'Bring it On'. UN Tragedy

[Publius]

As someone who vigorously supported the war in Iraq (and still do to a lesser extent today), I have to say that Bush's comment is one of the most irresponsible that I've ever heard uttered by a world leader. Anyone can quibble about the terrorists' reaction to it, but the bottom line is that the US Commander in Chief (from the safety of thousands of miles away) unnecessarily incited and goaded the enemy in a way that puts US/Coalition Forces/foreigners at greater risk. This is inexcusable.

I couldn't believe it when I heard it.

[Fresh Mint]

"Bring it on"!

That it was a gaffe, I think, is not in dispute. But history is littered with the gaffes of those who once held power.

"I have in my hand, a piece of paper..."

"Never in a thousand years..."

"Can't sing, can't act, can dance a bit..."

...or something like that.

   But to attribute acts of terror such as the attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad to that "Bushism" is a misrepresentation of truth and reality of the grossest kind.
   People who plan acts of terror are not motivated by the utterances of one living man. They are usually motivated by the misunderstood utterances of a dead one.
     Anyone -- George W. Bush included -- is dead right to stare straight ahead and say they will not be cowed by acts of terror.
   To suggest that remark deserves the response some people are attributing to it suggests, to me, a morbid fascination with a bleak, controlled and conspiracy-orientated society that as an semi-intelligent, thinking (I believe) human being I know simply doesn't exist.

[nualum]

I think that Mr. Bush's comment was more than a gaffe; I think it was an accurate reflection of his cowboy attitudes. He spouts lots of them, e.g. "you are either with us or against us," and on and on.

The real issue with such dismissive remarks is that in the the Arab world, honor is the highest cultural value. If a man feels his honor has been compromised or demeaned or dismissed, he must do everything in his power to balance the score and regain his honor. The Biblical injunction of "an eye for an eye" plays into this set of values.

Humiliation is almost unbearable for Arabs. Iraq's helplessness in the face of the embargo for more than a decade, the way the US and British military just rolled over the Iraqi military in this war, the endless ultimata we presented them in the run-up to the war, the puppet government set up by the US, the triumphant crowing of the neocons before the first shot had been fired, these are only the most obvious ways in which Iraqis were humiliated in recent times.

All of this might have been mitigated by diplomacy and treatment of Iraq that did not rub their noses in dishonor. Instead we had people like Wolfowitz and Perle and other chicken hawks plus the inimitable Rumsfeld, who is the absolute personification of arrogance, conducting diplomacy via the television megaphone.  Nor do we seem to have had any clever, diplomatic  diplomats on the ground post war.

[Dr Opinion]

> "...to attribute acts of terror such as the attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad to that "Bushism" is a misrepresentation..."

On the contrary, the remark accurate captures this fools ignorance and blase attitude towards American lives.

Put it another way, if you were a US Serviceman on police patrol around Baghadad in a light armored vehicle, knowing that you could be ambushed at any time, would you feel pleased by -- or affronted at the ignorance of -- such a remark?  

[Fresh Mint]

Probably ignorant of the remark.

[Dolemite]

The Biblical injunction of "an eye for an eye"?
That was Hammurabi. The bible actually says:
(from the book of Matthew, chapter 5, verse 38-39)
You have heard that it was said, `AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'  But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.  

This is the biblical injunction to "turn the other cheek". I guess these animals stopped reading before they got to that point.

[Fresh Mint]

Actually, I think they are reading something different, but good point!

[Euro-Aussie]

The saga continues.  
Bush is now sucking up to the German Chancellor, praising him for taking the leading role in Afghanistan - concurrently he is asking the world to take a more active part in reconstructing Iraq, militarily and economically - while keeping the vast majority of industrial contracts for US firms - something which has severaly pissed off the Brits.  

So, the US government destroys, creates chaos, messes up keeping the peace and then wants the rest of the world, who he chastised for not supporting him in the war, to take a larger part post-war.  How pathetic can you get?!  

Now we have Richard Perle openly advocating an attack on North Korea, Perle being one of the mighty trio of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle.  

A big shame is that millions of Americans are being tarnished with the same brush, and a lot of US expats are copping a hiding unfairly.  

[Euro-Aussie]

Dolemite, I don't think many Iraqi's read the bible...

[Imagine]

So when Saddam said: "We will slaughter those infidels at the gates of Baghdad", that was a gaffe too?

[Fresh Mint]

A bloody big one!!!!!!!

[Dolemite]

Take that up with "nualum". s/he's the one who used it as a justification.

[nualum]

"Turn the other cheek" is an injunction from the New Testament. Judaism and Islam are Old Testament religions, even though Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet.

An eye for an eye is very much part of the ethic of both Judaism and Islam and contributes to the endless cycle of violence. Each of the suicide bombings that shattered the Palestinian hudna was in revenge for the assassination of Palestinian activists. And after each bombing, Israel feels obliged to strike back with interest so as to get revenge. And so it goes.

One might wonder why Israel persists in its assassination policy when it knows that a suicide bombing will follow as surely as night follows day. Arrests and other incursions do not have this same sad effect.

As for Saddam's desperate bravado, you will note the glee with which his enemies, especially among the neocons,  were glad to show him who is boss. Perhaps the Iraqis have similar human feelings in seeing Mr. Bush seem not quite so omnipotent.

But revenge is only part of the equation. Honor, and its opposite, humiliation, are the central dynamics at play. Every day, we read in the newspapers how our soldiers and others are amazed that the Iraqi people don't act slavishly grateful. The answer is that we humiliate them.

[This message has been edited by nualum (edited 22-08-2003).]

[Joseph27]

Well written nualum

It is sometimes hard to turn the other cheek and our instant reaction is to fight but as you so rightly point out - this act is recipricated and the cycle of violence continues.  Of course others on this board will tell you that its the Iraqi's who started it - or its the Palestinians - or whoever Bush targets this week

[Fresh Mint]

"Judaism and Islam are Old Testament religions."

WTF?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?