I wish that I could articulate an opinion one way or another in this situation, but I don't think that my say is accurately represented by saying I'm anti-war or pro-war. The situation is just not clear enough as to who's holding what in their hand. It certainly seems to me that the current administration is war-mongering, but it's a little hard for me to know that they are when they claim there are legitimate concerns to international welfare. And it's especially tricky to claim to be anti-war because, in general, I don't believe that it's possible to be anti-war as a nation without making shady political deals. And being anti-war now would lump me in with most of the US protesters (I make no claims about the rest of the world) who are using this as an excuse to protest a lot more things than just American bully tactics.
What I feel is really happening, is that governments are still being run in an out-dated fashion. One in which communication is believed to be slow. Most governments know that information is not slow, though, so they cannot divulge sensitive information because news travels too quickly. I'm also unsure of the status of a "nation" in terms of modern communication. We are not separated by more than a few minutes from any other person in the entire world. Thus nations no longer appear to act as governments as much as political associates entailing mostly business and armory transactions. This, in turn, leads to the belief that the war is strictly over oil, which I would warrant is a large concern but not the primary reason that the Bush administration is pushing for action and a gross over-exaggeration. We are still at peace with most of the other oil-producing nations and certainly will protect these "assets" to the best of our ability. This argument reminds me of the protests that the Afghanistan purge of the Taliban was only for oil.
All of this is complicated by the agendas of media agents around the world. The biases in each of these outlets are just as bad as any bias found in the American media thus the "facts" being uncovered by foreign press can be as ludicrously misleading. As such, I do find it odd that foreign press is believed more trust-worthy when it comes to delivering dirty information about America than American media. Naturally, this is because as Americans most people believe that unless we are hated by a region of the world, the coverage of our doings will be more even-handed.
Anyway, I don't want to get too preachy about what's wrong with politics and media. I still find it hard to take a side on the current war because I feel we are being left in the dark and almost any argument on either side of the issue can be countered with conjectures because that's all we have. There are very few facts to go off and I have no idea how trust-worthy are any of the characters involved in this whole debacle. The one I would like to believe the most would be Hans Blix, but then again I have no idea the history of this man and what his past actions and beliefs have been. Even as such, he hasn't really provided any information to either side of the debate because he's found very little (which the anti-war group latches onto) but believes that there is something hidden (which the pro-war group latches onto).
Thus, I am caught at a road where I do not feel that I could choose either side. I'd like peace, I predict war. I don't like the oppressiveness and out-and-out lies of Saddam, I don't know of a resolution to the situation without violence (either by an outside force like the US, which I don't necessarily agree with, or an internal revolution). I don't want to put my own life on the line to settle an international dispute whose details are intangible, I don't want to be involved with a country which stays away from foreign contact. Mostly, I'm just ready for this quarter to be over.
no subject
What I feel is really happening, is that governments are still being run in an out-dated fashion. One in which communication is believed to be slow. Most governments know that information is not slow, though, so they cannot divulge sensitive information because news travels too quickly. I'm also unsure of the status of a "nation" in terms of modern communication. We are not separated by more than a few minutes from any other person in the entire world. Thus nations no longer appear to act as governments as much as political associates entailing mostly business and armory transactions. This, in turn, leads to the belief that the war is strictly over oil, which I would warrant is a large concern but not the primary reason that the Bush administration is pushing for action and a gross over-exaggeration. We are still at peace with most of the other oil-producing nations and certainly will protect these "assets" to the best of our ability. This argument reminds me of the protests that the Afghanistan purge of the Taliban was only for oil.
All of this is complicated by the agendas of media agents around the world. The biases in each of these outlets are just as bad as any bias found in the American media thus the "facts" being uncovered by foreign press can be as ludicrously misleading. As such, I do find it odd that foreign press is believed more trust-worthy when it comes to delivering dirty information about America than American media. Naturally, this is because as Americans most people believe that unless we are hated by a region of the world, the coverage of our doings will be more even-handed.
Anyway, I don't want to get too preachy about what's wrong with politics and media. I still find it hard to take a side on the current war because I feel we are being left in the dark and almost any argument on either side of the issue can be countered with conjectures because that's all we have. There are very few facts to go off and I have no idea how trust-worthy are any of the characters involved in this whole debacle. The one I would like to believe the most would be Hans Blix, but then again I have no idea the history of this man and what his past actions and beliefs have been. Even as such, he hasn't really provided any information to either side of the debate because he's found very little (which the anti-war group latches onto) but believes that there is something hidden (which the pro-war group latches onto).
Thus, I am caught at a road where I do not feel that I could choose either side. I'd like peace, I predict war. I don't like the oppressiveness and out-and-out lies of Saddam, I don't know of a resolution to the situation without violence (either by an outside force like the US, which I don't necessarily agree with, or an internal revolution). I don't want to put my own life on the line to settle an international dispute whose details are intangible, I don't want to be involved with a country which stays away from foreign contact. Mostly, I'm just ready for this quarter to be over.