. The fact of the matter is that this situation - the whole lead up to war - has been bungled by everyone except the Iraqi's. They're playing this situation for all it's worth. If everyone else had behaved correctly and made their arguments more concise and *correct*, then there wouldn't be a disagreement.
And I also don't think it's the fault of any one person (save Saddam who pretty much controls all aspects of the Iraqi government). Even in the US there are groups of people that have contributed to the whole fiasco. It's not just Bush, it's not just the UN Security Council, it's not just Tony Blair. There are many people bungling this.
So I'm not really pro-war, but I'm not anti-war either. I recognize that war is inevitable, that most likely it will start tonight or tomorrow. The way I see it, at this point taking a side is moot. It doesn't stop what's going to happen. But observing what is done right and what is done wrong is far more helpful to future generations than sitting on our duffs and just saying that it could have been done differently.
That said, there have been a couple of things lately that have been irritating the hell out of me. So I wanted to get those things said, just so I can move on.
First is the overwhelming belief by the American public that people in the public eye - celebrities - are more qualified than the average American in making assessments about the whole situation with Iraq and the impending war. There seems to be an effort to raise up the Hollywood celebrities who are anti-war (and gosh golly gee, who didn't see it coming that they would be anti-war when the vast majority of Hollywood celebrities were quite vocal in their dislike for Bush back during the elections?) and make them the "spokesmen for the people." *groan* Come on folks, they aren't any more or less qualified to walk around with a picket sign than Joe Schmoe who lives on 53rd and Main. Just because Martin Sheen plays the president on TV doesn't mean he has a politicians knowledge of what's right or wrong. He's a celebrity. But the media has decided to make them into the voice of the people, and it irritates the hell out of me.
Then there's the flip side of the coin. Country music is a conservative medium. We may have our drinkin' and cheatin', but we're a conservative bunch. Well, the country medium is taking this level of conservativism to an absurd level. Deifying Darryl Worley and vilifying the Dixie Chicks because of their views. (In case you have no clue what the issues is with those folks, Darryl Worley wrote a song that's pro-war and the Chicks' lead singer blasted Bush at a concert. Worley is getting tons of airplay for his song and the Chicks' CDs are being bulldozed - and no, I'm not kidding. A protest was organized in which they ran over their CDs with a bulldozer.)
Look folks, it's one thing when celebrities claim to be the voice of the people. That's stupid, because they're not. They're the voice of them. I have my own voice thank you, and I'll express my views my way. But they're also allowed to air their issues. It's called freedom of speech. Just because you don't like what that person has to say doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. Granted, what Natalies Maines said was stupid to a degree (because she really wasn't speaking for the people of Texas), she still had the right to say it. And going after her when hundreds of other people have said the same thing is stupid.
You may be confused at this point as to what my views on the war are. Heck, I'm confused on what my views are. It comes down to this:
Any time lives are to be lost, it's bad. I don't like the idea of people dying. War is nasty, horrible business and should only be gone into when all other options have been exhausted.
I think that the US has bungled the War on Terror by going after Saddam. There are other terrorist hotspots on the globe that the international community would have been too glad to clean up: Sudan, the Phillipines. When citizens of a country are terrorized by those terrorists, just because it's a smaller country doesn't mean they're in any less need of help. There were other places that should have been gone to first, while slowly buildig a case against Saddam with more concrete links to Osama Bin Laden. The government really, really needs a smoking gun in order to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations.
I also think the UN has brought this situation on themselves by not being more stringent with their rules and regulations. What good are rules if you don't inforce them? The UN summits have become nothing more than a venue for whining and petty fighting among supposed super powers, while Saddam sits in the corner and laughs while getting away with manufacturing illegal weapons. The UN has not done their job, and therefore they have little leg to stand on when trying to stop the US from going to war.
It all gets muddied by the fact that Saddam *is* breaking international law. They're really good at hiding things, and they get ample warning each time someone goes looking. The fact of the matter is that this situation - the whole lead up to war - has been bungled by everyone except the Iraqi's. They're playing this situation for all it's worth. If everyone else had behaved correctly and made their arguments more concise and *correct*, then there wouldn't be a disagreement.
And I also don't think it's the fault of any one person (save Saddam who pretty much controls all aspects of the Iraqi government). Even in the US there are groups of people that have contributed to the whole fiasco. It's not just Bush, it's not just the UN Security Council, it's not just Tony Blair. There are many people bungling this.
So I'm not really pro-war, but I'm not anti-war either. I recognize that war is inevitable, that most likely it will start tonight or tomorrow. The way I see it, at this point taking a side is moot. It doesn't stop what's going to happen. But observing what is done right and what is done wrong is far more helpful to future generations than sitting on our duffs and just saying that it could have been done differently.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
