Oh, nonsense. That’s like saying that if someone tries to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge and you buy it only one of you is guilty of anything.
The flaws, inconsistencies, illogic and nonsequiturs in the Iraq invasion proposal were plainly obvious for anyone who cared to look. Outside the US people who had a lot less insight into our leadership than [we] Americans... [knew that the invasion of Iraq] was stupid by a wide majority.
The American People are the ones who are responsible for this debacle. Not only did they elect (and RE-elect) the clowns that devised this, but they supported the invasion by a wide margin. It is fitting and right that they should suffer the consequences on this. If anyone should be impeached it should be the American voters.
Are you to blame for the mess in Iraq? Are you a member of the guilty public? I notice some striking similarities between the blog post above, and the character V’s public address below:
Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.
What do you see when you look into V’s mirror? Do you find the guilty, as both the blogger on Open Source and V suggest?
6 comments:
I agree completely. Blaming the Iraq war on the administration is just like blaming Mcdonalds for obesity. It is the people's choice, they are the ones who control what they eat and who they war. Clearly this man knows what he's talking about.....
...OF COURSE I DON'T agree. That logic is complete and utter bullocks. Twisted thinking like that is the reason an American can't travel abroad without being the subject of overt hostility. Though government misdoings (And in some cases, outright evil) may seem obvious and disgusting to us self proclaimed "intellectuals and freethinkers", the standards by which we trust our government are not as high above the normies as we would like to think.
When presented with such gross excesses and authoritative lies as our average american is, it will always be in the best interest of every hard workin', tough survivin' man and woman to turn off their reason and accept it. If in the 1950's a Pakistani buisnessman started a McHumus, today Pakistan would have the highest obesity rates in the world.
In this way, we are just unlucky(To which a honest hard working american would become most offended...informing me of the real truth of just how lucky we are)......But surriously, we're over the hump, tired and weak from commercials that are louder than the program and EDTA....sedated if you will and far too weak to make world decisions. Our logic was (and I think still is), is that that is why we have a government, so it can take care of all our problems for us.
And in this way, government tends to be very, very lucky. When even those who don't trust Big Cousin can't be bothered to do anything about it, the government can do whatever it wants.. A generally trusting, weak, and let's face it, stupid public won't raise an eyebrow of dissent if the government tells it a country is an imminent threat. We will probably never know the all of the motives our "Administration" had for invading Iraq, that can be left to bespectackled historians and pimply conspiracy theorists.. But it would not be the nature of any nationality of people to argue with their government if they are told that another country poses a direct threat...especially if that population is still hot and bothered over an awful attack that happened.
I didn't believe that we should have gone to Iraq. But I was 13. My opinion meant less then than it does now..I still disagree with it, and don't trust the government in the least, even though I have no choice. Though slightly grown out of it, my early days as a pimply conspiracy theorist will stay with me forever.
And so, that is my opinion. Ultimately, the government can do whatever they want. And I do mean "They" as a single unified force. Though our government is populated by different powers and opinions, the actions that come from our government are coherent and fairly consisten in their nature. I have no issue using the word "they".
They do what they want, and if the people get outraged (as they did this last election), they will elect a new government to do whatever it wants. Much like the masons (Which every man in our government is, SHHHHHH), this CEO quasi-democracy we have is something no one of us could understand unless we were a part of it. But because we have become so separate from this government, they can lie and finagle their way into anything. The people of this government are very comfortable with this position, because the farther they are from us, the more effectively they can make us run the way THEY see fit.
YES. I believe the American population is a stupid one, but not inexcusably so. "The People" are a blank canvas, and unfortuantely we are being slathered in paint by an ignorant and narcissistic painter. We're fat, tired, and very, very high on FREEDOM...and until someone or something inherently good can lie and finagle it's way into a position to tell us what to do RIGHT, American will continue to be Rome version 2.0
A raving and drooling post to say the least. sorry if my opinions come off as ranting...and stupid. Though I'm loathe to actually read what I wrote, I think it's a pretty fair representation of what I feel...take what you can.
"...I have no choice..."
Isn't that a choice in and of itself... a choice in perspective... a perspective that leads to inaction... which may be the most devastating and tragic choice a man can make?
My buddy Kierkegaard writes, "My either/or does not in the first instance denote the choice between good and evil; it denotes the choice whereby one chooses good AND evil / or excludes them [both]. Here the question is under what determinants one would contemplate the whole of existence and would himself live....for the aesthetical is not evil, but neutrality....It is, therefore, not so much a question of choosing between willing the good OR the evil, as of choosing to will..."
CHOOSE! Choose to will! And even if you choose not to, beware that your choice-defined-by-negation is exactly the "silent, obedient consent" that V warns us about... the silent, obedient consent that empowers governments... the governments that you seem to argue we are powerless against...
I think you misinterpereted what I meant in those four words. Allow me to better explain.
I meant I have no choice but to trust the government in the several aspects of my life that they control. I have to trust that they decide to let me live, I have to trust that my utilities are kept running and life giving.. I have to trust that my government wont decide to take me away in my sleep. If I live in a land where I am being watched, I shouldn't be able to live or sleep in this land unless I place trust on these higher, malevolent powers.
Certainly if any of these matters of trust are breached, there would be little I could do about it, because I very well could be dead.
I think government has gone far out of control of the populace. Even when "the voters" choose a different group of people to lead them, like the arcade game asteroids, the little ship just flies uncontrollably in another direction. (much the same way I think that technology and progress has grown out of control.. For a bipolar and someimes violently unpredictable kid, my ideas are awfully consistent!)
We aren not the guilty public, nor are we NOT the guilty public because we are children, and no matter what someone tells me; my congressman's secretary is not going to forward my letter to him, my senator doesn't care about toxic waste dumps into a nearby stream, and Mr. President will put me off as just that: a child. The chance of me getting effectively involved with the political process, in my opinion, is slim. That's why I stick to music. But I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise!
Ian,
It’s hard to express just how much I enjoy reading your “drooling posts.” I tend to write with more feeling every time I sit down at the computer, and while it may not have that clean sheen of sterile rationalism that we revere like surgical steal, I find that writing as a “representation of what I feel” helps me discover more of who I am, and what it means to be human. At least that’s me.
Anyway, thanks for explaining what I misunderstood… trust is a tricky thing, and I never quite appreciated how tricky it is until last year, when Annie suggested it as one of our topics.
I wonder, if you might also explain what you mean by your several statements about being ‘lucky.’ After a few rereadings, I’m beginning to wonder if you are implying some sort of fatalism-mixed-with-quantum-mechanics-type irresponsibility for outcomes: some people get lucky, and good for them; others are unlucky and are damned… to be pitied, but not to be held accountable.
John,
Although I’m feeling wicked old as of late (31), I think I can still empathize with the negative-weight that being—or being labeled—a ‘mere child’ carries… it’s almost like adults view each child (<18) as a bowlegged little chap in knickers, with sticky fingers, sucking his lolly, and holding a helium balloon… a balloon of youthful lightness and insignificance that lifts him up off the ground of this earth that ‘we adults’ are only worthy to walk on, till, farm, and throw at each other… the ‘real world’ that we always imply that we are preparing you for, and therefore, you are not YET apart of. And the irony is that, when such a ‘child’ turns 18, and we declare him/her an adult, what is the first thing that we do? Do we say, “Welcome to adult hood, we’re finally ready to hear what you have to say?” NO. Instead we say, “My, you’ve matured… you’re like a 45day-old chicken, prime for the pickings, ready to die defending the rest of us… welcome to the military!” Sickening. If I’m misunderstanding you (as I did Ian), please correct me.
You wrote, “The chance of me getting effectively involved with the political process, in my opinion, is slim…But I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise!” I appreciate that although the door is nearly closed, you recognize that sliver of light between the door and jam, that slim chance of penetration and involvement in the other side. I’m not sure that anyone will be able to entirely convince you otherwise… rather, someone may be able to give you the means by which you ultimately convince yourself… or at least take the final step to do so. With that said, let me offer this provocative challenge, which I hope does not come off as too abrasive:
Does accepting the impotent label, “I am just a child” put one into the company of those before us, who limply accepted their own political internments for being ‘just a black man’ or ‘just a woman’ or ‘just an outsider’…?
It is exactly that, and kids actually are 'rebelling' all the time, and trying to stick up for themselves. I can do many things. But I was just answering in the context of: Could I be held responsible for sending and army off to war?
And the answer is, there is no possible way I could have ever prevented that, at least with the knowledge I had, which is the knowledge that everyone else who bothered to look knew.
But in other aspects, I believe we're breaking away from that all the time.
I can't wait for a post-apocalyptical Children of the Corn-esque parade through the streets. It'll be great. But I've been keeping up on all the 'hip' intarweb blogs, and I don't forsee that happening soon.
Post a Comment