long day

[athene]

i'm so glad that my weekend starts in 1.5 hours. I am so drained. everyone at work keeps commenting on how tired i look. i think it's because I'm so worried about everything.

I watch the news or cnn.com/foxnews.com and I hear the bombs going off and I read about American troups distroying Armored Carrier Vehicals and I cry. I cry because there is a loss of life. I know that Saddam has done aweful things. But somehow I just don't think we should have gotten involved in this way. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I just don't understand it. And yet I still feel safe here in America. There hasn't been any war on the mainland US for what? 100 years or something? I wonder if the war came here or if there had been wars here recently (not just 9-11, which wasn't a war) if people would feel differently about this war. It just bothers me so much and worries me. But if I feel safe, I don't know why I worry so.

I've been thinking about how this would compaire to ancient greek/roman times. Probably b/c I'm a classisist and also b/c the war is taking place in what was Persia. I hear on the radio about how Saddam's eldest son has killed his brothers-in-law, or something, and it makes me think of Rome and the sucession to the throne. I also wonder if the US is like the Athenian Empire and Iraq is like Sparta. I guess that's why it makes sense that there were all those readings of Lysistrata. But the problem is that Athens started doing stuff that the rest of the polises didn't like and they lost allies and then lost the war. Somehow i think we'll still "win" whatever "winning" means with or without allies. I just don't know how much we'll be trusted after that. Also the name "Iraqi Freedom" or something just reminds me of how every leader to pop up in Greece claimed to be the "Liborator of the Greeks" who were in Asia Minor (ie, the Middle East). However, as soon as the leader took over the area, he just subjigated the people (no matter what country they belonged to) and then someone else would have to come along to "liberate the greeks". The parallels are just too much. And this is where Nayone reminds me that history repeats itself. It's just doing it this time with large weapons that can kill lots and lots of people from far away..

today at work hasn't been that great either. I had this call that really threw me, but I don't want to write about it now.

At least tomorrow I get to sleep late (unless I want to get up early to watch the repeate of the Buffy Musical on FX at 7am...it's on tonight at 6pm). Then Aerith and I are going to visit Nayone in Providence and go to Fire and Ice and then to see Chicago the movie. On saturday we're bringing Nayone back with us and Munin's going to come over so we can watch more Twin Peaks. Yay!

It's grey out. I wonder if it's raining.

Comments

[rhipowered.livejournal.com]

The last war to occur on mainland America was the American Civil War (1861-1865).
The last wartime attack on American soil was Pearl Harbor (12/9/1941), which occured on American territorial land, though this could be disputed as official, since the land attacked was a US base.

-Your helpful soon-to-be American Studies major

Re:

[athene.livejournal.com]

good to know. i wasn't sure about the Spanish American War.

[ambermoon.livejournal.com]

Yes, history does repeat itself. And there's nothing one can say about Saddam as justification for this war that doesn't turn one into a hypocrite. I love the people who try to tell me that we have a moral obligation to remove him because he's a murderer, because of course we can somehow do that without murdering innocents. I adore how the gov't, through the media, is trying to paint this as "liberating" the Iraqi people, that they actually want this. It's great that no-one's talking about the fact that Iraq wouldn't have serious weapons if we hadn't given them to them. And of course they proved ten years ago that they're so much of a threat to us. We're not even going to mention the effects of the sanctions, which amount to genocide. I don't know that I'd compare this to the Peloponnesian war specifically, but I suppose one could say that all armed conflicts have some similar features. Blood and politics, ever the way of the world.

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

I love the people who try to tell me that we have a moral obligation to remove him because he's a murderer, because of course we can somehow do that without murdering innocents.

Yes, some innocents will be killed, but technology has improved so that there will be a lot fewer innocents killed, and really, how can one justify not acting when Saddam is so cruel? Is it morally better to let him continue to kill and torture his innocent citizens? I know it's a really tough call, that it's so horrible to send people out to kill and die, but it frustrates me that people seem to ignore the fact that innocents are dying in Iraq already, because of Saddam.

I adore how the gov't, through the media, is trying to paint this as "liberating" the Iraqi people, that they actually want this.

There sure as hell are plenty who do want this. Do you want references? 'Cause i'll find them for you.

It's great that no-one's talking about the fact that Iraq wouldn't have serious weapons if we hadn't given them to them. And of course they proved ten years ago that they're so much of a threat to us.

Yes, that's bad, we were wrong. The U.S. fucks up a lot (sadly). Doesn't that give us more of a responsibility to help clean up the mess we helped make?

We're not even going to mention the effects of the sanctions, which amount to genocide.

I totally agree that sanctions are bad. That's a side issue to the war, though, except for the fact that many people argue for containment as an alternative to war and sanctions seem part of containment to me -- though i admit i don't know much about containment, so maybe it can work just fine without sanctions and i have been misinformed.

[ambermoon.livejournal.com]

Nothing I have seen of the actions of the United States gov't gives me any reason to believe keeping civilian casualities to a minimum is a priority of theirs. I will not dispute the atrocity of Saddam's actions, but I do not believe that gives us the right to commit atrocities in turn, which I do not believe will be avoided in this endeavor. A very good friend of mine lived in Saudi Arabia for several years while growing up, and from him I learnt what the US considers military targets: infrastructure, which means highways, factories, warehouses, and other such things; and I learnt what is hidden by the term "collateral damage." I am sure there are some in Iraq who are in favour of this action, just as I am sure that there are many who are not. The Iraqi people will not have control of their country once Saddam is deposed; instead there will be an American occupation. I do not believe the sanctions are a side issue, as I do not understand how we can stand on a moral pedestal and say we are invading to alleviate inhumane conditions in Iraq when some of the most inhuman conditions have been caused by our actions. I do not understand how a gov't can profess to be interested in saving lives when it has already ruined and ended so many lives. I do not believe a theory of "containment" can justify what the sanctions have done. (If you would like more information look up Amnesty Internat'l and Oxfam; they will have facts and figures.) I do not believe the United States has any interest in Iraq other than Middle Eastern oil and jockeying for power on the world stage, and I cannot in conscience support this war.

[steppenwolff.livejournal.com]

for myself, the question comes down to whether he has chemical/biological weapons. Now this is a very vague issue as this has not been verified to the public. but if he does, and he is willing to use them, I think the war is necessary, as he stands to do much more damage than we will, an frankly, I'd rather it was him than me. its a really tough subject to have a firm opinion on, because we are so uncertain. but I believe he has the weapons... I hate war... I really do, but removing a MAN with the power and willingness to use this shit has to be removed for the good of those he would kill in the future. Its not an easy decision to make, based on incomplete info and the distastefulness of war... but I have to trust that is SOME check in our government that would prevent a war based on economic interests or anything short of the reasons I suggested.

[athene.livejournal.com]

but I have to trust that is SOME check in our government that would prevent a war based on economic interests or anything short of the reasons I suggested.

I'm not so sure of that anymore. I mean, Congress was supposed to be the only body that could declare war. But now we can have a "police action" and not have to deal with congress. it seems to me that the scales have been tipped.

[steppenwolff.livejournal.com]

point made... but governmet is constituted by people... all with a multitude of conflicting interests. I trust to their selfishness... we all know thats a good bet.