An Entry Tom will Like.

I just read the news that the U.S. and Iraq are negotiating the long-term presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Now, I just read this, and as such, I haven't heard the liberal democrats' reaction. But as a liberal democrat, I just want to give my reaction.
One would seemingly think I would be outraged at the thought of long-term troop presence in Iraq. Why let our kids (like I'm old enough to say 'our kids') continue to die?
Well, I am not. I am/was for withdrawing from Iraq because Iraq citizens overwhelmingly want[ed] us out. They see us as contributing to the violence. Now don't get me wrong, I think the invasion was a bad and unprincipled move to begin with--but the point is, we are there, pulling out won't reverse that mistake. But what I am saying is that now that we are there, and we have a moral interest in ensuring the freedom and sovereignty of Iraq, we ought to do what they want (within limits, of course). Now it seemed to me, at least until now, that they wanted us to leave. And they may still want that, I'm not really sure. But if Iraq is taking steps toward democracy (which is debatable), we should help the process along by respecting their sovereignty. And that is why I have/had always said 'let's get the hell out of there', because the citizens of Iraq want[ed] us out. With this new story of Iraq wanting us to stay and provide security, I am not so sure. The real question at this point is whether the Iraqi government is representing their citizens' desires and interests. And I don't know that answer to that question. But if they are, and I were to be convinced that they were, I would reverse my position on the occupation and advocate us staying there, as long as we were welcome.
Now to respond to my fellow liberal democrats objection: "What about the families of the troops that are dying? Isn't this reason enough to be against the occupation?"
I respond: No. Its not. As controversial as this may be, American lives are not more valuable than Iraqi lives. If staying in Iraq provided decent security to millions of Iraqis, it would be worth it, even if a few thousand more American soldiers died. They wouldn't be dying in vain. They would be dying 'for freedom'. Just because its freedom in a different country doesn't make it any less valuable. That would be ethnocentric to assert otherwise.
I assume Republicans would disagree with my claim about Iraqi lives being equally as valuable as American lives, but it doesn't matter. The point is that we would conceivably hold the same position on the war, but for different reasons.

So there you have it. And I'll be watching my boy John Edwards on this one--his reaction could make or break my support for him.

Leaders of Countries who Deny Genocides...

President Ahmadinejad of Iran takes a lot of shit for denying the Jewish genocide of WWII, and rightly so. Truly, how can he not know? The evidence is sitting right there in front of everyone. It happened. It was fucked up. I wish everyone could acknowledge that. I mean, Ahmadinejad wouldn't even have to take any of the blame for the genocide! It wasn't him, it wasn't his country. It was Hitler and Germany. And Germany acknowledges it, they feel bad about it. And that is good. We all ought to remember genocides.
I won't even mention the genocide happening in Darfur that no one seems to care to do anything about. Except to respond to: "Yeah, but Preston, you are a pacifist liberal--you think intervening in Iraq and Iran to stop human rights abuses was wrong, so how is Darfur any different?" Well, I'll tell you. I am not talking about killing people. I am talking about a peace force. Its completely different. Its like when you are at a bar and a fight breaks out--someone ought to step in and hold the two guys back. That isn't war; that isn't regime change; its using force for peace.

Anyway--back to the topic here. Why does Ahmadinejad deny the WWII genocide? I'm not sure. Maybe he feels like if he did he would have to acknowledge Israel as a state. But his motives aren't too crucial to me--the point is denying genocide is stupid and arrogant. Especially when the evidence is right in your face. And I think everyone would agree with that.

except...

Wait a minute. Has anyone been watching the news this week? Congress finally is trying to pass a bill acknowledging the other genocide...you know, the Armenian one? The obvious response...I would have thought, from almost everyone, would be "Wow! That is great! I mean, its unfortunate the government is using our tax dollars to vote on so many non-binding resolutions, but, cool. I guess its time we finally acknowledge that happened--after all, hundreds of thousands of Armenians died (link is graphic; be advised).

But wait a minute...

President Bush and his cabinet are urging congresspeople to take the bill off the table, or barring that, vote against it? What!? Why?

Well, the Ottoman Empire (which doesn't exist anymore) was based in Turkey. Apparently we have more genocide deniers than just Ahmadinejad on our hands. Turkey has threatened to take away our strategic military base if we..uh..I don't know how to say this and have it sound unbiased...if we..acknowledge a genocide of which there is overwhelming evidence happened.
I am not sure why Turkey is repressing what happened in their country a hundred years ago. No one that committed the genocide is still alive. No one would have to be held accountable. So it can't be that. I am very confused on why Turkey is so pissed off.

But this presents a problem for us. Do we take down the bill, thus tacitly denying a genocide which involved hundreds of thousands of people's deaths?
President Bush says yes. I am not really sure how this wouldn't make him a genocide denier. He is saying passing this bill will be harmful to our alliance with Turkey and our war on terror. So, don't pass the bill.
But doesn't that imply the following:
Acknowledging a horrible event of which hundreds of thousands of people were killed because of their race would be harmful to our alliance with Turkey and our war on terror? What if Turkey came out and denied the Holocaust happened? Would that change anything? And if so, why? Because Hitler was more successful at his genocide? Because we will allow you to deny one genocide, but two is just too much?
What
the
hell!

I mean, I think even folks against the bill would agree, that Turkey is just being completely unreasonable. We aren't holding them accountable--we aren't asking for reparations. We are acknowledging something happened on the same land that they live on. I guess the Ottoman Empire was also Muslim, but, we aren't making any overarching claims about all Muslims. I think Muslims would agree genocide is wrong. So yeah, Turkey is being completely unreasonable.

Now if their threats are going to prevent us from passing a non-binding resolution about a genocide which anyone with the evidence in front of them would acknowledge happened, then how much power do they really have against us?
What other unreasonable demands could they make that Bush would nod and smile to?

I say, pass the resolution. Everyone knows its the moral and principled thing to do. The only argument against it is the pragmatics. And it seems like one thing everyone would have agreed upon, Republicans and Democrats, before this week, is that we are not going to pander to any genocide deniers. So why is it different because its Turkey? If their leadership (not necessarily their people, I don't know what they think) want to be completely unreasonable, and deny genocide, then fine. They shouldn't be our allies. Period.
And if someone thinks our policy should change on that, and that we should allow leadership of countries to hold bizarre opinions, then fine. Let's open up talks with Iran then.

Its your choice. All I ask from you is consistency.

(It seems to me like the Republican thing to do would be to tell Turkey to fuck off if they are going to be ridiculous, and the Democrat thing to do would be to open up talks with Iran and keep Turkey as an ally. I am sympathetic to both, but more so to the latter. Either way, passing the bill seems the obvious thing to do, since we are supposed to be a country with a moral compass, not North Korea or Myanmar.)

Iraq Oil Law

Two quick things. First of all, there has been a lot of talk in the media lately about the "Iraq Oil Law". It is one of the political benchmarks the U.S. set against the al-Maliki government.
Now, being the inquisitive mind that I am...I wanted to know...what is this Oil Law? Is it to share all profits among the country, ensuring that it isn't just the Kurds whom receive the profit? Is it to ensure that hardworking and cooperative Iraqis will be able to reap the spoils of their hard work?
NO.
The Iraqi Oil Law is a bill that guarantees at least 12.5% of oil profits to foreign companies. It gives the Iraqi government ownership of 17 of Iraq's 80 oil fields, with the rest of the developed fields going to foreign companies. All undeveloped and undiscovered fields (which, this is Iraq, there are plenty), are open to private investors.
Why is no one paying attention?

On a more sympathetic note, in a new book out today, President Bush admits that he cries. A lot.
Am I laughing? No. It gives me a warm sentiment inside...you know...a Humean moral sentiment...to know that our President, wrong as he may be, is trying to do his best. Barring that, he feels guilty.
He isn't a heartless evil demon like some liberals want to stamp him. He is just a guy, with differing beliefs. I think he really does believe invading Iraq was right. And he really does believe privatization will benefit all.
So let's take a breath, and realize that there are very few people out there who are flat out evil all the time. Most just disagree about fundamental beliefs.

The 9/11 Conspiracy Entry

You know, I have really never spoken with anyone about the so-called '9/11 Truth Movement' as such. The only conversation I have ever had about it was with my Dad, not about the beliefs and arguments themselves, but as to the limits of academic freedom. (There was a professor at the University of Wisconsin who many thought should have been fired for featuring a few essays that debated the issue--last I knew, he wasn't. I guess Bill O'Reilly's campaign failed.)
My Dad thought he should have been fired for expressing such insane beliefs, in the classroom or out of it. To him, the 9/11 Conspiracy is not something he is cognitively able to believe (see William James, 'The Will to Believe'). I was on the other side, that although I remained skeptical about the validity of the 9/11 Conspiracy, that academics must be allowed to express unpopular beliefs without fear of losing their jobs. Academics are sort of a high-brow version of the Fourth Estate, or at least I always thought so.
So anyway, back to my original point. I have never really spoken with anyone about the 9/11 Conspiracy movement, so I'm not really sure how much on the 'fringe' it is. I know there are quite a few 9/11 myth books, and I've seen at least one nutjob on Fox News (not to say all people who believe in the movement are nutjobs, but this guy, yeah, he was.)
So, really, this entry may be preaching to the choir. Do people remain vehemently against the movement on principle? Or do people not care and be agnostic about it?
Well, either way, I was always agnostic about the whole thing. I guess I just figured that regardless of what the Bush Administration may have known before the attack, they used it as a reason to go after Iraq.
But finally, the curiosity got to me--it felt close-minded of me to not hear their arguments out just because they are on the fringe. So, I started by looking around the internet to see what the '9/11 Truthers' thought was the best documentary made so far. The answer seemed to be a documentary called Loose Change. I was lucky enough to find a version of Loose Change which included counter-arguments along with the movie itself. That way, I could decide for myself who was more convincing.
Well, the movie is almost 3 hours long, so unless you're pretty curious, I wouldn't waste your time. The 9/11 Truth Movement is bull shit. My dad was right about that. (I still think professors should be able to hold the view, however.) Yeah, I really overestimated their reasoning abilities. The extent of which they mislead is the only thing I underestimated. I mean there is malicious use of quotes! Let me give an example. Let's say someone was quoted as saying "It looked like a missile, but it wasn't, because it had wings and said American Airlines." Loose Change would only take the "It looked like a missile" part of the quote.
Not to mention how clearly ad-hoc their arguments are. They cite only sources which illustrate the point they are trying to make, and anyone who disagrees with them they consider part of the conspiracy. Its pretty ridiculous.
But, I'm glad. I am glad they are totally wrong. That would have really made me much more paranoid than health would advise.

On the other hand, I still am cynical. Check out This video. WOW.

I think I am becoming...a pundit....

Not like a opinion leader or anything of that sort, because...well I haven't known many people who take my advice or hold my viewpoints. But I am just politics obsessed lately. Its pretty disgusting.

Anyway, stumbled across this great site yesterday--- WorldPublicOpinion.org
They gather surveys worldwide about stuff and bring it all together. Want to know how Muslims feel about Americans? ...we all know the world doesn't feel too greatly about America, but how does the world feel about the EU?
Polls are interesting because they are another outlet for democracy. And it is amazing how much polls can vary from the politicians that poll-takers voted in.
A couple of interesting things I've stumbled across so far:
Most Americans support the UN, and want it helped along to become a relevant international player. This is interesting, possibly only to me, because conservatives tend to be against the UN on the grounds that they don't get anything accomplished. But to me, this isn't a reason to abolish the UN, or quit funding it, but to improve it. Some people seem convinced that you can't fix what is broken, but it seems ridiculous to disband an international community of rational people because they haven't gotten a lot done lately.

How about this...Muslims overwhelmingly think the US is trying to divide and weaken Islam!

Ok...I can't even begin to respond to that. Obviously some policies need to be changed somewhere, if we are alienating not just a few radicals but the entire international Muslim community. Has Bush seen this poll?

And then, of course my favorite...the one which I argued with my own mother about.
Iraqis want Americans out.
Now we aren't in Iraq for WMDs. We are arguably not in Iraq for Al-Qaeda...I say arguably because even though no links between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda have been proven, it could still be said that Sadaam let them hang out in the country...they are both Sunni. But that is a questionable link. So the official government argument is that we are in Iraq to promote democracy in the Middle East.
But let's stop right there.
Is U.S.A. really always pro-democracy, or are they pro-democracy when democracy happens to be a good thing for the U.S.? Case in point: The 2006 Palestinian election. Hamas comes in and wins a democratic election, as far as everyone knows fairly, and aid is withdrawn left and right. I understand Hamas doesn't recognize Israel. I understand they are seen as a terrorist organization. But ok, I guess we don't support democracy in all circumstances. Am I speaking too radically if I say you have to accept politicians you vehemently disagree with to win elections?
Now, back from that tangent, let's look at this poll, example number 2 of why the U.S. isn't really pro-democracy all the time. Iraqis want Americans out. 80%. So there you go. There is democracy. read the article, I won't waste my time repeating it.
My point is, and this is coming off of the top of my head, if you are going to support democracy, support it all the time, even when you disagree with how it turns out. Not doing so is just as bad as those liberals (Yeah, thats right, I'm attacking my own crowd) that are pro free speech until something sexist comes out of someone's mouth.

And finally, I Like Al-Jazeera. I think what they do is wonderful. But more on that next time....