Music against war, and other tales of peace
March 12, 2003 - 6:18am — bmann
The Beastie Boys are offering a free download, "In a World Gone Mad":
"This song is not an anti-American or pro-Saddam Hussein statement. This is a statement against an unjustified war."
- Adam Horovitz
The second tale of peace is a plan to beg the Pope to go to Baghdad to act as the "ultimate human shield". Deepak Chopra has already agreed, calling on the Dalai Lama and the Pope to join him.
(both via BoingBoing
Postings and comments are owned by their authors. What Boris says here doesn't necessarily apply anywhere else. You can subscribe by email if RSS isn't your bag, baby.
Comments
Another viewpoint...
I'm also against war, but other than for an overarching belief that war should be avoided, and a nagging feeling that the US is doing it for selfish reasons I haven't given much thought as to why I'm against it.
Saw this letter today however, but haven't had a chance to fully read it: Rania Kashi's Letter It's from the pro-"Invasion" perspective, authored by an "exiled" (though not really her - her parents) Iraqi.
A battle of principles.
This whole war on Iraq thus seems a war of principles after reading this girl's letter. I seriously wonder some times of the racial under-currents present in the US government's actions.
Hence, my opposition to the war in Iraq is an opposition to US foreign policy, a term becoming overused these days, but it is very true. A lot of people laugh when protesters demand an end to the "racist war", and I am wondering if there is more underground and historical knowledge present in those messages than I thought previously.
So I oppose the US regime pushing for wars and installing democracy that they clearly control.
On the other hand, it's no secret what Saddam does. He ordered the deliberate burning of the oil machines in Kuwait, causing one of the most horrific environmental disasters ever. That is a man that deserves to spend a long, long time in prison. So ultimately, something must be done about Saddam Hussein, but I whole-heartedly oppose a US-led war. The US military are a bunch of cowards. They are not willing to stand behind their principles. I have yet to see any positive results in major US-led wars with the exception of WW2. Veterans of these wars come back with all sorts of mysterious ailments, some dying several months later after a slow degeneration. I do not wish that sort of pawn-like death to anyone.
So it comes down to a battle of lesser evils. Do we keep the Stalin of the South in power, or do we support the US mandate for a global police service, and at the same time continue to stand behind a guy who has started more turmoil in his half-term than any other US president?
There must be two messages - we want Saddam out. We don't want any more push from the US for conflict during Bush's time unless there is an undeniable mandate, such as genocide or any other threat to peoples. This war on Iraq was a complete surprise for me. One minute it was Afghanistan and the failure of the US to find Bin Laden, and the next Bush's agents began saying Saddam would be next. It seems that's the only way he knows how to conduct foreign policy - at gunpoint.
Lesser evil?
I personally am completely opposed to any war on Iraq to get rid of Saddam. However, if the there is a Veto of the US push in the UN, I have little doubt the sanctions on food and other goods will remain. So the question then becomes - will more people die in the war, or if there is no war and the sanctions continue?
I see this Deepak guy also says that Iraq should be given a Middle Eastern Disneyland and access to MTV to basically import American culture, thus neutralizing any chance young Iraqis will feel hatred towards the US. As for the Pope going to Iraq, I think that, and MidEast Disneyland kinda tells me that this Deepak guy is a few marbles short of a game.