Christen Dybenkos last blog post..My WordCamp Notes: SEO for blogs

I have to agree with Bill Clinton on this one. Iraq was not the biggest threat to U.S. safety, and he told the Bush administration this upfront before they started.

In regards to information, there are movements within the Muslim world to overturn fascist regimes. Empowering these movements that are created by those who understand the landscape the best is more effective than bombing the entire landscape. Much of the “collateral” in the Iraq war were innocent civilians. This is wrong, and certainly doesn’t help us when it is broadcast on Al-Jazeera.

Good piece. I’ve got a few points I want to explore more, but I gotta say, I like your message about information and knowledge making a difference.

First, I doubt the idea that people “don’t want us there anyway” is as clear cut and black and white as you think. Yes, I believe firmly that Iraqi people want us out of their nation. I don’t think they want us gone in an instant nor do I believe a good many of them wanted us to have never been there. It’s a point that has been argued for five years and will continue to be argued for years to come. Leaving the question of should we have gone into Iraq aside, the question of people not wanting us there underscores an argument of yours that we’d have been able to give out microloans in Iraq instead of spending the piles of money it’s taking to fight the war and rebuild the nation.

Money was given to Iraq time and again and hand over fist prior to our invasion. That money didn’t do anything to change the political or socio-economic situation there. Removing the totalitarian regime did and progress can be seen in the number of provinces now under Iraqi control, the amount of foreign money flowing into the Kurdish regions, and the profits being made by the Iraqis from oil sales. Looking at Iraq 6 years ago and Iraq today is like looking at a brick wall and a picket gate. One can be opened, allowing for a free flow of ideas and commerce and the other allows nothing to pass.

Another question I’ve got is that you mention bombs being used prematurely and then unilaterally. Those aren’t the only two instance where bombs, or violence overall, could be used. What about a reactionary use? Staying with the military theme, a nation attacks another nation. Generally, the nation that got attacked fights back. Add layer of politics and debate to it, and people in the nation originally attacked ask questions about why it happened. If those people are free to criticise their government, they might ask why nothing, or enough, was done to prevent the attack. “What did they know and when did they know it,” so to say. Another question that could be asked would be “If we thought something would happen, why didn’t we do something about it and prevent it from happening.”

This is the preemptive use of violence, or bombs. It’s, in my opinion, the most dangerous use of bombs because all too often, those outside of the decision-making process react with uncertainty about the decision. And in a cynical age, that’s bound to lead to criticism and anger about those who decided to act.

OK, enough with those points. I absolutely believe that a greater exposure to information and knowledge will undermine fascist rule around the world. That information, though, has to be able to reach the peoples under oppression. How is that achieved? That’s always a harder question.

Cheers!

What is change to me?

Staying in Motion and using your Heart as your Compass…

~ Alex from Our Evolution

Alexander M Zoltais last blog post..Rationale for This Blog