catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

choosing innocents

Default

laurencer
Jan 10 2003
04:39 am

just got this in an e-mail newsletter from sojourners, a christian magazine that focuses on issues of culture, politics and faith. interesting . . .


Bush deplores the killing of [certain] innocents

The following is the script of an interchange between Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and journalist Helen Thomas.

January 6, 2003

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
12:35 P.M. EST

MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon and happy New Year to
everybody. …The President will discuss with members of
his Cabinet his agenda for the year. The President is
going to focus on economic growth, making America a more
compassionate country, and providing for the security of
our nation abroad and on the homefront.

And with that, I’m more than happy to take your
questions. Helen.

Q: At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the
President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does
that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And
I have a follow-up.

MR. FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible
terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and
wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his
statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms
the taking of those lives and the wounding of those
people, innocents in Israel.

Q: My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on
innocent Iraqis?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect
Americans, and our allies and friends —

Q: They’re not attacking you.

MR. FLEISCHER: - from a country -

Q: Have they laid the glove on you or on the United
States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?

MR. FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the
Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as
a result of Saddam Hussein’s aggression then.

Q: Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you know very well
that the President’s position is that he wants to
avert war, and that the President has asked the
United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the
purpose of averting war.

Q: Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants to make certain
that he can defend our country, defend our interests,
defend the region, and make certain that American
lives are not lost.

Q: And he thinks they are a threat to us?

MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question that the President
thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Q: The Iraqi people?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Iraqi people are represented by
their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi —

Q: So they will be vulnerable?

MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President has made it
very clear that he has no dispute with the people of
Iraq. That’s why the American policy remains a policy
of regime change. There is no question the people of
Iraq —

Q: That’s a decision for them to make, isn’t it? It’s
their country.

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you think that the people
of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their
dictator is, I don’t think that has been what history
has shown.

Q: I think many countries don’t have — people don’t
have the decision — including us.

To view the transcript, see:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030106-1.html
-——————————————

Default

Norbert
Jan 10 2003
05:08 am

wow. nicely put.
How many of you would be approving of a war with iraq if they find weapons? If they don’t? Apparently they haven’t, I’m not sure if they’re done yet, so that last question may be moot.
The more I think about it, the more I love the idea that pacifism isn’t necessarily passive. Did you mention that Rob…whoever it was, I’m applying it hypothetically more and more to this situation.
As long as we’re at it, what do you think the probabilities with war with N. Korea are?

Default

dan
Jan 10 2003
10:08 am

The inspectors are not done yet. They finally got their helicopters which makes their job easier. The fact that the most important job on earth right now was being done by jeeps, shows how underfunded the UN truly is, and how the US isn’t making inspections a priority at all. And time is running out on inspections: The Americans attack in February or March due to favourable weather conditions during those months. I predict March. I was thinking the other day what it would do if enough Americans flew to Baghdad next month and just camped out there in protest. Would that stop the war? Or would they just become Husseins pawns?

Default

dan
Jan 10 2003
10:22 am

Re North Korea. I see this as a brilliant tactical move (short sighted perhaps) by the North Koreans who know the last thing Bush wants right now is a REAL threat from a rogue nation. Iraq is presented by the Bush administration as a threat, but I haven’t met many people who believe Iraq presents an serious danger to the US. North Korea is playing for a better economic place in the world community. In exchange for dropping their nuclear program again, they want more aid, less sanctions, etc. They also like the idea of forcing the USA into a corner! Puny little North Korea forcing the US to sit down at a table to talk. It’s quite a coup for them. But the last thing anyone wants (inluding Kim Jun Il) is a war on the Korean Peninsula again. Temperate mountain warfare against millions of brainwashed North Koreans is also very different from desert warfare against a bunch of disgruntled Iraqis, many of whom (Suni Muslims, Kurds) are expected to join the Americans when the invasion begins. That’s all I’m going to rant about for now and I certainly hope someone disagrees with me cause otherwise I may have killed this thread.

Default

Norbert
Jan 10 2003
10:40 am

I really appreciate the posts Dan. I just don’t know enough about either situations. I’ve never felt more American.
I hadn’t thought of the N. Korean perspective though I did think it was more than coincidence that they would choose now to play the nuclear card.

Default

JasonBuursma
Jan 10 2003
02:46 pm

That interview was interesting. The media can be clever. Somehow eliminating a nuclear threat and a major terrorist supporter became equivalent to killing innocent Iraqis. I’m surprised the interviewer didn’t ask if the President wanted to shoot Bambi.

It does bring up an interesting question, though. Who are “innocent people” during wartime?

I recently watched a Rambo movie (don’t ask) and I couldn’t help but chuckle at the bitter irony. Rambo was supporting the noble and spirited Afghani Muhajedin (sp?) against the evil mean Russians.
I don’t think Hollywood’s itching to make a movie now about how noble, persistant, and spirited the Muhajedin/Taliban are.

We’ve all heard stories about Vietnamese children and women carrying bombs into an American perimeter or Chechnian civilians pretending to be Russian sympathizers and actually leading them into Chechnian ambushes.

It can be easy to take the presumed moral high ground in a case like Iraq. I personally have no desire to go to war, but if it means making things safer for the next generation of americans and providing a better way of life for the people of Iraq, then I wouldn’t hesitate.

Who do we let choose the innocents? the politicians? the military? the reporters?

Default

BBC
Jan 10 2003
02:59 pm

I hear what you are saying, Jason, but isn’t it true that the Iraqis haven’t attacked us? I have no problem with my contry doing to war if there is a treat. But we are currently moving tons of troops into the area despite the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have behaved in any way agressively toward us. All we have is President Bush’s assurance that he has some evidence agaisnt the Iraqis — and when he makes that evidence public, he will have my support, not before.

This does not mean that I think Hussain is a noble and good guy — he is clearly a pretty nasty leader — but he is hardly the only one of those in the world. There are people who think President Bush is a pretty nasty leader — that doesn’t give them the right to go to war with us.

I don’t think the media are trying to be clever by asking if President Bush cares about protecting the lives of innocents — it is a legitimate question. I applaud that he greives for innocents cut down in the Arab-Isreali war. It is tragic. But if we cut down innocent Iraqis — many of who don’t support or even like Saddam — including little children — isn’t that something we should grieve about too?

Default

dan
Jan 12 2003
07:23 am

Check out this interesting article on nuclear proliferation:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20030111/UNUKEM/International/international/international_temp/1/1/34/

Default

grant
Jan 12 2003
01:55 pm

I got the same impression from the transcript that the media was trying to catch the Bush administration in a statement about how they love war and want to kill innocent people. Rather than allow Bush to state the war in terms of regime change, the media is shifting the focus to something that is important, but not relevant to the press conference. Recognizing the evils of war is important, but it’s not the only topic of discussion allowed. Tactical questions are permitted too.