Since I was a teenager, I've been fascinated with the idea of faith (and yes, I was something of a geeky teen...). At first, it was religious faith that interested me. I couldn't for the life of me understand why otherwise sensible and rational people would live their lives according to a set of principles that evolved over a thousand years ago, the lynchpin of which was a mythical father figure of who's existence there is no proof at all. I wanted to know what drove these people to their conclusion that a particular faith was best suited to them, what made them reject the alternative faiths on offer, and most of all I wanted to know whether these gullible fools would be interested in buying these magic beans I had for sale.
But as time has passed, I've thought about faith a little more (which just goes to show how boring life can be in Newcastle) and I've gradually and belatedly come to realise that faith isn't just limited to religion. We are constantly encouraged to show faith in, for example, our employers who have our best interests at heart, so have faith and don't ask too many questions about why pay rises are heading the same way as the Dodo. Or our government; Tony Blair and Dubya in particular are fond of using their opportunist religious principles to support their calls for us to have faith in them, so don't look too closely at what they're doing because it'll all work out for your benefit, honest. Unsurprisingly, we in the west are now completely cynical about having faith in anything; in general we greet whatever new soul-sapping announcement is guaranteed to make ones life that little bit less enjoyable with black humour and a wry smile. On the plus side, this means that religion no longer has the influence it once did on everyday life. On the down side, it means that we are losing the most important item of faith that we have; faith in ourselves.
Of course, I say that we're losing that aspect of faith; it has never exactly been widespread anyway. If one looks back through history, we've never really been encouraged to have any faith in ourselves as individuals. It has always suited whoever was on the top of the social heap to make us think that, in order to make anything out of our lives, we would need to rely on those in charge. The message has always been "Trust in your leaders, because if you don't then the world will turn to sloppy dogshit". We're indoctrinated with that belief and have been since the dawn of civilisation. Because of that, it is a very special person indeed who has enough faith in himself or herself to take chances in their life and follow a different path from the norm. And, human nature being what it is, those rare and precious few invariably take up a position in what could loosely be termed the ruling classes of society and become part of the same system that tries to keep people down.
Now, I'm not enough of an anarchist to follow this train of thought through to the conclusion "We need no leaders if we all have faith in ourselves". Frankly, although I think the idea that we could live in a world without leaders is a lovely one, human nature being what it is, we'd almost certainly find ourselves in a situation that closely resembled hell on earth. But on the other hand (and this is a very naive thing to say), surely having large numbers of self-confident people who are willing to think for themselves is good for society as a whole? How can it profit a government to keep the population timid and meek, accepting of their lot in life no matter how indifferent it may be?
The obvious answer is, of course, because the ruling classes are not interested in anyone other than themselves. The general populace needs to be kept fearful and paranoid in order to keep them in power? No problem; just look at the constant propaganda we see in the media telling us to be afraid of bombs and of evil terrorists. Look at the Anthrax scare in America ("No, please no! Not anthrax!! Not the disease that is easily curable by anti-biotics!! Nooooooooo!!!"), or the pointless evacuation exercise that took place in London last weekend. We would seem to faced with a contradiction; the people we elect to power to serve our interests will gladly sacrifice those interests in order to remain in power. All because we don't have enough faith in ourselves to stand up and say "Actually, I'm not happy with the way things are being done." We fear being ridiculed for doing so, and that fear and lack of faith keeps us paralysed and allows those fortunate enough to have a measure of control over their lives to extend that control over ours.
Not surprisingly, this state of affairs has led to discontent. In particular we are seeing that discontent among the people of the Islamic world, who have long been burdened with oppressive and unrepresentative governments who use religious faith as a tool for political control. To put things in perspective, I'm sat here complaining about the lack of control I am afforded in my life, but at least I am not in danger of being imprisoned by my government for doing so. Yet how is this discontent being expressed (or at least, how is the majority of that discontent being expressed)? By putting faith in organisations that remain equally unrepresentative of their supporters and have their own agenda which invariably involves replacing the current ruling classes of their society with the leadership of the organisation. This is true of Al-Quaida in all it's many and varied forms, of Hamas, of Islamic Jihad, of the ultra-violent Islamic rebels of North Africa. All of these so-called revolutionaries are equally dependant on discouraging people from having any faith in themselves, and encouraging them to believe that their problems can only be dealt with by the leaders of the organisation.
In abusing the trust of the very people whom they are meant to serve, governments are effectively sowing the seeds of their own destruction. We're encouraged to have faith in our leaders, but our leaders constantly lie to us and are visibly and demonstratably self-serving buckets of bullbollocks. However, thanks to centuries of being told we shouldn't rely on ourselves, we turn to organisations that encourage us to have faith in them instead, and they in turn abuse that trust to achieve their own aims. Isn't it time to stop placing all of our hopes in groups who couldn't care less about us, and only view us as a means to gain power and control over their own destiny? Isn't it time we started to think a little more of ourselves, of our own potential, and act on it? Or will we simply wait for the group of our choice to tell us that it's okay to have a little self-belief? Time will tell I suppose, but I can only hope that we start to believe in ourselves long before there is no other option.
Wednesday, 10 September 2003
Tuesday, 12 August 2003
You are NOT welcome here
This came from a mixture of genuine concern that Iraq would collapse into a bloodbath as soon as coalition troops left, and the incredibly patronising and parochial belief that we (The UK) could make even the slightest difference to that inevitability.
So then; Iraq.
I find myself following a rather odd school of thought these days when it comes to Iraq. On the one hand I still believe that the whole war was not much more than a fairly shabby land grab. The Hutton enquiry is starting to hint at just how many lies and half-truths we were told by our government in order to get support for the war. The various reasons that were used to justify it have been all but discredited (WOMD: Where are they? Links to Al-Quaida: there are now more Islamic militants operating in Iraq than there were before the war. Liberating the people of Iraq: How come the US and UK are happy to support other brutal dictators across the world?), and we are left with the rather depressing sight of politicians using smoke and mirrors to try and help us forget just how questionable all of the evidence actually was. If you've been following the '45 minutes' row between the BBC and the government you might have noticed that...well, its not hugely important. Happily the Hutton enquiry might help bury that little bout of handbags and allow more investigation of how questionable the intelligence was in the first place
Okay, so that's a quick summary of why I don't think the war should have happened in the first place. With all that said, I also find that I don't actually want the coalition troops to leave Iraq now that they're there. And why not? Well, not because I'm taking smug satisfaction in seeing the UK troops making a far better job of peacekeeping than the US army (though I'd be lying if I said I wasn't...patriotism sometimes shows itself in the most absurd ways). No, it's because I'm inclined to think that the whole country would collapse into a pretty spectacular bloodbath if our troops did just pack up and leave.
I've arrived at this conclusion for a number of reasons. Firstly, despite what those war-hungry little bags of sh*t on the political right would have you believe, I'm immensely happy to see the end of Saddam's regime in Iraq. However, the one advantage to having he and his delightful family in charge of the country was that it kept a lid on all of the other tensions that were simmering away. Admittedly, he did this by torturing and murdering large numbers of people, but because of his organised brutality a lot of disorganised brutality didn't happen.
Now that Saddam has gone, what is to stop that disorganised violence from taking a grip of Iraq? I mean, what would stop the Kurds and Arabs in the north of Iraq from continuing the ethnic battles that have simmered since Iraq's creation? What would stop Turkey taking what it sees as it's dues in Northern Iraq? What would stop the Shia and Sunni Moslems from extending their disagreements on the best way to love ones fellow man, to the violence that is a hallmark of religious disagreement?
The only thing at the moment that would stop it is the coalition troops. We've not heard much from the Kurdish area of Iraq, and that is thanks in the main to the presence of the troops. So far, Turkey have been discouraged from making any aggressive moves by the presence of US soldiers. And although the Arab population are being none-too-gently persuaded by the Kurds to get off their land, it is at least being done with a certain measure of restraint (certainly compared to the poison gas that Saddam used to persuade the Kurds to move in the first place) thanks to the presence of American Troops. Neither have we heard much about religious strife, though the continuing and increasingly confrontational proclamations of the Shia clerics in Iraq make it pretty clear that it is still an option.
In fact, all we generally do hear about in Iraq is the mounting body count of allied troops, or the absolute ineptitude of some or them in their peacekeeping duties. With regard to the former, more troops have died since the war ended than did during the war itself. Many people on the political left are using this as ammunition for their belief that the war should not have happened. To an extent, I agree with them. But it's also being used to justify why the coalition should pull out of Iraq altogether. Now to me this seems like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. The political left gave several very valid humanitarian reasons in the arguments as to why the war should not start. Yet some of them seem happy to ignore the inevitable humanitarian disaster that would occur if the troops did leave. I like to win arguments (no, really), but I stop short of wanting to win them at the cost of thousands of innocent dead. That seems a high price to pay for the privilege of saying "I told you so".
As to the ineptitude...well, lets not mince words here; most of those accusations have been levelled at American troops in central Iraq (particularly Baghdad). It's unfair to say that they are the only troops at fault; anyone familiar with the UK's history in Northern Ireland will have little difficulty believing that the killing of UK troops in Basra was due in part (or perhaps in it's entirety) to heavy handedness on the part of the soldiers. But by and large, the media are concentrating on the US troops.
Now I'm not going to defend them; they've made some horrendous cockups (at the cost of innocent Iraqi's being killed; not an ideal way to make the locals think well of the troops) and I would hope that the troops involved will be held accountable. Neither does the claim "Well, they're soldiers and not peacekeepers so what do you expect?" hold much weight with me. Peacekeeping duties are part of a soldier’s role in peacetime, so if it's a part of their job then it's not too much to ask of them to do it properly.
However, I am going to sympathise with them to a certain extent. Iraq is a powderkeg of a country, and keeping a lid on it using methods other than the brutality of Saddam must be one hell of a difficult task. All in all, it seems to me that the incidents where troops sow more fear and mistrust in Iraq are outweighed by the (largely unreported) incidents where there is no trouble to speak of. Admittedly, I could be wrong in that regard; maybe the troops are endlessly adding to the tension in Iraq. But the fact that there have so far been no en masse riots running for days would seem to indicate that most of the troops are doing a good job most of the time.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that although the legality of the war and continued occupation is questionable at best, the reality of the situation is that somebody's troops need to be there. Not that anyone should expect either the US or UK to be too concerned with trifling little niggles such as international law; Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi (the two British civilians held at Guantanamo Bay) are apparently about to confess to a war crime. Bearing in mind that America is denying that the conflict in Afghanistan was ever a war? There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners? America is successfully applying the rules to others but not to themselves.
Anyway, griping aside the reality of this situation is that the UN still don't have a role, so for now it has to be the coalition. The alternative is not a very pleasant thought.
So then; Iraq.
I find myself following a rather odd school of thought these days when it comes to Iraq. On the one hand I still believe that the whole war was not much more than a fairly shabby land grab. The Hutton enquiry is starting to hint at just how many lies and half-truths we were told by our government in order to get support for the war. The various reasons that were used to justify it have been all but discredited (WOMD: Where are they? Links to Al-Quaida: there are now more Islamic militants operating in Iraq than there were before the war. Liberating the people of Iraq: How come the US and UK are happy to support other brutal dictators across the world?), and we are left with the rather depressing sight of politicians using smoke and mirrors to try and help us forget just how questionable all of the evidence actually was. If you've been following the '45 minutes' row between the BBC and the government you might have noticed that...well, its not hugely important. Happily the Hutton enquiry might help bury that little bout of handbags and allow more investigation of how questionable the intelligence was in the first place
Okay, so that's a quick summary of why I don't think the war should have happened in the first place. With all that said, I also find that I don't actually want the coalition troops to leave Iraq now that they're there. And why not? Well, not because I'm taking smug satisfaction in seeing the UK troops making a far better job of peacekeeping than the US army (though I'd be lying if I said I wasn't...patriotism sometimes shows itself in the most absurd ways). No, it's because I'm inclined to think that the whole country would collapse into a pretty spectacular bloodbath if our troops did just pack up and leave.
I've arrived at this conclusion for a number of reasons. Firstly, despite what those war-hungry little bags of sh*t on the political right would have you believe, I'm immensely happy to see the end of Saddam's regime in Iraq. However, the one advantage to having he and his delightful family in charge of the country was that it kept a lid on all of the other tensions that were simmering away. Admittedly, he did this by torturing and murdering large numbers of people, but because of his organised brutality a lot of disorganised brutality didn't happen.
Now that Saddam has gone, what is to stop that disorganised violence from taking a grip of Iraq? I mean, what would stop the Kurds and Arabs in the north of Iraq from continuing the ethnic battles that have simmered since Iraq's creation? What would stop Turkey taking what it sees as it's dues in Northern Iraq? What would stop the Shia and Sunni Moslems from extending their disagreements on the best way to love ones fellow man, to the violence that is a hallmark of religious disagreement?
The only thing at the moment that would stop it is the coalition troops. We've not heard much from the Kurdish area of Iraq, and that is thanks in the main to the presence of the troops. So far, Turkey have been discouraged from making any aggressive moves by the presence of US soldiers. And although the Arab population are being none-too-gently persuaded by the Kurds to get off their land, it is at least being done with a certain measure of restraint (certainly compared to the poison gas that Saddam used to persuade the Kurds to move in the first place) thanks to the presence of American Troops. Neither have we heard much about religious strife, though the continuing and increasingly confrontational proclamations of the Shia clerics in Iraq make it pretty clear that it is still an option.
In fact, all we generally do hear about in Iraq is the mounting body count of allied troops, or the absolute ineptitude of some or them in their peacekeeping duties. With regard to the former, more troops have died since the war ended than did during the war itself. Many people on the political left are using this as ammunition for their belief that the war should not have happened. To an extent, I agree with them. But it's also being used to justify why the coalition should pull out of Iraq altogether. Now to me this seems like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. The political left gave several very valid humanitarian reasons in the arguments as to why the war should not start. Yet some of them seem happy to ignore the inevitable humanitarian disaster that would occur if the troops did leave. I like to win arguments (no, really), but I stop short of wanting to win them at the cost of thousands of innocent dead. That seems a high price to pay for the privilege of saying "I told you so".
As to the ineptitude...well, lets not mince words here; most of those accusations have been levelled at American troops in central Iraq (particularly Baghdad). It's unfair to say that they are the only troops at fault; anyone familiar with the UK's history in Northern Ireland will have little difficulty believing that the killing of UK troops in Basra was due in part (or perhaps in it's entirety) to heavy handedness on the part of the soldiers. But by and large, the media are concentrating on the US troops.
Now I'm not going to defend them; they've made some horrendous cockups (at the cost of innocent Iraqi's being killed; not an ideal way to make the locals think well of the troops) and I would hope that the troops involved will be held accountable. Neither does the claim "Well, they're soldiers and not peacekeepers so what do you expect?" hold much weight with me. Peacekeeping duties are part of a soldier’s role in peacetime, so if it's a part of their job then it's not too much to ask of them to do it properly.
However, I am going to sympathise with them to a certain extent. Iraq is a powderkeg of a country, and keeping a lid on it using methods other than the brutality of Saddam must be one hell of a difficult task. All in all, it seems to me that the incidents where troops sow more fear and mistrust in Iraq are outweighed by the (largely unreported) incidents where there is no trouble to speak of. Admittedly, I could be wrong in that regard; maybe the troops are endlessly adding to the tension in Iraq. But the fact that there have so far been no en masse riots running for days would seem to indicate that most of the troops are doing a good job most of the time.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that although the legality of the war and continued occupation is questionable at best, the reality of the situation is that somebody's troops need to be there. Not that anyone should expect either the US or UK to be too concerned with trifling little niggles such as international law; Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi (the two British civilians held at Guantanamo Bay) are apparently about to confess to a war crime. Bearing in mind that America is denying that the conflict in Afghanistan was ever a war? There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners? America is successfully applying the rules to others but not to themselves.
Anyway, griping aside the reality of this situation is that the UN still don't have a role, so for now it has to be the coalition. The alternative is not a very pleasant thought.
Tuesday, 15 July 2003
My little runaway
I was trying to say something about the sexualisation of children in this rant. Whether I succeeded or not is a matter for debate.
You may or may not be aware of the UK headlines today. Shevaun Pennington, a 12-year-old girl from Wigan, has run off to France with 31-year-old Toby Studebaker, a former US marine. Apparently the two of them met over the Internet, both pretended that they were in their late teens, and at least one of the two met with the other with thoughts of marriage and children on their minds.
Though it's sorely tempting to comment on the fact that, if a US marine can't tell the difference between a 12 year old girl and a 19 year old woman then what chance have they got distinguishing between an Iraqi civilian and an Iraqi guerilla, I'll leave that subject alone for now. I'll also tactfully avoid mentioning just how disappointed the two 'teenagers' must have been upon first seeing each other in the flesh;
"Gee, you look young for 19"
'Yeah, uh...I'm very petite. Um...you look old for your age. In fact, you look as old as my dad'
"Well...you've seen Dawson’s Creek; all teenagers look at least 21, right?"
'Well...I suppose so...fancy going to Paris?'
Instead I'd rather like to spend a bit of time looking at people's reactions to this story. After all, this is a story that has paedophilia at its centre by pretty much anyone's standards. So whilst the papers are, for once, acting with a certain amount of restraint in that the overwhelming tone of the reports is concern for Shevaun's safety, one would expect the general public to be horrified at this soldier for taking advantage of a naive young girl. One may expect the baying for his blood to begin shortly, and in earnest. One would be wrong.
Maybe it's the "If I don't laugh, I'll cry" defence kicking in, but the main reaction as near as I can tell is "Jesus, look at the STATE of her! I mean, Christ, is he so desperate to get laid that he'll take a statutory rape charge in order to have sex with a kid who looks like she would be improved by having a Siamese twin conjoined to her head?!" Maybe that's a trifle harsh (or maybe my friends and I have just got too vivid and unpleasant an imagination...), but nobody seems to be taking this particularly seriously at all. So why not? How come a man can get beaten up in this country for having the same name as a paedophile, but someone who travels over 3000 miles in order to have sex with a 12-year-old girl becomes the subject of bawdy contempt, if not jocular sympathy?
Well, as the full story of what has happened is not known, there's going to be a certain amount of unsubstantiated guesswork going on here, so bear with me. As I've mentioned, the picture of Shevaun that was released to the media is...well, it's less than flattering. The poor girl is not an oil painting, as many have commented on. Well here's a thing; she's only a child, so why the hell SHOULD she have to have model good looks? I rather though that the point here is that she shouldn't have to worry about whether or not she'll be seen as attractive to a 31 year old, yet we're sniggering and making derogatory comments about someone who is a victim in this situation. I don't get it; I mean, when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were abducted and murdered, no-one was going "Yeah well, a couple of blondes in footy shirts...I mean, any man would, wouldn't they?".
She's just a child, and as such she shouldn't be expected to worry about how sexually attractive she is. Yet here she is, running off with a man whom she doubtless intends to have a sexual relationship with. So whose fault is that? Is it hers, for lying to a man and leading him on? Is it his for taking advantage of someone who is clearly just a kid? Or is it something more? Well, here is where the guesswork comes in; I would say it's about 1% the first explanation, 49% the second, and 50% something else entirely. If this girls photo has caused disbelieving mirth among all and sundry, it's doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to accept that she quite probably got an equal amount of grief at school. After all, we were all schoolkids once and I'm sure we can all recall the abuse heaped upon the ugly girl in our class, and all in the name of ensuring that whomever it was getting picked on, if it wasn't us then who cares? I know I never gave the first shit, just so long as my peers weren't laughing at me.
Well, if we can understand that Shevaun was almost certainly on the receiving end of teasing and bullying about, among other things, her looks then why on earth are we so surprised that she's ran off with someone who most likely showered her with compliments and bolstered her ego by telling her how much he liked her? Again I must stress, this is no more than me guessing as to the circumstances, but it doesn't sound so unbelievable does it? Yes, Studebaker is pretty much without doubt a predatory paedophile and as such he richly deserves to have his testes nailed to the inside wall of a Tiger enclosure at the zoo. But what about the fact that she was driven part of the way into his arms? I'm not talking about the specific individuals who teased her, but the fact that (and you all knew this was coming...) society allows it.
Speaking as someone who, if you allow me a moment of uncharacteristic boastfulness, has raised the use of vitriol and bile to something like an art form, it may seems very strange that I'm bemoaning the fact that it was probably teasing that drove Shevaun into this deeply unpleasant situation. And I should clarify, I'm not expecting kids to stop belittling each any time soon; that’s just part of growing up. But I am expecting society as a whole to take a bit more interest in making young people feel valued. There have been enough foaming tabloid rants about what we should do to protect our children from paedophiles. Surely we should start a little closer to home, and try and arm our kids with a greater sense of self worth, so that the honeyed words of a sick bastard won’t tempt them to throw away their childhood in exchange for underage sex and mental scarring.
You may or may not be aware of the UK headlines today. Shevaun Pennington, a 12-year-old girl from Wigan, has run off to France with 31-year-old Toby Studebaker, a former US marine. Apparently the two of them met over the Internet, both pretended that they were in their late teens, and at least one of the two met with the other with thoughts of marriage and children on their minds.
Though it's sorely tempting to comment on the fact that, if a US marine can't tell the difference between a 12 year old girl and a 19 year old woman then what chance have they got distinguishing between an Iraqi civilian and an Iraqi guerilla, I'll leave that subject alone for now. I'll also tactfully avoid mentioning just how disappointed the two 'teenagers' must have been upon first seeing each other in the flesh;
"Gee, you look young for 19"
'Yeah, uh...I'm very petite. Um...you look old for your age. In fact, you look as old as my dad'
"Well...you've seen Dawson’s Creek; all teenagers look at least 21, right?"
'Well...I suppose so...fancy going to Paris?'
Instead I'd rather like to spend a bit of time looking at people's reactions to this story. After all, this is a story that has paedophilia at its centre by pretty much anyone's standards. So whilst the papers are, for once, acting with a certain amount of restraint in that the overwhelming tone of the reports is concern for Shevaun's safety, one would expect the general public to be horrified at this soldier for taking advantage of a naive young girl. One may expect the baying for his blood to begin shortly, and in earnest. One would be wrong.
Maybe it's the "If I don't laugh, I'll cry" defence kicking in, but the main reaction as near as I can tell is "Jesus, look at the STATE of her! I mean, Christ, is he so desperate to get laid that he'll take a statutory rape charge in order to have sex with a kid who looks like she would be improved by having a Siamese twin conjoined to her head?!" Maybe that's a trifle harsh (or maybe my friends and I have just got too vivid and unpleasant an imagination...), but nobody seems to be taking this particularly seriously at all. So why not? How come a man can get beaten up in this country for having the same name as a paedophile, but someone who travels over 3000 miles in order to have sex with a 12-year-old girl becomes the subject of bawdy contempt, if not jocular sympathy?
Well, as the full story of what has happened is not known, there's going to be a certain amount of unsubstantiated guesswork going on here, so bear with me. As I've mentioned, the picture of Shevaun that was released to the media is...well, it's less than flattering. The poor girl is not an oil painting, as many have commented on. Well here's a thing; she's only a child, so why the hell SHOULD she have to have model good looks? I rather though that the point here is that she shouldn't have to worry about whether or not she'll be seen as attractive to a 31 year old, yet we're sniggering and making derogatory comments about someone who is a victim in this situation. I don't get it; I mean, when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were abducted and murdered, no-one was going "Yeah well, a couple of blondes in footy shirts...I mean, any man would, wouldn't they?".
She's just a child, and as such she shouldn't be expected to worry about how sexually attractive she is. Yet here she is, running off with a man whom she doubtless intends to have a sexual relationship with. So whose fault is that? Is it hers, for lying to a man and leading him on? Is it his for taking advantage of someone who is clearly just a kid? Or is it something more? Well, here is where the guesswork comes in; I would say it's about 1% the first explanation, 49% the second, and 50% something else entirely. If this girls photo has caused disbelieving mirth among all and sundry, it's doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to accept that she quite probably got an equal amount of grief at school. After all, we were all schoolkids once and I'm sure we can all recall the abuse heaped upon the ugly girl in our class, and all in the name of ensuring that whomever it was getting picked on, if it wasn't us then who cares? I know I never gave the first shit, just so long as my peers weren't laughing at me.
Well, if we can understand that Shevaun was almost certainly on the receiving end of teasing and bullying about, among other things, her looks then why on earth are we so surprised that she's ran off with someone who most likely showered her with compliments and bolstered her ego by telling her how much he liked her? Again I must stress, this is no more than me guessing as to the circumstances, but it doesn't sound so unbelievable does it? Yes, Studebaker is pretty much without doubt a predatory paedophile and as such he richly deserves to have his testes nailed to the inside wall of a Tiger enclosure at the zoo. But what about the fact that she was driven part of the way into his arms? I'm not talking about the specific individuals who teased her, but the fact that (and you all knew this was coming...) society allows it.
Speaking as someone who, if you allow me a moment of uncharacteristic boastfulness, has raised the use of vitriol and bile to something like an art form, it may seems very strange that I'm bemoaning the fact that it was probably teasing that drove Shevaun into this deeply unpleasant situation. And I should clarify, I'm not expecting kids to stop belittling each any time soon; that’s just part of growing up. But I am expecting society as a whole to take a bit more interest in making young people feel valued. There have been enough foaming tabloid rants about what we should do to protect our children from paedophiles. Surely we should start a little closer to home, and try and arm our kids with a greater sense of self worth, so that the honeyed words of a sick bastard won’t tempt them to throw away their childhood in exchange for underage sex and mental scarring.
Wednesday, 9 July 2003
Do ya think I'm sexy?
The play was called Cooking With Elvis, and if you ever get a chance to see it I urge you to do so. It's hilarious and moving in equal measure. And you'll see a man get his cock out. Who could ask for more?
In a couple of month’s time, I will be in a play that will find me onstage and as naked as the day I was born. Naturally, were it not for the fact that I'm so damned sexy, I'd be shitting my pants to the point of overflowing. And predictably enough, everyone whom I've told has asked "Aren't you embarrassed?". To which the answer is "No; should I be? Do I have anything to be embarrassed about? It's my body, I'm rather fond of it, and if other people want to come along and have a look at it...well, more power to 'em!"
But, me being me, all those blushing and giggling questioners did set me off thinking; why do we seem to have such a huge hang up on body image in our society? Especially where women are concerned, but increasingly with men as well. I mean, we live in a time when the NHS farts and collapses every time there is a flu epidemic, but where men can also have operations to implant fake muscles into their chests. I'm a first class pervert, and am the first to admit that I have no problem with silicon breasts. But silicone pecs...is it just me, or does that seem like vanity taken to the point of parody?
Everyone, men and women, seems to feel that they are under increasing pressure to have a certain shaped body, a particular size waist, a specific weight range. Why is this? As far as I can see, it seems to be down to insecurity about ourselves and the way we look. But when did self-centred vanity become the accepted way to express this insecurity? Did we, as a society, inch slowly towards that all by ourselves? Or did we receive a helping hand along the way?
Naturally, when looking for something to blame for a fault in society, we will turn our attention to the media. The media gets a lot of bad press (if you'll pardon the pun) in this regard; I'm sure everyone is familiar with the somewhat schizophrenic approach taken by the print media towards body image. On page 4 we will be told of the anguish caused by the increase in anorexia and bulimia among young women, and what could perhaps be done to stop it. Then page 5 will, in scandalised tones, launch an epic flurry of claws and handbags at whichever celebrity happens to have been snapped with his/her stomach being anything less than washboard flat.
In the past, I've always had the same opinion when it comes to criticising any media for what they do; if you don't like it, don't read or watch it. There's not exactly a dearth of newspapers, lifestyle magazines, TV, or radio programs to choose from, so choose one more to your liking. After all, we're adults and are capable of making our own choices. That is still my opinion, but I have had cause to add a caveat to it; sometimes we have no choice in the matter. Sometimes something permeates so many different parts of the media on so many levels that we're left with little option but to be aware of it. There can't be many people in the UK who remain blissfully unaware of the continuing saga of Victoria Beckham, her appearance, her weight, and her husband (and anyone who has stayed unaware is a lucky, lucky bastard...). However, just because we are all aware of something, doesn't mean we have to actually pay any attention to it, or give it any credence.
(As a side note, I should really confess that I've found myself modifying my opinions of films or albums based on favourable write-ups in magazines. Curiously, I'm not really ashamed to admit that...maybe that's just because I've never read a magazine that's told me I should be)
The thing is though, if it is the media, then why do we go out and buy or watch the image-obsessed dross that is cluttering up newsagents and TV stations? I mean, they wouldn't be successful if we had no interest in them, yet we weekly spend a sum equivalent to the third world national debt on ladmags/'lifestyle' mags (as women insist on calling the froth that fills the pages of Cosmo et al)/scandal rags. It seems odd that the media gets so much of the blame for our growing obsession with body image, when one could build a convincing case that they are merely responding to what the public wants.
Which leads us to the obvious question; why is this what the public want? Why do we want the perfect body, even at the expense of having a remotely enjoyable life. I mean, I've known a few people with eating disorders, and the misery that they caused themselves trying to sculpt their body to someone else’s idea of perfection far outweighed any misery they had felt for being overweight/ugly. To me, it seems bizarre that no-one stops to think "Hang on; I only weigh as much as a packet of crisps now, I have hunger pains all the time, and my body chemistry is completely screwed due to malnutrition. Hmm...yeah, I must be happy with my weight!".
I'm taking the proverbial to an extent there; eating disorders are a mental illness, and expecting someone to think logically about anything when in the throes of mental illness is unreasonable of me. Couldn't we therefore say that society's body image hang up is a widespread form of mental illness? Well...perhaps, but not everyone with an obsession over body image ends up with an eating disorder. So perhaps it is a mistake for me to think of this hang up of society as something to be diagnosed and then treated.
I'm starting to ramble more than usual, so I shall draw things to a close now. And as per usual, I find that I've raised more questions in my own head than have been answered. The one thing I remain sure of, and hope I've gone some way to impressing on you, is that society is spending a disproportionate amount of its time being concerned with what is not much more than petty vanity. Surely we're all better than that.
Aren't we?
In a couple of month’s time, I will be in a play that will find me onstage and as naked as the day I was born. Naturally, were it not for the fact that I'm so damned sexy, I'd be shitting my pants to the point of overflowing. And predictably enough, everyone whom I've told has asked "Aren't you embarrassed?". To which the answer is "No; should I be? Do I have anything to be embarrassed about? It's my body, I'm rather fond of it, and if other people want to come along and have a look at it...well, more power to 'em!"
But, me being me, all those blushing and giggling questioners did set me off thinking; why do we seem to have such a huge hang up on body image in our society? Especially where women are concerned, but increasingly with men as well. I mean, we live in a time when the NHS farts and collapses every time there is a flu epidemic, but where men can also have operations to implant fake muscles into their chests. I'm a first class pervert, and am the first to admit that I have no problem with silicon breasts. But silicone pecs...is it just me, or does that seem like vanity taken to the point of parody?
Everyone, men and women, seems to feel that they are under increasing pressure to have a certain shaped body, a particular size waist, a specific weight range. Why is this? As far as I can see, it seems to be down to insecurity about ourselves and the way we look. But when did self-centred vanity become the accepted way to express this insecurity? Did we, as a society, inch slowly towards that all by ourselves? Or did we receive a helping hand along the way?
Naturally, when looking for something to blame for a fault in society, we will turn our attention to the media. The media gets a lot of bad press (if you'll pardon the pun) in this regard; I'm sure everyone is familiar with the somewhat schizophrenic approach taken by the print media towards body image. On page 4 we will be told of the anguish caused by the increase in anorexia and bulimia among young women, and what could perhaps be done to stop it. Then page 5 will, in scandalised tones, launch an epic flurry of claws and handbags at whichever celebrity happens to have been snapped with his/her stomach being anything less than washboard flat.
In the past, I've always had the same opinion when it comes to criticising any media for what they do; if you don't like it, don't read or watch it. There's not exactly a dearth of newspapers, lifestyle magazines, TV, or radio programs to choose from, so choose one more to your liking. After all, we're adults and are capable of making our own choices. That is still my opinion, but I have had cause to add a caveat to it; sometimes we have no choice in the matter. Sometimes something permeates so many different parts of the media on so many levels that we're left with little option but to be aware of it. There can't be many people in the UK who remain blissfully unaware of the continuing saga of Victoria Beckham, her appearance, her weight, and her husband (and anyone who has stayed unaware is a lucky, lucky bastard...). However, just because we are all aware of something, doesn't mean we have to actually pay any attention to it, or give it any credence.
(As a side note, I should really confess that I've found myself modifying my opinions of films or albums based on favourable write-ups in magazines. Curiously, I'm not really ashamed to admit that...maybe that's just because I've never read a magazine that's told me I should be)
The thing is though, if it is the media, then why do we go out and buy or watch the image-obsessed dross that is cluttering up newsagents and TV stations? I mean, they wouldn't be successful if we had no interest in them, yet we weekly spend a sum equivalent to the third world national debt on ladmags/'lifestyle' mags (as women insist on calling the froth that fills the pages of Cosmo et al)/scandal rags. It seems odd that the media gets so much of the blame for our growing obsession with body image, when one could build a convincing case that they are merely responding to what the public wants.
Which leads us to the obvious question; why is this what the public want? Why do we want the perfect body, even at the expense of having a remotely enjoyable life. I mean, I've known a few people with eating disorders, and the misery that they caused themselves trying to sculpt their body to someone else’s idea of perfection far outweighed any misery they had felt for being overweight/ugly. To me, it seems bizarre that no-one stops to think "Hang on; I only weigh as much as a packet of crisps now, I have hunger pains all the time, and my body chemistry is completely screwed due to malnutrition. Hmm...yeah, I must be happy with my weight!".
I'm taking the proverbial to an extent there; eating disorders are a mental illness, and expecting someone to think logically about anything when in the throes of mental illness is unreasonable of me. Couldn't we therefore say that society's body image hang up is a widespread form of mental illness? Well...perhaps, but not everyone with an obsession over body image ends up with an eating disorder. So perhaps it is a mistake for me to think of this hang up of society as something to be diagnosed and then treated.
I'm starting to ramble more than usual, so I shall draw things to a close now. And as per usual, I find that I've raised more questions in my own head than have been answered. The one thing I remain sure of, and hope I've gone some way to impressing on you, is that society is spending a disproportionate amount of its time being concerned with what is not much more than petty vanity. Surely we're all better than that.
Aren't we?
Thursday, 15 May 2003
Rape
Very recently, I found myself arguing with a friend about rape laws in the UK. I found this rather strange, as usually most arguments about rape laws tend to go something like along the following lines:
"Rape laws aren't really good enough as they stand; too many men are getting away with rape and too many women are suffering as a result"
'Yeah, you're right there'
And that's where it usually ends. This time however, it was pointed out quite forcibly to me that saying things are unfair as they stand isn't really good enough. If we know it's unfair, and if everyone seems to accept that, then why are there still such low conviction rates for rape, and why is this crime still so prevalent? Do we acknowledge the seriousness of the problem? Are we willing to something beyond talking about it? Or is this just proof that we live in a mans world; men are always the perpetrators, and suffer rape far less often than women and so are less inclined to do anything about the problem.
One of the biggest problems is that rape is a crime that remains hidden. We occasionally hear of situations in some Islamic cultures where rape is considered a matter of shame for the victim and her family. If you're anything like as condescending as I am, you may find yourself shaking your head in bewilderment that any society could consider rape to be the fault of the victim. You may even start to feel faintly superior as you live in a country where rapists are widely and rightly regarded with contempt. Well, much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, as things stand the UK is equally as bad in it's treatment of victims of rape.
Of the women whom I've met in the last 10 or so years, roughly 1 in 10 of them has told me that they have been raped or sexually assaulted. None of their attackers were convicted of any crime, or even arrested for it. And that is just the women who have admitted to being raped. Who knows how many more keep silent about it? Scary, isn't it?
Personally, I find it absolutely horrifying that someone can be raped in this country with seeming impunity. Either a few men have a voracious appetite for forced sex, or there are a lot more inadequate little scumbags around than we'd like to admit to.
A common retort to the lack of rape convictions is "Well, why don't more women go to the police?" My question is, why should they? After all, of those cases that actually make it as far as court, less than 10% result in a conviction and sentences can be as low as 180 hours community service. Can you imagine that? Going through the horror of reliving being raped, with the man who did it sat a few metres away from you, and an arrogant, wig wearing shite tries to make you feel like the whore of Babylon for having had sex with more than one man in your whole life? And then, after having got through the judicial ordeal, to then see the man guilty of raping you walking from the court having received no more than a slapped wrist? It doesn't exactly encourage women to come forward and report the crime, does it?
I should point out that my line of argument at this point in the debate with my friend was something like "Well, yes things are shite right now. But they will change. I admit, they'll probably change slowly because the legal process always grinds along, but so many people of our generation and below realise how horrendous the crime of rape is, and so convictions will increase". My friend’s response was "How the hell do you know that? What if it never changes?".
Though I didn't think it at the time, I'm starting to wonder whether she had a point. If anything, rape convictions are falling. A small part (a VERY small part) of the blame must be attributed to the stunningly idiotic women who falsely accuse someone of rape (Nadine Milroy-Sloane, come on down!). They don't exactly help in encourage women to come forward and report rape. But the vast majority of the problem would seem to lie in society's attitude toward women.
For example, a woman's sexual history can be legitimately raised by the defence in a rape trial. What that means in practice is that if a woman has been anything less than a saintly virgin, it will be implied that she is no better than a whore who probably wanted it anyway, and is now spitefully trying to ruin a mans life. Basically, the underlying theme of many of these rape defences seems to be that a promiscuous woman cannot be raped, as she is not capable of not consenting to sex. The even more sinister unspoken thought behind this is "And even if she was raped, she deserved it for being such a slapper".
Now the reason that this sort of defence is allowed to succeed so often is that the upper echelons of the judiciary (judges etc) are old and old fashioned in their view of women. That anachronistic view of the world is exploited by barristers to a rapist’s advantage. So, in theory, as new judges replace the old ones, we should start to see the end of that attitude. But will we really? After all, most of us still tend to regard promiscuous women with...well, if not scorn then we certainly think rather less of them than we would if they are not promiscuous. And that is a fucking ridiculous way to view women. And what is more, people tend only to act in matters that concern them directly. Male rape is a rarity, and most of society's movers and shakers (and, most importantly, legislators) are men. Why should they worry about a change in rape laws, or an increase in convictions, when it isn't going to win them the next election? It tends to suggest that my initial assessment, that change will happen slowly, was wide of the mark. Change will still happen, but a lot slower than anyone apart from a rapist would like it to be.
More than anything, I would say that increased respect for women is the only way to ensure rape becomes a rarely committed (and then, punished in draconian fashion) crime. We need, as a society, to stop classifying women as either virgins or whores with no allowance for anything else. Unless we do, 1 in 10 women will continue to be raped, and only 1 in 10 rapists will suffer any degree of punishment. I defy anyone to tell me that that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
"Rape laws aren't really good enough as they stand; too many men are getting away with rape and too many women are suffering as a result"
'Yeah, you're right there'
And that's where it usually ends. This time however, it was pointed out quite forcibly to me that saying things are unfair as they stand isn't really good enough. If we know it's unfair, and if everyone seems to accept that, then why are there still such low conviction rates for rape, and why is this crime still so prevalent? Do we acknowledge the seriousness of the problem? Are we willing to something beyond talking about it? Or is this just proof that we live in a mans world; men are always the perpetrators, and suffer rape far less often than women and so are less inclined to do anything about the problem.
One of the biggest problems is that rape is a crime that remains hidden. We occasionally hear of situations in some Islamic cultures where rape is considered a matter of shame for the victim and her family. If you're anything like as condescending as I am, you may find yourself shaking your head in bewilderment that any society could consider rape to be the fault of the victim. You may even start to feel faintly superior as you live in a country where rapists are widely and rightly regarded with contempt. Well, much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, as things stand the UK is equally as bad in it's treatment of victims of rape.
Of the women whom I've met in the last 10 or so years, roughly 1 in 10 of them has told me that they have been raped or sexually assaulted. None of their attackers were convicted of any crime, or even arrested for it. And that is just the women who have admitted to being raped. Who knows how many more keep silent about it? Scary, isn't it?
Personally, I find it absolutely horrifying that someone can be raped in this country with seeming impunity. Either a few men have a voracious appetite for forced sex, or there are a lot more inadequate little scumbags around than we'd like to admit to.
A common retort to the lack of rape convictions is "Well, why don't more women go to the police?" My question is, why should they? After all, of those cases that actually make it as far as court, less than 10% result in a conviction and sentences can be as low as 180 hours community service. Can you imagine that? Going through the horror of reliving being raped, with the man who did it sat a few metres away from you, and an arrogant, wig wearing shite tries to make you feel like the whore of Babylon for having had sex with more than one man in your whole life? And then, after having got through the judicial ordeal, to then see the man guilty of raping you walking from the court having received no more than a slapped wrist? It doesn't exactly encourage women to come forward and report the crime, does it?
I should point out that my line of argument at this point in the debate with my friend was something like "Well, yes things are shite right now. But they will change. I admit, they'll probably change slowly because the legal process always grinds along, but so many people of our generation and below realise how horrendous the crime of rape is, and so convictions will increase". My friend’s response was "How the hell do you know that? What if it never changes?".
Though I didn't think it at the time, I'm starting to wonder whether she had a point. If anything, rape convictions are falling. A small part (a VERY small part) of the blame must be attributed to the stunningly idiotic women who falsely accuse someone of rape (Nadine Milroy-Sloane, come on down!). They don't exactly help in encourage women to come forward and report rape. But the vast majority of the problem would seem to lie in society's attitude toward women.
For example, a woman's sexual history can be legitimately raised by the defence in a rape trial. What that means in practice is that if a woman has been anything less than a saintly virgin, it will be implied that she is no better than a whore who probably wanted it anyway, and is now spitefully trying to ruin a mans life. Basically, the underlying theme of many of these rape defences seems to be that a promiscuous woman cannot be raped, as she is not capable of not consenting to sex. The even more sinister unspoken thought behind this is "And even if she was raped, she deserved it for being such a slapper".
Now the reason that this sort of defence is allowed to succeed so often is that the upper echelons of the judiciary (judges etc) are old and old fashioned in their view of women. That anachronistic view of the world is exploited by barristers to a rapist’s advantage. So, in theory, as new judges replace the old ones, we should start to see the end of that attitude. But will we really? After all, most of us still tend to regard promiscuous women with...well, if not scorn then we certainly think rather less of them than we would if they are not promiscuous. And that is a fucking ridiculous way to view women. And what is more, people tend only to act in matters that concern them directly. Male rape is a rarity, and most of society's movers and shakers (and, most importantly, legislators) are men. Why should they worry about a change in rape laws, or an increase in convictions, when it isn't going to win them the next election? It tends to suggest that my initial assessment, that change will happen slowly, was wide of the mark. Change will still happen, but a lot slower than anyone apart from a rapist would like it to be.
More than anything, I would say that increased respect for women is the only way to ensure rape becomes a rarely committed (and then, punished in draconian fashion) crime. We need, as a society, to stop classifying women as either virgins or whores with no allowance for anything else. Unless we do, 1 in 10 women will continue to be raped, and only 1 in 10 rapists will suffer any degree of punishment. I defy anyone to tell me that that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
Wednesday, 16 April 2003
More random thoughts
Some more random thoughts about the war:
Seeing the people of Iraq celebrating the end of Saddam's regime was a fantastic sight. Anyone who still, despite this, managed to snort with derision and launch once more into the numerous (and in some cases, well founded) reasons that the US is doing the Arab world a disservice must be hard hearted indeed.
So, no Weapons of Mass Destruction were used. None were found (so far). No Al-Quaida training facilities have been unearthed. Yet the sophistry and spin would have you believe differently. We have been told that "Materials likely to be used for chemical weapons" have been discovered. Would it sound less impressive if it were pointed out that the average public swimming pool, with it's reasonably large stock of chlorine, has materials that could be used in chemical warfare?
This morning also saw the announcement that Abul Abbas, the Palestinian who planned the terrorist hijack of a cruise liner some 16 years ago (during which a paraplegic American hostage was murdered), has been captured in Baghdad. No doubt this will be touted as proof of terrorist links to Saddam's regime. Proof? Erm...well, not really. Abbas had renounced violence, had been allowed by the Israeli government (not noted for it's forgiving attitude toward Palestinian terrorists) to visit Gaza numerous times, and America had dropped the warrant for his arrest. If this is proof that the Iraqi government has links to terrorism, then we in the UK must be guilty of the same thing. More so in fact, as we have Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness (former IRA members) in our Parliament.
The looting in Iraq's major cities seems to be dying down (if only because there is nothing left to steal). Some people have seen fit to blame the coalition forces for the looting. Which is true in that it was they who overthrew the Ba'ath regime. But bearing in mind that there are 25,000 troops in Baghdad who need to control 5 million people, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty minded and pathetic of those most fervently anti-war voices to try and lay all the blame for this at the coalitions door? We're talking about a nation that has suffered oppression of the worst sort, so it's not entirely surprising that we are now seeing the most basic expression of newly acquired freedom (i.e. Do What Thou Wilt is the whole of the law). And a few troops are expected to police it? Please; I’m opposed to this ugly little land grab, but if you're going to be anti-war then at least try and keep within spitting distance of reality.
Has anyone, at any point, sat Dubya down and explained the principles of diplomacy to him? He and his administration seem incapable of expressing themselves by any means other than threats. Worried about your allies not supporting your actions? Threaten them with a trade embargo. Worried about countries that border the one you've invaded offering sanctuary to people you want captured? Threaten them with war. Worried about Arab's from elsewhere in the middle-east fighting US troops in Iraq? Threaten each and every nation that the originated from.
America is now condemning (and, naturally, threatening) Syria for sheltering members of the former Iraqi government. Is this the same America that has trained, equipped, and if things go horribly wrong, offered sanctuary to Christ knows how many South and Central American tinpot dictators over the past few decades?
One of the major objections to this war was that the US was being very selective in which dictators it was removing. However, couldn't the bullishness and threatening language emanating from Washington at the moment be interpreted as the US answering that very criticism? If America did turn this oil war into some sort of crusade against dictatorships, wouldn't that be a good thing in principle (if not in practice)?
Speaking of crusades, why is Dubya doing his very best to prove the fears of the Islamic world correct by only bullying Moslem countries? I mean, I hate to bang on about this but North Korea and Israel are not exactly behaving like angels, yet they continue to be left to their own devices. Anyone would think that certain members of the Bush and Blair governments want terrorism to increase in order to limit personal liberties. I'm not entirely sure I believe that myself, but one can certainly see why many other do.
There seems to be some sort of religious tension in Iraq at the moment. A senior Shiite cleric was murdered a few days after he returned to Iraq from the UK. Yet another cleric was given 48 hours to leave Iraq. And the Shiite’s seem to be the most vocal out of all Iraqi groups opposed to US involvement in setting up a new government. I suspect that there is more than meets the eye here.
There would also seem to be a racial war brewing in the north of Iraq. The Kurds have wanted their own country for years (Kurdistan is divided between Iraq and Turkey at the moment). There has already been fighting between Kurds and Arabs in the northern city of Mosul, and the Turks make no secret of the fact that they would regard annexation of Northern Iraq by themselves as preferable to a Kurdish nation. This all adds up to more interesting times.
If you want a blueprint of what will happen in Iraq now that the war is basically over, look no further than Afghanistan. The US promised millions in aid to the fledgling Afghan government. Would you care to guess how much has been set aside for them in Dubya's most recent budget? Approximately....nothing. Zero. Not a sausage. Afghanistan is still in chaos; chances are that Iraq will be just as messed up as a nation this time next year. Add to that the possibility of racially and religiously motivated conflict within the country, and one has cause to worry that this conflict is just the beginning of the bloodshed.
Am I alone in wanting this whole thing to be over so we can have something on the news other than War? After all, we have other things to think about. Things like the global spread of the SARS virus, the faltering Northern Ireland peace process, and the trial of Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley...actually, can we keep the war going as long as possible?! Okay, so soldiers and civilians are dying every day, but it makes for more positive viewing and reading than any other world events...
Seeing the people of Iraq celebrating the end of Saddam's regime was a fantastic sight. Anyone who still, despite this, managed to snort with derision and launch once more into the numerous (and in some cases, well founded) reasons that the US is doing the Arab world a disservice must be hard hearted indeed.
So, no Weapons of Mass Destruction were used. None were found (so far). No Al-Quaida training facilities have been unearthed. Yet the sophistry and spin would have you believe differently. We have been told that "Materials likely to be used for chemical weapons" have been discovered. Would it sound less impressive if it were pointed out that the average public swimming pool, with it's reasonably large stock of chlorine, has materials that could be used in chemical warfare?
This morning also saw the announcement that Abul Abbas, the Palestinian who planned the terrorist hijack of a cruise liner some 16 years ago (during which a paraplegic American hostage was murdered), has been captured in Baghdad. No doubt this will be touted as proof of terrorist links to Saddam's regime. Proof? Erm...well, not really. Abbas had renounced violence, had been allowed by the Israeli government (not noted for it's forgiving attitude toward Palestinian terrorists) to visit Gaza numerous times, and America had dropped the warrant for his arrest. If this is proof that the Iraqi government has links to terrorism, then we in the UK must be guilty of the same thing. More so in fact, as we have Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness (former IRA members) in our Parliament.
The looting in Iraq's major cities seems to be dying down (if only because there is nothing left to steal). Some people have seen fit to blame the coalition forces for the looting. Which is true in that it was they who overthrew the Ba'ath regime. But bearing in mind that there are 25,000 troops in Baghdad who need to control 5 million people, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty minded and pathetic of those most fervently anti-war voices to try and lay all the blame for this at the coalitions door? We're talking about a nation that has suffered oppression of the worst sort, so it's not entirely surprising that we are now seeing the most basic expression of newly acquired freedom (i.e. Do What Thou Wilt is the whole of the law). And a few troops are expected to police it? Please; I’m opposed to this ugly little land grab, but if you're going to be anti-war then at least try and keep within spitting distance of reality.
Has anyone, at any point, sat Dubya down and explained the principles of diplomacy to him? He and his administration seem incapable of expressing themselves by any means other than threats. Worried about your allies not supporting your actions? Threaten them with a trade embargo. Worried about countries that border the one you've invaded offering sanctuary to people you want captured? Threaten them with war. Worried about Arab's from elsewhere in the middle-east fighting US troops in Iraq? Threaten each and every nation that the originated from.
America is now condemning (and, naturally, threatening) Syria for sheltering members of the former Iraqi government. Is this the same America that has trained, equipped, and if things go horribly wrong, offered sanctuary to Christ knows how many South and Central American tinpot dictators over the past few decades?
One of the major objections to this war was that the US was being very selective in which dictators it was removing. However, couldn't the bullishness and threatening language emanating from Washington at the moment be interpreted as the US answering that very criticism? If America did turn this oil war into some sort of crusade against dictatorships, wouldn't that be a good thing in principle (if not in practice)?
Speaking of crusades, why is Dubya doing his very best to prove the fears of the Islamic world correct by only bullying Moslem countries? I mean, I hate to bang on about this but North Korea and Israel are not exactly behaving like angels, yet they continue to be left to their own devices. Anyone would think that certain members of the Bush and Blair governments want terrorism to increase in order to limit personal liberties. I'm not entirely sure I believe that myself, but one can certainly see why many other do.
There seems to be some sort of religious tension in Iraq at the moment. A senior Shiite cleric was murdered a few days after he returned to Iraq from the UK. Yet another cleric was given 48 hours to leave Iraq. And the Shiite’s seem to be the most vocal out of all Iraqi groups opposed to US involvement in setting up a new government. I suspect that there is more than meets the eye here.
There would also seem to be a racial war brewing in the north of Iraq. The Kurds have wanted their own country for years (Kurdistan is divided between Iraq and Turkey at the moment). There has already been fighting between Kurds and Arabs in the northern city of Mosul, and the Turks make no secret of the fact that they would regard annexation of Northern Iraq by themselves as preferable to a Kurdish nation. This all adds up to more interesting times.
If you want a blueprint of what will happen in Iraq now that the war is basically over, look no further than Afghanistan. The US promised millions in aid to the fledgling Afghan government. Would you care to guess how much has been set aside for them in Dubya's most recent budget? Approximately....nothing. Zero. Not a sausage. Afghanistan is still in chaos; chances are that Iraq will be just as messed up as a nation this time next year. Add to that the possibility of racially and religiously motivated conflict within the country, and one has cause to worry that this conflict is just the beginning of the bloodshed.
Am I alone in wanting this whole thing to be over so we can have something on the news other than War? After all, we have other things to think about. Things like the global spread of the SARS virus, the faltering Northern Ireland peace process, and the trial of Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley...actually, can we keep the war going as long as possible?! Okay, so soldiers and civilians are dying every day, but it makes for more positive viewing and reading than any other world events...
Friday, 28 March 2003
Random thoughts about war
Some rambling and generally confused thoughts about the last week:
We've been at war for a week now, and already I've seen more information about the conflict on the news than I've ever read or watched about the 1st and 2nd world wars. I don't know how the troops can get on with fighting out there with all those journalists in the way. And is anybody else wondering when Sky News will be asking the military if they can mount cameras on troops' helmets? After all, they've already done their level best to turn this war into a large scale game of "Command and Conquer", so they may as well go the whole hog and try to get some sort of "Medal of Honour" thing going on as well. After all, since the last Gulf War there have been huge advances in game technology, and the news channels have to compete with the Playstation 2 to get the attention of their audience.
In the space of that week, the Dubya-Blair position has gone from "This will be over in a few weeks" to "Don't be surprised if we are fighting for months". Is anyone else getting the impression that the UK and US governments are entirely clueless about what to do now that their war is not running on schedule? Incidentally, does it annoy anyone else to hear pampered politicians, who's idea of a war zone is their wife finding out about them nobbing some fat-titted parliamentary researcher, refer to the troops doing the fighting as "we"? Unless you want to follow Winston Churchill's lead and go out there to fight this war yourself, enough with the 'we' already.
Bearing in mind that Saddam is loathed by millions of his own people, how much of a pigs ear must the coalition have made of this conflict to inspire not the Iraqi conscripts to fight ferociously. We were being told (and, in the face of all the evidence, are still being told by the likes of Rumsfield) that the biggest problems we would face would be how to look after the expected thousands of deserters. Also, if the US led invasion is so 'welcomed' by the people of Iraq, how come thousands of Iraqi's who left their homeland because they feared being killed by Saddam's troops, are returning home to join that same army and fight off the allied forces?
The parading of allied troops on Al-Jazeera was a chilling thing to watch; especially now that it appears Iraqi soldiers publicly executed some of them. However, the words of Dubya et al concerning "the humane treatment of POW's" rang rather hollow to me. If Saddam declared that the captured troops were not POW but 'illegal non-combatants' (because the UN hasn't sanctioned this war and so it could be said to be illegal under international law), and if he held them somewhere that was not Iraqi territory, does that then mean that he can do with them as he pleases? After all, that is exactly what America has done with the Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan, and 2 of them have been beaten to death in Guantanamo Bay since they were taken there. If American troops are torturing foreign soldiers, can anyone give any good reason why Iraqi soldiers would be compassionate enough not to mistreat their prisoners?
If this war has nothing to do with oil, then why was securing the main Iraqi oilfields one of the first things US troops did? And why did Dubya make a point of stating that Saddam would be charged with war crimes if the oil fields were set ablaze as they were in Kuwait?
Whenever we hear of a friendly fire incident involving US troops firing on UK or other US troops, we roll our eyes skyward and tut at the gung ho inability of their army to keep their trigger fingers under control, and mentally file the information away as confirmation that the Americans could not find their backsides with both hands and a map. Yet when British troops kill other British troops in a friendly fire incident, it is a tragic accident that couldn't be avoided, and that sort of thing must be expected in a modern war.
Jack Straw actually did something worthwhile and raised the point that the Moslem world are quite remarkably annoyed that we're going to war with Iraq for not complying with UN resolutions, yet we leave Israel alone when they are just as guilty of this. If anything good were to come out of this war, it would be the US and UK actually following through on their commitment for Palestinian statehood. That would stop terrorism to a far greater degree than this war, as it would rob the Islamic extremists of one of their main causes for recruiting.
If Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction, then he's going to use them against allied forces. After all, he has nothing to lose at this stage. If we take that logic a step further, does that mean if no WOMD are used then this war could have been avoided had the weapons inspectors been allowed to finish their work? Or will there be another series of barefaced lies from the American and British governments concerning how Saddam was 'definitely a threat to world peace'?
I know I'm anti war and everything, but was I the only one who felt weirdly proud of our troops when the war started? I mean, this isn't exactly the most popular war in the history of the world, but they're there and they're doing their job to the best of their ability. What's more, they're doing it with equipment so substandard that many soldiers have had to buy their own boots, and use their own mobile phones to communicate with other troops. I wish we weren't using well-trained and brave soldiers to give a veneer of legitimacy to the machinations of an unelected oil spiv.
We've been at war for a week now, and already I've seen more information about the conflict on the news than I've ever read or watched about the 1st and 2nd world wars. I don't know how the troops can get on with fighting out there with all those journalists in the way. And is anybody else wondering when Sky News will be asking the military if they can mount cameras on troops' helmets? After all, they've already done their level best to turn this war into a large scale game of "Command and Conquer", so they may as well go the whole hog and try to get some sort of "Medal of Honour" thing going on as well. After all, since the last Gulf War there have been huge advances in game technology, and the news channels have to compete with the Playstation 2 to get the attention of their audience.
In the space of that week, the Dubya-Blair position has gone from "This will be over in a few weeks" to "Don't be surprised if we are fighting for months". Is anyone else getting the impression that the UK and US governments are entirely clueless about what to do now that their war is not running on schedule? Incidentally, does it annoy anyone else to hear pampered politicians, who's idea of a war zone is their wife finding out about them nobbing some fat-titted parliamentary researcher, refer to the troops doing the fighting as "we"? Unless you want to follow Winston Churchill's lead and go out there to fight this war yourself, enough with the 'we' already.
Bearing in mind that Saddam is loathed by millions of his own people, how much of a pigs ear must the coalition have made of this conflict to inspire not the Iraqi conscripts to fight ferociously. We were being told (and, in the face of all the evidence, are still being told by the likes of Rumsfield) that the biggest problems we would face would be how to look after the expected thousands of deserters. Also, if the US led invasion is so 'welcomed' by the people of Iraq, how come thousands of Iraqi's who left their homeland because they feared being killed by Saddam's troops, are returning home to join that same army and fight off the allied forces?
The parading of allied troops on Al-Jazeera was a chilling thing to watch; especially now that it appears Iraqi soldiers publicly executed some of them. However, the words of Dubya et al concerning "the humane treatment of POW's" rang rather hollow to me. If Saddam declared that the captured troops were not POW but 'illegal non-combatants' (because the UN hasn't sanctioned this war and so it could be said to be illegal under international law), and if he held them somewhere that was not Iraqi territory, does that then mean that he can do with them as he pleases? After all, that is exactly what America has done with the Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan, and 2 of them have been beaten to death in Guantanamo Bay since they were taken there. If American troops are torturing foreign soldiers, can anyone give any good reason why Iraqi soldiers would be compassionate enough not to mistreat their prisoners?
If this war has nothing to do with oil, then why was securing the main Iraqi oilfields one of the first things US troops did? And why did Dubya make a point of stating that Saddam would be charged with war crimes if the oil fields were set ablaze as they were in Kuwait?
Whenever we hear of a friendly fire incident involving US troops firing on UK or other US troops, we roll our eyes skyward and tut at the gung ho inability of their army to keep their trigger fingers under control, and mentally file the information away as confirmation that the Americans could not find their backsides with both hands and a map. Yet when British troops kill other British troops in a friendly fire incident, it is a tragic accident that couldn't be avoided, and that sort of thing must be expected in a modern war.
Jack Straw actually did something worthwhile and raised the point that the Moslem world are quite remarkably annoyed that we're going to war with Iraq for not complying with UN resolutions, yet we leave Israel alone when they are just as guilty of this. If anything good were to come out of this war, it would be the US and UK actually following through on their commitment for Palestinian statehood. That would stop terrorism to a far greater degree than this war, as it would rob the Islamic extremists of one of their main causes for recruiting.
If Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction, then he's going to use them against allied forces. After all, he has nothing to lose at this stage. If we take that logic a step further, does that mean if no WOMD are used then this war could have been avoided had the weapons inspectors been allowed to finish their work? Or will there be another series of barefaced lies from the American and British governments concerning how Saddam was 'definitely a threat to world peace'?
I know I'm anti war and everything, but was I the only one who felt weirdly proud of our troops when the war started? I mean, this isn't exactly the most popular war in the history of the world, but they're there and they're doing their job to the best of their ability. What's more, they're doing it with equipment so substandard that many soldiers have had to buy their own boots, and use their own mobile phones to communicate with other troops. I wish we weren't using well-trained and brave soldiers to give a veneer of legitimacy to the machinations of an unelected oil spiv.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)