Several things.
There is a difference between encouraging and castigation for lack of progress (along your path).
Even speaking your mind can change the things, small actions have had many and varied consequences, small actions have had large consequences. And an idea in the right place at the right time can change the world.
Surely not everybody is Martin Luther King Jr though, right?
Should we really expect them to be?
Surely, for some people, leaving their home, carrying a sign that maybe nobody will even see, and at least trying to make yourself heard is, in and of itself, valuable?
Not everybody can be Moses.
Likewise, not everybody can be one of the founding fathers. Not everybody even wants to be, and I’d hope that too is okay, right?
Should we say that anybody who doesn’t go as far as Ghandi is a wimp?
From your point of view and your paradigm.
A writer, for example, probably would not agree.
Thank Goddess that we’ve got people who’ll take an active hand out of their own free will. But, I’d think, we can also be thankful that people choose their own paths to their own goals, out of their own free will. Right?
Sometimes.
Sometimes it’s more about empowerment, however slight, than warm and fuzzy.
Sometimes there are vietenimese monks who make the entire world pause for an instant.
Sometimes people just watch tv.
It sounds like you are upset that more people don’t feel as you do.
And that’s understandable.
But try to remember, if I may be so bold, that somone has just as much a right to be satisfied with shouting slogans that nobody will hear as you do to be dissatisfied with shouting slogans that nobody will hear.
But we were all upset that we might be denied US government contracts in the reconstruction remember? We’re already in Iraq.
This was dated 2004-04-29 well before the re-election or this visit. We’ve enough resources to string ourselves along in Afghanistan, Haiti, and the Sudan apparently. Training of police officers outside of Iraq hardly stretches us, makes us a target or a Bush lackey.
Personally I’m torn on this, but by providing police training to Iraq in an attempt to prevent suffering and help establish indigenous rule of law seems worth the odious association with the Bush administration.
I just sat back and enjoyed your post, but you missed the gist of mine. It’s not that there is ‘nothing you can do’, its that thousands chose to do something abosulutely useless.
Brutus, that’s the point; even if Bush doesn’t listen, even if the leaders go ahead and do something in spite of the voiced opinion of the majority–especially if they go ahead without listening to their voters. As a democracy, we can kick up a fuss and show them we, the people they’re supposed to represent, sure as hell don’t like what they’re doing and don’t have confidence in that aspect of their leadership; protests change people’s minds, protests influence votes. That’s why it’s not useless.
Gah.
Who gets to decide this use?
How can you possibly seek to tell others what use they should make of their time on earth?
Your only valid criticism would be procedural; if you could find out individual motives and had constructive criticism as to how each individual could meet their goal.
And you still wouldn’t be able to pass judegement on the use of their time.
Even an ‘inefficent’ life ends at the end.
Far better to end it having lived the way you chose rather than staying home because someone else found it useless.
Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner in the “revealing comment” sweepstakes!
Sadly, I think this is true of far too many; politics have become less about actually grappling for solutions to the world’s multitude of ills, and more about finding some cause or “movement” to attach oneself to in search of personal validation.
Wooh-boy, time for you to get back on your meds, review my posts, and tone it down a bit.
It might be a bit of a surprise to you, but Canada said no to involvement in Iraq, so enough of this minority nonsense. The degree to which we may become involved, and the way we may become involved, remain to be decided (I heard something about contributing $3,000,000 to rebuilding, but did not hear any details).
Of course I do not want to see democracy fail in Iraq. That’s a no-brainer. I challenge you to find my ever stating that I want to see democracy fail in Iraq. Go on, back up your accusation with a cite. Don’t just rant without proof.
If you believe that Canada not getting involved will “risk sending 25 million people into the shitter”, then by implication that means that the USA left to its own ends will send 25 million people into the shitter. You might wish to re-think your point on this one.
As far as Canada being able to make significant efforts in several nations at once, you grossly over estimate or capabilities. Dig around for some threads on the state of Canada’s military. You still have not addressed how Canada can significantly contribute to Iraq without lessening equally valuable contributions in other nations.
I’ll make it really simple for you. Let’s consider Afghanistan. We can assist in Afghanistan, which was (and is) a terrorist stronghold, and which needs stability through peacekeeping efforts, or we can assist in Iraq, which was not and is not a terrorist stonghold, but due to the USA’s invasion, has turned into a quagmire and is turning people in the region against the USA. If it were a matter of only one or the other, then there is a pretty obvious answer. Try to make a difference in Afghanistan, and keep clear of Iraq. Any combination of the two will reduce our efforts in Afghanistan and other nations.
Or to put it in your histrionic terms, should we deny Afghanistan the assistance it requires to save its people from going down the shitter? Or any of the other nations where we intervene: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/peacekeeping/missions-en.asp ?
Finally, through its invasion and occupation of Iraq, the USA has done a masterful job at increasing terrorism in the world. It would be rather silly to associate Canada with this, first because it increases the risk of attacks against Canadians, and second, because peace keeping requires the peace keeper to have moral authority. That is something that the USA does not have, and in fact Bush is trying to garner through this meeting. If we tie our efforts too closely with the USA, it will reduce our effectiveness as peacekeepers.
Just because Bush has asked us to get involved in Iraq does not mean that we should get involved in Iraq, any more than prior to the invasion we should have signed on simply because Bush asked. It is not in our best interests to get involved, and whether or not we get involved will make no difference to the Iraqis, for the USA is running the show and has the resources to do whatever it decides regardless of any Canadian contribution.
And as far as Bush making the request in good faith goes, that’s a crock. This is the same fellow who early on decreed that contracts concerning the rebuilding of Iraq would not go to nations that did not assist in the USA-Iraq war. This is White House that had its ambassador tell us that there was disappointment in Washington that Canada was not supporting the USA’s war with Iraq fully, and that security will trump trade, which in my books was a veiled threat.
Martin will do what he can to build good relations with the USA, and the Bush visit, albeit delayed for many years, is intended to help this. But Martin will not do this at the expense of Canada’s best interests. The protests, which have led the news in Canada, will help keep him and our parliamentarians focused on our best interests, which may mean some bending to Bush- perhaps assisting in some token way, but ultimately will mean keeping us from becoming bogged down in Bush’s war.
As far as training a few Iraqis goes, it should not get us bogged down, but by the same token it will not make a significant difference. Therefore, my personal preference is that we place our efforts elsewhere where they will be equally valuable, but will not have the downside of putting us in bed with the USA concerning Iraq.
That you take this to mean that I do not want democracy in Iraq, and that I am relegating 25 million people to the shitter, is unfortunate, but there is little I can do to help you with your historionics. You will have to deal with your own problems yourself.
Protesting is just another social event for the left. They just LOVE to protest. It hardly matter what it is. Protesting an invasion? Sure! Let me grab my FREE MUMIA! sign, and I’ll be right there! What are we protesting next week? The WTO? Great! Trade is sorta capitalist, right? Can I bring along my FREE TIBET! sign?
Where else can you party down and build up a good head of sanctimony at the same time? It’s the new Woodstock for the Birkenstock crowd.
Too bad their turnout sucked so badly, though. It’s hard to get up to full steam with the righteous indignation and the screaming and the glavin when there’s not enough of you there to support a pretzel stand.
Sometimes it just sucks to be a radical.
BTW, here’s one Canadian who thinks that Canada most definitely should contribute training and peacekeepers. It IS what we’re good at, and it’s for a damned good cause. Regardless of how Iraq got to the situation it’s in today, it’s to everyone’s best interest, most especially the Iraqis, for Democracy to take hold. Even if it means (gulp) that George Bush gets a ‘win’ in his column.
To the first, I would point out that Bush tied nation building to war. Insisting that we destroy a nation before being able to participate fully in helping a nation rubs me the wrong way. If the American concern was truly for the well-being of the Iraqi people, then they would have brought in the best parties for the job of reconstruction, but they chose instead to use the economics of reconstruction to try to strong-arm nations into a needless war that they opposed.
To the second, I am concerned that we string ourselves out. I would rather focus our resources more. I won’t have conniptions if we end up training some Iraqis, but I would rather if we put our efforts at doing a better job where we are already involved.
America, fuck yeah!
Er, I mean, exercising your patriotic right and responsibility to make your voice heard and protest war when you view it as amoral, fuck yeah!
Note to self: justice is now off of The Agenda, The Right is onto Us.
Nobody is allowed to want other paradigms, systems of government, economic systems, and everybody is just there because it’s a social scene. Check.
Ho ho, aint that a kneeslapper?!?
Them dirty hippies actually want to free a country from the jackbooted rule of a tyranical regime. Certainly nobody on the right has used such logic to sell a war? (after all the other ‘reasons’ evaporated)
I’m sorry, how does a softcore porn site relate to the discussion at hand?
Awwww, no sanctimony in your hippie bashing. Good clean factual reporting, I reckon.
(by the way, you really don’t know what you’re missing Us over on The Left bring a keg down, roast a pig, oh man, protests are a fucking party!)
Note to self, check for agreement before holding and/or acting on convictions.
But, without them, where would imaginary numbers be???
Agreed. Now, why ever might there be a need for emergency training of Iraqi police officers away from Iraq where they’d be blown up… I dunno, never mind, I’m sleepy.
Hah!
That’s like running up behind someone, bashing their head in with a brick, watching as they start to bleed on the sidewalk, and then you try to change the topic of conversation to the weather.
See, the thing people were protesting against? It’s what’s happening now in Iraq.
Funny, that.
At the barrel of a gun.
And not any of those ‘religious fundementalist’ wackos either.
And not someone who’s hostile to our interests.
I think the idea that anything about Iraq can be considered a ‘win’ for Bush is kinda wacky.
You don’t get a medal to the guy who fucks up royally, but manages to salvage a tiny shred of value.
You said that “You guys should really take a look at the people showing up, it’s hardly hippies and drumheads”, and yet the first picture on the first link on cnn I find about the protest, features hippies, front and center. That’s all.
I am shocked at the level of your wilful ignorance!
Why, if we didn’t give a shit about them, would we have protected their museums and cultural sites in the wake of our invasion? Would we have gotten the electricity and water back on before we got the oil working? Would we have made sure of the sociocultural dynamic so that we would stay only as long as we were wanted and only fulfill the role the local populace wanted? Would we have !!!, oh, wait, um, never mind.