Thoughts on response to 9/11

[ironphoenix]

I'm saddened that a nation whose anthem calls it "the land of the free and the home of the brave" has been made so fearful by so little, that it has sacrificed the freedoms which it defended so ardently for so long against so much.

Yes, little. How many died in the War of Independence? How many in the American Civil War? How many in the First and Second World Wars? How many struggled and sacrificed and died for the freedom of Blacks, of women, of homosexuals? Today, it seems that America is all about preserving the safe and wealthy lifestlye of middle- and upper-class Americans, and if that means making a gated community which extends from sea to shining sea, then that's what they'll do.

Coming back to the matter of anthems, we sing that "we stand on guard for" "Canada, glorious and free." When the terrorists strike here, will we stand our ground and hold to the ideals which we have preached? Or will we gloriously hide like scared rabbits, joining our Southern neighbors in their bunker?

We, as citizens of free countries, are combattants in the eyes of oppressors, and they're right. What's wrong is that we shy away from the personal sacrifices that may mean, and sacrifice instead the things which make our nations worthwhile. Oppressors should see our existence as a threat: if oppressed people find out just what they could have, maybe they'll stop consenting to be oppressed, and long-overdue changes will come about. Instead of setting an example and offering a helping hand to all who would accept it though, we make ourselves into oppressors, both at home and abroad.

Comments

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Well, I have my own opinions on the reasons for and against us being there are, and what the real reason we're there is:

• We should be there because the Taliban is attempting to impose a regime which is not supported by, nor in the best interests of, the majority of Afghan people. Leaving them to their fate would probably mean a reversion to the law of the jungle and a lot of killing and oppression, and it would be irresponsible to wash our hands of that.


• We shouldn't be there because they, the people of Afghanistan, must develop an independently stable country. Making a Canadian protectorate out of it isn't what they want, and I don't think it would be in Canada's best interests either. I don't know that we have an exit strategy which leaes a stable country behind us, and lacking that, I feel that we are at best giving them time to come up with a viable plan.


• We're really there because the U.S.A. "asked" us to go there, and it would have been politically inexpedient for us to refuse. We expended a fair bit of our diplomatic capital in that relationship by refusing to join in the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan mission was constructed as a way of freeing US troops for Afghanistan (thus effectively helping them go into Iraq) while maintaining the appearance of being strong conscientious objectors.

All of these are serious issues. Frankly, on balance, if I were the PM, I would keep our troops there, but it would keep me up at night.

[ancalagon-tb.livejournal.com]

I think I too would keep the troops there - and I completely agree with you on the "real" reason for being there. I'm still not at ease with that - historicaly americans have been our allies, but recently I'm not very confortable with that state of being. But then again, real politik - I don't think we can afford NOT to be.

Rex' message was adressed to our leaders I believe

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Precisely. Realpolitik, and also realekonomik. What has been negotiated is an option which, while unpalatable, won't cause catastrophic indigeestion.