Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates. How many children, in how many classrooms, over how many centuries, have hang-glided through the past, transported on the wings of these words? And now the bombs are falling, incinerating and humiliating that ancient civilization. On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scrawl colorful messages in childish handwriting: “For Saddam, from… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (61)Page 1 of 1 pagesWonderful article. One of the best I’ve read in months… and so true…
Posted by N.C. on Apr 11, 2003 at 7:19 PM I remember the first time I read Arundhati...it was soon after the chaos and tumult of 9/11...I was still an innocent and naive high schooler then, and her words were like bullets...tearing through all I held near.
But now, after the chaos has settled and the hell has broken loose, now that I am much more enlightened into the field of American foreign policy atrocities and mishaps, now that I am more familiar with the likes of Zizek...I am somewhat put off by Roy…
Not as though her words aren’t true...But they are quite biased, and she’s somewhat of a bleeding heart now...and the worst part of it is - she’s good at pointing out the ugly, but she NEVER has any meaningful contribution as to what should be done…
...It nice to understand how globalism is displacing millions in the form of dam projects in India, its good to know the connections of the Bush Administration to Oil and Big Business, its great to know how a good number our armed forces have succumbed to the American ideological appartuses...BUT ONLY IF IT MOTIVATES US TO ACTION!
And this is where I see Roy as failing - she helps elucidate the monstrous mosaic of life today...but simply does not lend a brush stroke to the ever-incomplete masterpiece of peace…
CS
College Freshman
Posted by C. Simpkins on Apr 11, 2003 at 11:43 PM What a truly excellent hard-hitting article !!
She does a wonderful job of voicing with economy, passion and precision the things we instinctively know but couldn’t put words to...!As for the comments by “College Freshman” , they are interesting because they illustrate the mental fog under which the nation’s best operate.
f.e. QUOTE: “ Not as though her words aren’t true...But they are quite biased “
So..? if they ARE true.. what does it matter ?
QUOTE : “..she NEVER has any meaningful contribution as to what should be done.”
Exposing what lies beneath IS her contribution ! As to what should be done..isn’t it OBVIOUS ? You people voted for these monsters in bible-belt clothes.. in a democracy you should be able to get rid of them. ( good luck !)
Dee Vee
Posted by Dee Vee on Apr 12, 2003 at 7:20 AM Dee Vee,
Chretien is like a bad secretion. He is a wart that pusses and farts bad advice to Canadians. Don’t believe what he says!
Posted by ROCKTIME on Apr 12, 2003 at 10:04 AM As a Vietnam Veteran who witnessed personally the depravations brought on by ill-begotten wars, Ms Roy’s insightful article strikes me as right on target. These miscreants presently running the administration in Washington never personally dirty their little white hands in the cesspool of war. Their only concern is satisfying the incredible greed of themselves and their rich friends. Like the kids in today’s army, I was just another poor boy sucked into the machine and told how honorable and patriotic it was to offer myself as cannon fodder. The inability of many North Americans to think (as witnessed by Rocktime’s pathetic little obscene drivel) is astonishing, compared to the insight seen in even third world countries. May God help us all......
ML
Posted by Mack L. on Apr 12, 2003 at 1:45 PM Dee Vee is right. Speaking out against what’s happening is contributing. She has opened my eyes to a lot of things. What have you done, Simpkins?
Posted by N.C. on Apr 12, 2003 at 3:52 PM Whether the US was right or wrong, it was a sad event when my uneducated wife who was born in Communist China, would comment that the world famous picture of the marines sitting in Saddam’s palace was utterly in poor taste.
In the back of my mind, I could not explain why they would do something like that and why the officers in charge could have shown more restraint. I HOPE that these are not the future leaders of the world’s only superpower - unfortunately for the world, they will be.
The US has sunk in civility.
Posted by M. Lee on Apr 12, 2003 at 4:37 PM Lars - Though off this thread, Eason Jordan’s confession of the oppresson of CNN by the Iraqi government fortifies my point that it is not the AOL/CNN/TIME-WARNER’s that you need to be concerned about, but government(s). CNN, Disney, Intel, Microsoft, GE, GM—none of these, nor any other coporation has armies, prisons, or secret police.
Take care, Carl :-)!If anybody has not read Mr. Jordan’s article in the NYTimes a few days ago here is a linkhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400& en=ea21e8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Apr 12, 2003 at 7:31 PM That link again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/ 11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&en=ea21e8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Apr 12, 2003 at 7:32 PM I don’t think the Iraqi people would agree. (They felt betrayed when we didn’t finish the job in the first Gulf war) Also, this was a coalition of many different countries (not just the U.S.) If we used suicide bomber terrorists like the Iraqis and Palestinians did, you might have something to bitch about!
Posted by Robert Bliss on Apr 12, 2003 at 10:43 PM DEE VEE: So..? if they ARE true.. what does it matter ?
CS: Take the bit on Private AJ for example. Yes it is true that this one idiot thought what he thought. But then she goes on to say that 42% of Americans polled thought the same. Well at least that is not the majority! Thus this idiot AJ doesn’t think the same way the average American does, and so to make a broad generalization and insinuate that the whole of the Coalition forces are ideologically blinded idiots who just want to kill the “innocent” Iraqis is rather mis-leading. Another example is her use of the term, “Coalition of the Bullied and Bought.” What proof does she have of these actions? I would assume this is the case, but if you do not provide the evidence to support such a title, it seems like a simple ad hominem attack.
DEE VEE: Exposing what lies beneath IS her contribution ! As to what should be done..isn’t it OBVIOUS ? You people voted for these monsters in bible-belt clothes.. in a democracy you should be able to get rid of them. ( good luck !)
CS: So she points out the lies, but why not do it on both sides? I’m sure there is more than enough ignorant action going on around the other side as well. If she wants to combat ignorance and terror in all forms, than she fails. If she wants to simply bash the West, give her a friggin trophy.NC: Dee Vee is right. Speaking out against what’s happening is contributing. She has opened my eyes to a lot of things. What have you done, Simpkins?
CS: Glad you asked. I spoke at a New York City-wide Speech Festival after 9/11, quoted Roy extensively, and won first place. I started a political awareness organization when I was only in the tenth grade. I’ve started another one in my college. I’m also a spoken-word poet activist. I’ve spoken at numerous venues throughout New York City. But most of this wouldn’t matter for you anyway because I’m not anti-war.
CS
Posted by Simpkins on Apr 12, 2003 at 10:44 PM as an advocate of regime change in iraqi and anti-american terrorism, i see this article as predictable leftism - a naive internationalism, a fence-ridding support for dictators (as long as they’re unamerican), and inaccurate facts. nothing is mentioned about kurdish independence, which has been crushed thanks to the ‘one Iraq’-policy. nothing is mentioned about the democratic shia muslims who, with military assistance, were quite capable of liberating themselves (but weren’t trusted because of the racist underpinings of western foreign policy in the middle east). not much is said about ariel bombardment of populated areas is really a cowardly way of avoiding putting enough boots on the ground to get the job done right (without mass murdering civilians). instead the red herrings of disarmament and security threats are played around with at length. no concrete advocacy is given in dealing with imperialism - just more wry whining and lyrical indignation. the assumption is made that public opinion actually matters, a necessary illusion needed for statist propaganda to operate. the UN is seen as a chance for peace on earth and goodwill towards man instead of a legitimation device for western economic interests that’s used whenever and disregarded whenever. in short, there’s nothing new here, Roy. perhaps you’re considered controversial by the neo-conservatives, but if that’s the measure of critical success today, then this says a lot about the deplorable state of criticism, does it not? i’ll just mention one factual error : the marketplace massacre was most likely an iraqi anti-aircraft shell, because had it been an allied bomb or missile, many more people would’ve been killed. (the iraqi army decided to not use radar because this makes their weaponry easily targettable.) of course, there’s nothing responsible about flying bombing raids over civilian areas, which could give you even more to bitch about. thankfully, hussien’s irak has fallen. hopefully the american empire will follow suit.
.k
Posted by kev on Apr 14, 2003 at 2:26 AM The sad thing is we who read ihis or send letters to the editor of our local paper are looked upon as traitors. What hath God wrought?
Posted by Rosalie Stern on Apr 14, 2003 at 1:47 PM >> Robert Bliss
“this was a coalition of many different countries”*Splorf* You’re believing the propaganda again.
U.S. ~270,000
U.K. ~50,000 [hangs head in shame and disbelief]
Australia ~2,000
Poland ~150
The Rest, in total: negligible.
If you must use a collective noun, Anglo-American would be more accurate.
Posted by Stu on Apr 14, 2003 at 5:31 PM The general media and governement is not on our side. We spend alot of time looking at what has happened and what is going to happen. What we need to do is take steps to unsure that the American government gives up its goal of world domination and fights a battle against things that really matter. Global warming, cancer, aids, geoncide, startvation, murder, corparate dishonsesty and so many other things that are actually hurting and killing people today. Do what you can to insure your saftey and the saftey of our fellow people world wide. Hug a tree, recycle, donate everything you have ever earned to cancer research.... I don’t care just stop the war machine and help someone less fortunate than you.
Posted by Jeremy Rydberg on Apr 15, 2003 at 2:20 AM Roy sees the weakness of the Bush administration as being in its blatancy, yet this is testimony only to its strength.
Tony Blair may have been energetic in trying to provide a veneer for the reasons why this war is being prosecuted, but George Bush has hardly been bothered.
When the president speaks, he is script reading, when rebuilding contracts are handed out, Dick Cheney and other firms close to the administration benefit, when facilities are secured in Iraq it’s oil wells and not hospitals that are the priority.
You’d wouldn’t have to try hard to put a better spin on this war than the Bush administration, but that is to misread the character of the neo-cons in Washington.
They’ve laid the “nuts and bolts” bare out of pure, unapologetic arrogance and as long as they have the mainstream media in tow Bush is free to be as stupid as he likes.
Posted by Guy Cliffe on Apr 15, 2003 at 4:11 AM Great article - I hope Bush reads it, but unless it is printed on the wrapper of the latest Mario Bros. video game or his jogging treadmill, he probably won’t.
Just a couple of comments for kev:
Regarding naive internationalism, are you aware that our specious ally, Turkey, has done as much to “crush Kurdish independence”, than Iraq has done. The Turks have routinely slaughtered Kurds, while we looked the other way. Can you say, “genocide”? But that didn’t stop us from trying to bribe the Turks with billions of dollars to support this misguided war. Regarding the democratic Shia majority being “able to to liberate themselves”, I guess I would ask how you reached that conclusion and what sort of armaments that the U.S. could have given them, short of a nuclear weapon, that could have led to that result? I think Mr. Roy has a better grasp of international affairs than most people, apparently including you.Also, the “marketplace massacre” you refer to has now been determined to almost certainly have been a “smart bomb” from a U.S. plane. Examination of the explosive “signature” revealed that it was a U.S. bomb and is consistent with the bombs dropped on that area at that time. These not-so-smart bombs have an error rate of 10% or greater, which the Pentagon does not want you to know. I hope those 50+ civilians killed apologized in advance to the Pentagon for messing up their tidy kill ratios.
I am not sure which side of the political divide you sit on, but your obtuse smugness and criticism of Mr. Roy’s article should at least be factual, as you so obstinately demand the same of others.
Here is the best analysis: Peace is the only answer.
Posted by Stephen Kriz on Apr 15, 2003 at 9:35 AM Arundathi Roy’s extraordianry clarity of thought
and powerful but balanced writing are the only
effective antidotes to the drivel being produced
in the American “mainstream” media. I am
thankful to In These Times for providing a forum
for these voices.
Posted by Prakash Panangaden on Apr 15, 2003 at 11:32 AM Great article! I agree with DeeVee; if we can be active in our local groups dedicated to social justice (students for social justice, teachers for social justice, for example), and inspire people to be active and vote, we CAN make a difference in this democracy.
Posted by Asma on Apr 15, 2003 at 1:35 PM It used to puzzle me as to how communists would rise up and slaughter capitalist governments and hang hundreds of officials from lamp posts. Not anymore.
Posted by christian b. white on Apr 15, 2003 at 2:00 PM Now after the war Irak is a Occupied territory. This has to be a very short time and not the start to a unilateral politic. All the problem is the ideologic proto-fascist attitude of the so-called nÈo-conservatives.
Posted by wibault on Apr 15, 2003 at 10:23 PM Great article. Bush wouldn’t be so quick to send people to war if he, or maybe his daughters had to go too. I saw a couple of soldiers who lost their legs on TV today and they got to meet Bush after they came home. When asked what they thought of him, the one soldier blushed and said he was “different”. Anyone who saw this understood that he ment Bush is stupid, dull, dumb, whatever you want to call it. I bet he regrets going over to Iraq, losing his leg, and probably some of his friends just so Bush could prove what a big man he is. I’m disgusted by the entire war, the US administration, and all the people that believe the bullshit propaganda stuffed down their throats and then defend this war. I can’t believe how blatantly Bush is trying to go after other countries already. This war isn’t even over yet! Syria get ready Bush is coming for you next!
Posted by Laura on Apr 16, 2003 at 1:19 AM great article: facts and comment in clear language.
it only gets irritating in the reader comments.
why do americans always call critical minds communists?
good old fashion state propaganda which is also used in this war.
they can’t handle the truth in facts.
Posted by zen on Apr 16, 2003 at 4:18 AM Well written. Intellectual yet lacking any stuffiness.
Posted by Brian Alan Thomas on Apr 16, 2003 at 10:38 AM Thank You for calling a horse a horse. When one has over 100,000
troops at your border, and is threatining to attack, then does, it is called an invasion. Period. Most Wars last for years, Invasions USUALLY do not last too long. I am so tired of this war talk. There is no war. Never was. Corporations like to use catch phrases, like “Get it right the first time, every time”. In this case it’s “The war on Terror transformed into the War on Iraq. It’s an invasion plain and simple. Webster’s Dictionary has been around longer than ignorant redneck Texans names Bush.
Posted by Proud Canuck on Apr 16, 2003 at 2:18 PM You want to do something really useful. Get in the ranks of the Dem’s or even better the Rebulican’s camp. Become “embedded” and run for office. Take them down from the inside. That is the only way to cause real change. All of this is just rabble. Protesting is mostly worthless. It will stop nothing, that is why I no long do it. In the end lawmakers will decide everything.
Posted by E on Apr 16, 2003 at 2:34 PM This is a great article. One of the best I’ve read on this terrible war.
Truth has a tendency to produce fear. That is because it compels us to change, to act upon paradigms that we consider firm. It is only through the exposure to all sides of a debate that we gain the insight to act, to produce meaningfull changes in society.
Great job!!!
Posted by Jaime on Apr 16, 2003 at 2:50 PM I love reading an opposing viewpoint but when someone like this writes an article they are so biased from the beginning that it is hard to take them seriously. This article spews forth opinions as if they are facts and figures. For instance “200,000 Iraqis estimated to have been killed in the first Gulf War”. Now, if I remember correctly this war was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait. (Don’t give me that “it was fought over oil” bs, if Iraq hadn’t invaded there would have been no war in the early 90’s) This was a war Iraq started, too bad for them, its just one more reason to end the regime. As for economic sanctions killing and starving a population, why doesn’t anyone ask why a country whose leader owns palaces all over the country and lives in the lap of luxury needs external aid in providing food for its citizenry. (I’ll give you a hint: the leadership wasn’t providing for its people to begin with.) Yes, we interupted the aid for, what, 1 month? Now maybe these people will be able to feed themselves under thier new government without the red cross distributing food. Now, about this “While the American people will end up paying for the war, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers and corporations involved in ëre-constructioní work will make direct gains from the war.” Who do you think employs Americans. Why, its American oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers, corporations, and construction companies. These companies give Americans jobs which fuel the economy, which increases revenue from taxes, which helps pay for the war. (Its funny how it works that way, isn’t it.) The question I pose now is this: is it right for the French, Russians, Germans, and other nations opposed to this war to make a profit off of it? Well, if the US shouldn’t be (that is the liberal arguement, right?) then why should these countries? This is where that rift between America and Europe is closing, all of those countries want a piece of the pie as well. (It makes me think that they just didn’t want to pay for the war, they just wanted to profit from it.)
Posted by Scott on Apr 16, 2003 at 6:44 PM By the by, about all these ignorant Americans that only see the one sided coverage of this war; the 2nd largest query on the web recently (behind CNN) for Americans was “Al Jazeera”. This makes me think that despite what the leftists would like to think, the American people are educating themselves but they are drawing different conclusions from the same facts. This isn’t ignorance, its a different point of view (I know thats hard to believe for all of the wonderfully educated left wingers out there.) Finally, I’m getting sick of all this “we supported Iraq in the 80’s so we have no right to complain.” A little history lesson: we fought against the British in 1776, 1812, and a few other times, we are now allies with them. We were allied with the Soviet Union back in WWII. Immediately following we were enemies. We were enemies of Italy during WWII, and yet, at the end of the same war, we were allies. Allies change constantly, to imply that 20 years ago the world was the same political or social climate is ridiculous. Get a new line.
Posted by Scott on Apr 16, 2003 at 6:45 PM There is no evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link. See: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,885288,00.html
Regime change and pre-emptive attacks are illegal in international law. See: http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq6-fr.htm http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew98.php Under international law every nation has the right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The UN and its charter were founded to prevent colonial and world wars so that powerful nations would not decide to attack, overthrow and occupy weaker nations regardless of the nature of those regimes. Part of self-determination is deciding on the form of government. There is no international law that says every country must be a democracy. No country has the right to determine the form of government of any other country regardless of the nature of the regime. That is clear in international law. It is a governance problem for the Iraqi people to determine their political leadership and form of government even if they have to have a civil war to do so. Just like how we do not like the fact that criminals have constitutional and due process rights, but it would be worse if the government could arbitrarily arrest, imprison and invade citizens’ privacy.
The U.S. is directly responsible for the oppression of the Iraqi people as we facilitated the rise to power of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party in 1963 when they overthrew General Qassem because he nationalized Iraq’s oil industry. See University of Denver, Colorardo Political Science Professor Wadi Muhaisen’s 11/22/02 Rocky Mountain News article, “America’s Shameful Mideast History”: http://www.endthewar.org/frontps/Op-eds/shameful.htm The U.S. then provided Saddam Hussein with the chemical and biological weapons technology used against the Kurds and Iranians as payback against the Ayatollah Khomeini for overthrowing the Shah of Iran and taking the U.S. embassy hostages in 1979. The U.S. also does not care about extending democracy in the Arab world. Why are we not advocating regime change and democracy for the brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia (15 out 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis but no Iraqis and the Wahabi Islamic sect in Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor of Al Qaeda), Algeria, Egypt and the plutocratic monarchies in the rest of the Arab world such as Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, etc.? Because they provide us cheap oil.
Posted by an observer of White House & media "news" on Apr 17, 2003 at 2:32 AM The UN should have continued control over the Iraq Oil-for-Food program to finance the interim occupation government until Iraqis are able to elect their own government (I am still waiting for the Bush administration to announce when the elections will be held!). Remember that about half of the people of Iraq depended on the Iraqi government for their food rations from the Oil-for-Food program. The ownership of the oil wells and reserves should remain with the Iraqi government after the election of its legitimate leaders so that the revenues can be used for the country’s economic and social development. I am not against private property per se, but I am against unregulated private ownership of monopolistic and oligopolistic industries especially in the context of the conversion of public-sector ownership to privatization.
Anyone who knows anything about neoclassical microeconomics knows that consumers are at the mercy of privately-owned monopolies and oligopolies due to the lack of competition. Oil is an oligopolistic industry because of the limited number of competitors nationally and globally and the huge start-up and operating costs required to compete with existing companies. Look at what happened with privatization of another oligopolistic industry-utilities- in California as consumers were gouged (wholesale prices went up by 1,000%!) by Enron’s and their cronies’ supply manipulation. See former chief economist of the World Bank and Nobel-prize economist Joseph Stiglitz’s analysis of the pitfalls of the oversimplification of the virtues of privatization in the context of Russia’s and Eastern Europe’s transition to market economies: http://www.worldbank.org/research/abcde/pdfs/stiglitz.pdf
Given that Saddam Hussein probably siphoned off and spent all past oil revenues, what domestic Iraqi investors will have the financial resources in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars to, first of all, purchase at the current market-rate asset value, let alone operate and invest to develop the Iraqi oil industry? The U.S. and British oil companies will be the only players and all the profits will go directly to the shareholders of ExxonMobil, Shell/Texaco, BP, Halliburton, etc.
Posted by an observer of White House & media "news" on Apr 17, 2003 at 2:36 AM U.S.-sponsored Iraqi exile leaders want to denationalize the Iraqi oil industry and sell it to foreign investors. See: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u;=/afp /20030405/bs_afp/iraq_war_opposition_oil_030405214324 This war has always really been about oil--to control Iraq’s 120 billion barrels of oil reserves, which is second largest reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. See Hampshire College Political Science Professor Michael Klare’s article “Oiling the Wheels of War”: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021007&s=klare Also, See Naomi Klein’s “Lookout: Privatization in Disguise”: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030428&s=klein This is why the U.S. wants to cancel the Russian, French and Chinese contracts with Iraq to develop the oil reserves and also does not want the UN to manage the oil-for-food program any longer. See: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/business/1856839 So much for the Oil being the wealth of the Iraqi “people.”
Posted by an observer of White House & media "news" on Apr 17, 2003 at 2:53 AM Have you noticed that President Bush is not calling for immediate elections not even within two years? Did you notice that the leaders of the Shiite Muslim majority boycotted the U.S. talks on Tuesday, 4/15/03 regarding the formation of the Iraq occupation government and are calling for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. See: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl= story&u;=/nm/20030409/wl_nm/iraq_sciri_dc_1
Camera angles can be deceiving and a picture is worth a thousand words. There were only 150 Iraqis in Firdus Square when the U.S. Marines tore down the Saddam Hussein statue. See aerial photo:
http://www.informationc learinghouse.info/article2842.htm
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl= story&u;=/ucru/20030416/cm_ucru/how_we_lost_the_iraq_war
As reported in the New York Times, Iraqis are protesting the U.S. occupation:
As reported by the Associated Press, the U.S. military forces are shooting civilian looters in Iraq:
On the absurdity of defining looting and disorder as freedom and democracy, see Robert Kuttner’s 4/16/03 Boston Globe article, “Redefining Democracy as Disorder”:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/106/oped/Redefining _democracy_as_disorder+.shtml
So much for bringing freedom, democracy and libertation to the Iraqi “people.” The lack of democracy will not stop the U.S. occupation government from doling out “reconstruction” contracts to U.S. oil and construction companies, which apparently might include outright sale of the assets of Iraq’s oil industry.
Posted by an observer of White House & media "news" on Apr 17, 2003 at 3:06 AM The Amerrican taxpayer are already paying $79 billion for Iraq’s reconstruction and this figure could rise depending on how long the occupation lasts. How many jobs are the U.S. oil companies going to create for American workers in Iraq? What will be the cost per job to the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize these oil corporations?
Posted by an observer of White House & media "news" on Apr 17, 2003 at 3:23 AM Snodgrass wrote:
fortifies my point that it is not the AOL/CNN/TIME-WARNER’s that you need to be concerned about, but government(s). CNN, Disney, Intel, Microsoft, GE, GM—none of these, nor any other coporation has armies, prisons, or secret policeRight......
Corporate contributions to politicians buys a lot of muscle in Washington, don’t kid yourself.
Who’d the current VP used to work for? Wasn’t the current President there for a while too?
It’s not as black and white as you’d like to believe. I see it as kind of a smoggy grey area, and it’s tough to see through that smoke screen. Good luck. :-) Todd
Posted by Todd Dickerson on Apr 17, 2003 at 3:41 PM great story! i enjoyed the quote"operation iraqi freedom? i dont think so. more like"operation lets have a race, but first let me break your legs"this was ahrd hitting, greatly written article and i very mcuh enjoyed it, keep up the good fight.
Posted by travis mckee on Apr 18, 2003 at 1:55 AM Arundhati Roy is an international treasure. She exudes compassion for the disenfranchised. I, an American, who despite living in perhaps the most progressive county (Santa Cruz) in the U.S., am suffocating amidst all the patriotic blindness. Although many here work for equality, Americans must begin to take more responsibility for the suffering they inflict on the world through support of their government and corporations. Even a farcical media is no excuse. In a democracy the people are responsible for their government. Otherwise, there is no democracy.
Posted by Fred Pohlmann on Apr 18, 2003 at 11:54 PM Excellent article. “The ancient hearth
of the world” - I also feel that USA has touched our ancient source of civilization, the mother earth of
culture, something which is very very holy.
Posted by Oxidas on Apr 19, 2003 at 9:45 AM Arundhati Roy is the formost living writer in english, period.
Posted by ken gunther on Apr 19, 2003 at 6:32 PM Snodgrass wrote:
fortifies my point that it is not the AOL/CNN/TIME-WARNER’s that you need to be concerned about, but government(s). CNN, Disney, Intel, Microsoft, GE, GM—none of these, nor any other coporation has armies, prisons, or secret policeHow wrong you are, Carl, to think that.
You have to study History; History tells it all!Benito Mussolini - who was the greatest thinker of the fascist/nationalist era in Europe - has very accurately defined what “Fascism” is :
´Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.ª
Posted by Gilles on Apr 20, 2003 at 4:14 AM Just finished re-reading “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” and I reflect on the words of that young American soldier, AJ. Indeed, the last four generations of American students have been deliberately lied to, deceived, and left intellectually impoverished as part of the New World Order’s agenda. So sad.
Posted by Barbara on Apr 20, 2003 at 10:08 AM Please respest your wife you chose, Mr. Lee, who is from capitalism Canada.
Posted by Kelly on Apr 20, 2003 at 1:57 PM There is a valid point from the ‘down with Roy, up with war’ party.
What are we going to do about countries where people are robbed of their human rights?
Posted by susan on Apr 20, 2003 at 7:48 PM As a physcian of Indian Origin, I share the thoughts of Ms. Roy 100%.
Her clarity of thought, flow of events/issues is outstanding. Those on the Left will see her article as repudiation of their beliefs while those on the Right will call her biased as some have already.
I hope members of the Bush team are forced to read this.
Posted by KB on Apr 21, 2003 at 10:56 AM This is one of the most articulate articles I have read regarding the invasion and recent events...I cannot believe how few people actually know what is goign on in our world today, it’s really pretty sad. I’m going to e-mail this article to as many people as I can...Keep up the good writing and fight the good fight. Fuck Republicans!!!
Posted by Brian in the Dell on Apr 22, 2003 at 10:52 AM After studying Theology and now in Grad. School… something that sticks from my Theology instructor…
Eat At Bills Pittsburgh Great Restaurant....
Which spells..
Egyptians,
Assyrians,
Babylonians,
Persians,
Greeks,
Romans,
After all of this..this region continues to be a hotbed for the world....
But faith what it is.... the American… occupation will not last…
Posted by Luis Garcia on Apr 22, 2003 at 4:51 PM If I may...Ms. Roy has written a crisp article, with verve and a biting sense of humor.
After the oh-so-solemn pronouncements of Bush, Cheney, et al, one needs to remember what the pundits have forgotten: that the US government gave its blessing to the Ba’ath Party, and to Saddam Hussein, for many years. This push for “freedom” in Iraq has yet to see full fruition; and here, in the “land of the free,” the shadow of the gulag creeps nearer. And I cannot help but wonder: what’s next?Forgive me for going on. My thoughts on 9/11, on the war, and on the rollback of civil liberties get a little dizzying sometimes.
What Ms. Roy has written is what I would like to say---if only my language would cooperate.
Posted by Antoinette Herrera on Apr 24, 2003 at 10:03 AM This is a very informative, much needed, beautifully written article. At times, I felt my eyes squinting in reflex to the stark white honesty and from my gut came a wretching sound when I read the following:
“Consider this moderate proposal by John McNaughton from the Pentagon Papers published during the Vietnam War:
Strikes at population targets (per se) are likely not only to create a counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home, but greatly to increase the risk of enlarging the war with China or the Soviet Union. Destruction of locks and dams, however-if handled right-might ... offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after time to widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless food is provided-which we could offer to do “at the conference table.”What motivates such cunning, such vicious, deceptive murder?
Roy’s portrait of the president is poigiant, indeed. A few months back I read an article in “The Toronto Sun” about dear G.W. Bush. After analysing the president’s linguistic patterns the author concluded that it is quite plausable the only time G.W. Bush speaks with an intellegent grasp of the english language is when his subject is war, revenge, or destruction.
When did these become the guiding principles of life?
Posted by Nicole on Apr 24, 2003 at 8:32 PM Great article. One point to argue is that of hatred antiamericanism that don’t separate US people from US government: It’s an inevitable backfire for this illegal and unpopular war taken by Bush and the way it is handled. We (the rest of the world) have no responsibility for Bush in charge or even means to get rid of him and his fundamentalists morons. That’s up to you american people. We only suffer it. And it seems a great proportion of US people are happy believing and ignorant supporting their government, so it’s logical to be the target of antiUS feeling around the globe. So get rid of the man and his gang, and support objective media as soon as possible to regain credibility.
And that side effect of hatred that’s is badly disregarded by US government, will have grave consequences and last for a long time.
Posted by Gerardo Doyle on Apr 25, 2003 at 8:36 PM To Scott (and other blinded like him): the US has much to loose economically if the world population face its corporations and policies everywhere. About the stupid things you stand about the real consequences of economical sanctions over the iraqui people: for example, the US with all its natural treasures and economic power with no possible comparison to Irak, will not last a single week if merely is hampered to received the millions of gallons of imported oil that trade in every day to match their massive needs. Your country is the first in the world to need for import items to subsist every day so don’t spit up. And you cannot merely dismiss the argument of being supporting allies to Irak back in the 80’s (when by the way commited all sort of crimes now aired). What right have the US government now to criticize (worst: invade its country) that same regime heavily supported in the close past, sometimes by the same senior employees as Rusmfeld who back in 1983 granted help to Tarik Aziz and now is treating him like a criminal?
Posted by Gerardo Doyle on Apr 25, 2003 at 8:51 PM Thank you. Yr not alone, but short of getting illegally arrested by the hundreds here in my hometown, what are we to do? (Aside from voting in the I-can’t-wait 2004 election)
Posted by Alexander on Apr 26, 2003 at 8:28 PM Thank you for this article. At least, for now, our Freedom of Speech is still intact. Thank you for writing such a candid and honest article during these “patriotic” times in which we now live...Thank you for sharing with us the other side of the story albeit I am sure your doing so will come with a price...being labeled “unpatriotic,” “a bleeding heart,” “anti-American,” etc...The truth in America today, comes with a price...but hopefully, your article has inspired at least one person to research and find that there is another side to this whole affair…
Thank you for sharing with us such insight…
Posted by M.D. on Apr 30, 2003 at 1:39 PM Perhaps the greatest value of all that is to be taken into consideration is the fact that Iraq is not Saddam, and Saddam is not Iraq. Attack Saddam. Why put Iraq at risk? Donít believe me? Ask the broken mother who, with her own hands, buried her infant and her husband. Ask the tearful adolescent boy who holds his father in his hands. The bombs the bullets pierce more than flesh: the pierce the soul.
Posted by Vishal Pulikottil on Apr 30, 2003 at 11:20 PM Perhaps the greatest value of all that is to be taken into consideration is the fact that Iraq is not Saddam, and Saddam is not Iraq. Attack Saddam. Why put Iraq at risk? Donít believe me? Ask the broken mother who, with her own hands, buried her infant and her husband. Ask the tearful adolescent boy who holds his father in his hands. The bombs the bullets pierce more than flesh: the pierce the soul.
Posted by Vishal Pulikottil on Apr 30, 2003 at 11:23 PM You’re wonderful. Thank you.
Posted by mike montagne - PEOPLE For Perfect Economy on May 6, 2003 at 11:51 PM An incredible, insightful article. I agree fully with mostly everything that has been said. Throughout its history, the United States has willingly and actively supported militant despots like Saddam Hussein, Noriega, etc. (too many to list). As an added note, I am still very much disturbed that 42% of Americans believe that Hussein was directly responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It shows that many of us are hopelessly ignorant, and something most be done about it. It is amazing how the U.S. propaganda machine has so effectively turned a number of us into pawns. And yet, very sad; the manufacture of consent, indeed.
Posted by Alex on Jun 11, 2003 at 2:04 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Arundhati Roy
- People vs. Empire
Only global resistance from below can counter repressive states - Seize the Time
Arundhati Roy charts a strategy against empire - The Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire
- New World Disorder
War is peace. Now we know.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
