Response to seraphimsigrist

[sophiaserpentia]

If the primary motives behind the war were as they have been stated to be in the media -- the deposing of a cruel regime -- then I would agree that the best outcome to hope for now that war has begun would be a quick victory for the US.

But I keep coming back to my conviction that the primary motivation for the war was not to protect the people of Iraq but to establish a global military hegemony, to feed the military-industrial complex, and to "clear the way" for American businesses to gain advantages they do not already have in world markets. By "following the money" it's possible to explain every nation's stance in favor of or opposition to, the war.

That it all boils down to bucks and self-interest on every side makes this situation intolerably cynical for someone like me, who strives above all else to be a person of conscience and compassion.

Perhaps though, in its own way it is a blessing that governments and corporations (archons in every sense) have been forced to tip their hands. Without the charade of beneficence to hide behind, we can see them and their actions for what they really are.

Comments

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

Boy, aren't I just making a general nuissance of myself in poor sophiaserpentia's journal today...

And an even deeper irony - at least two of the nations in favor of peace - France and Russia - are probably in favor of peace because of under the table arms deals with Saddam Hussein... "follow the money" indeed.

Really, I don't think there's any "probably" about it - although I would hasten to add that the motivations of the respective governments are likely very distinct from the motivations of the thousands taking to the streets in those countries as well as elsewhere. Indeed, I've thought about this same thing as well, and it ties into what both arbiteroftruth and seraphimsigrist have broached above, about the only relative virtue of the isolation of motives. Following the money in this case seems to lead to a recognition of, on the one hand, the enlarging of the sphere of largesse of the hegemon, and on the other, the restricting of that same sphere by competing interests. The problem would no doubt exist if the powers of the players were reversed, of course. And I really don't have a fundamental problem with any of this as long as I bear in mind that the sphere of politics is always contingent, always dependent on some deeper principle. I support France's and Russia's stances because they help limit the power of the current hegemon, which is a far larger threat to us all than the relatively petty national and corporate aspirations being represented by their opposition. Then again, I may just be done with all this lesser evil business in the next election and will cast my vote for Cthulhu.

Re:

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Hey, I tried to vote for Cthulu in the last election, but you can't write in a vote for president in Louisiana (much to my dismay) so I just voted for Ralph Nader instead, whom everyone thinks is as bad as Cthulu now anyway.

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

Certainly that's what my Gore-aphilic parents thought!