http://www.inq7.net/opi/2003/mar/16/opi_rsdavid-1.htm

The closing of the
American mind
by Randy David




PEOPLE have viewed Sept. 11 in various ways. Many think it awakened America to a vulnerability it did not recognize before. Others believe it made America look into itself. I think Sept. 11 closed the American mind when it put patriotism above reason.

Nothing can be more dangerous for any nation than to place its collective will completely in the hands of a president who sees the world in terms of good and evil, who tells other countries that if they are not with America they must be against it, and who has said more than once that his country does not need the approval of anybody to launch a war. In the modern world we know, anyone who talks like this would be called a dangerous lunatic. The world would try to protect itself from him, instead of asking him to protect the world. Yet the US Congress gave George W. Bush a virtually free hand to make war against another country when and if he chooses.


Whatever happened to American public opinion? Instead of sober arguments, our friends in the United States tell us: "You would never understand-you were not here on Sept. 11." Sept. 11 has become a code word for the survival of the American people. As such, it takes precedence over any other value. To ask commonsense questions about it is to risk isolation, or worse, to be accused of treason. I used to think that paranoia produces such effects only in closed societies. Now we know that Sept. 11 did not only kill people, it also killed the critical faculties of a whole nation.

Consider this: After Sept. 11, US investigators made the determination that the suicide hijackers of the four passenger jets received their orders from al-Qaida, a terrorist network formed by Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan was bombed because that was where Bin Laden was thought to be hiding, and the Taliban rulers were overthrown because they acknowledged their friendship with Bin Laden and refused to surrender him. The United States found no need to prove that the Taliban government was hiding the presumed mastermind of Sept. 11. Everyone just seemed happy to get rid of a regime that had returned its people to the medieval ages. No one asked if that was a good enough reason to pulverize a whole country.

Just when everybody thought the United States was closing in on Bin Laden and his al-Qaida, George W. Bush made an abrupt detour in August 2002 and pointed at a new target: Saddam Hussein of Iraq. To this day no one has come up with any solid evidence linking Saddam to Bin Laden. Why is he being targeted? Saddam's crime, says Bush, is his failure since 1991 to abide by the resolutions of the United Nations ordering him to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But what has this got to do with the events of Sept. 11?

For 11 years since the Gulf War, the United States assiduously monitored Iraq's compliance with the UN resolutions. It bombed warehouses it suspected to be hiding places for biological and chemical weapons. Even as Iraq insists it has destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction, the United States pushed for UN Resolution 1441 which placed the burden of proof upon Saddam himself. Let us assume that Saddam indeed kept some of these weapons. Does that justify deploying more than 250,000 troops and launching a massive war against the Iraqi nation? Is the threat that Saddam poses to the United States and to the rest of the world so grave and imminent that we cannot allow the UN weapons inspectors to have a bit more time to finish their work?

Bush and his war team say that Saddam has been engaged too long in a charade with the UN. Saddam is dangerous because he is the type of person, Bush says, who would not hesitate to use these weapons against his enemies or to deliver them into the waiting hands of terrorist groups. Let us grant that that is true. Why single out Iraq? Many other countries are known to have weapons of mass destruction, and not all of them are above selling these to shady groups for the right price. Are they also targets? And there is North Korea, of course, which has not made a secret of its nuclear weapons program. Its belligerent statements have been far more provocative than anything that has come out of Iraq. Yet in 1995, the US government supplied the North Koreans with their energy requirements in exchange for giving up their nuclear development program. What is the difference between Saddam and Kim Jong-il?

To ask questions like these is to risk being called a Saddam-lover. And there, I suppose, lies the whole problem. The American people now find themselves precisely in a situation where they cannot exercise their critical faculties without inviting scorn or suspicion.

Columbia University Prof. Edward Said offers a powerful description of what has happened to America since Sept. 11: "Democracy traduced and betrayed, democracy celebrated but in fact humiliated and trampled on by a tiny group of men who have simply taken charge of this republic as if it were nothing more than, what, an Arab country? It is right to ask who is in charge since clearly the people of the United States are not properly represented by the war this administration is about to loose on a world already beleaguered by too much misery and poverty to endure more. And Americans have been badly served by a media controlled essentially by a tiny group of men who edit out anything that might cause the government the slightest concern or worry."

Is it right for a small nation like ours to follow a fully armed superpower that cannot rise above its thirst for blood, a country that speaks of democracy even as it openly mocks the authority of the world community?

Discuss.

Just 1 persons opinion, do I agree No. But that is what is so great about the land of the free, you can have any opinion you want. Personally I want to see Saddam tied to a scud and launched out towards sea.:devil:

Err, for the record, that opinion was not even written in the U.S., nor does the writer live there.

Err, for the record, that opinion was not even written in the U.S., nor does the writer live there.


Which shows that writer doesn't have a clue

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Which shows that writer doesn't have a clue

Instead of sober arguments, our friends in the United States tell us: "You would never understand-you were not here on Sept. 11." Sept. 11 has become a code word for the survival of the American people. As such, it takes precedence over any other value. To ask commonsense questions about it is to risk isolation, or worse, to be accused of treason. I used to think that paranoia produces such effects only in closed societies. Now we know that Sept. 11 did not only kill people, it also killed the critical faculties of a whole nation.

Just quoting that from the article, to show that the reply above exactly tells of how Americans (not all, again for the record) react when such a thing is said of them. And it shows that, indeed, it seems the critical faculties of a whole nation have completely shut down, which is the worst tragedy.

You dont have to live in the US to have an opinion about it. Not everyone is going to like the US and Im sure you know this. That's ok, he's entitled to speak his mind, that doesnt mean I have to agree with what he says.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i



Which shows that writer doesn't have a clue

So you mean to say the billions of people outside of the US, many of whom are very well educated, don't have a clue?

So you mean to say the billions of people outside of the US, many of whom are very well educated, don't have a clue?



Ok I could have worded it this way.

Most People outside of the US don't have a clue as to how the majority of Americans feel. Different society and different way of life. We enjoy freedoms that no other country on earth does and I think that is what makes the US the only place to live. Now if we could ship Michael Moore off to Iraq to be Saddam's butt buddy it would even be a nicer place to live.

I agree with the above. Not all who live outside the US are ignorant in the way the US works and feels and goes about things, but there are those who, from the time they know about the US and learn about some of the things that happen there and the things we've done, believe that our country is, well, arrogant. They think that we take our freedom for granted because they dont have it, they think we are too rich because of some of the things we do, because maybe they cant do any such things due to lack of money. Another thing that bothers me is when people who are from outside the US make statements that belittle the US and make us seem as though we are the enemy, and that we cause all the problems, without even living here. They dont like the country simply because, they can. They dont need a reason, no, of course not. ah well, I suppose Im just venting.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i




Ok I could have worded it this way.

Most People outside of the US don't have a clue as to how the majority of Americans feel. Different society and different way of life. We enjoy freedoms that no other country on earth does and I think that is what makes the US the only place to live. Now if we could ship Michael Moore off to Iraq to be Saddam's butt buddy it would even be a nicer place to live.

Can you perhaps tell me of one freedom that you have in the U.S.that we don't have here?

The only 'freedom' that you have that we don't,as far as I can tell,is the right to own a pistol with minimal controls.

Judging by the number of firearms incidents every year[armed robberies,sieges,shoot-outs,drive-bys,murders etc] I'd call that a liability rather than a freedom.

Judging by the number of firearms incidents every year[armed robberies,sieges,shoot-outs,drive-bys,murders etc] I'd call that a liability rather than a freedom.


Unfortunately that is a byproduct of being able to own a gun. I took a test to allow me to carry a concealed weapon which I carry with me from the moment I leave the house. The reasons why are because I carry a cashbag to and from the store after hours that typically contains quite a bit of money.
I however do not carry a weapon at other times even though I legally can now. While we don't have all the kinks ironed out of our system we are steadily working at it.