|
http://www.yt.org/article.php?sid=930 "Michael Medved and the Phantom Menace" |
|
(YellowTimes.org) – Michael Medved is, apparently, a film critic. It appears he also writes books, according to his website, about "the intersection of politics and pop culture," whatever that means. Until today, I had never heard of him. And now I'm sorry I have.
According to his self-aggrandizing website, Mr. Medved is one of God's most special children. Damn near perfect, incredibly intelligent, and extra special cute, to boot. Apparently, it is only my own ignorance that I was unfamiliar with his magnificence but, as I came across an article he wrote entitled "Carving up 10 anti-war arguments at gatherings," I was readily persuaded that his ignorance far exceeds mine. His article appeared under date of December 9, 2002 on the WorldNetDaily website. I'm not sure how he concluded that these were the most important concerns raised by the leftist-unintelligent-pinko-unpatriotic bastards who take issue with starting a war against Iraq. But it's the best he could come up with. So, as a counterbalance to his thoughtful prose, I offer my rebuttal to his rebuttals.
1. War never solved anything.
Medved points out this isn't true; it solves "many (if not most) of the major problems and dangers in history." Well 'solve' is only the right word if you happen to be on the winning end; it is only the right word if you omit all the horrendous carnage along with the economic and property damage caused by war; it is only the right word if you ignore the requirements of just about all of the world's great faiths that we not kill one another.
But even if it can be said that war does solve things, so what? Feeling depressed is easily solved by suicide, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
2. We have no right to attack Saddam because our aid made him powerful and he once functioned as our ally.
According to Medved, this is neither true nor relevant. He claims that Iraq's military strength is courtesy of the Soviet Union. Mr. Medved appears to be the only one who isn't aware of the military materiel provided to Saddam by his generous Uncle Sam. He refers to the support of Iraq against Iran as "fleeting cooperation some 20 years ago." Well, that fleeting cooperation gave Iraq most of the military tools it has today because, despite the accusations being made against them, they haven't succeeded in developing much on their own.
It is nonsense to say the previous American aid to Iraq is irrelevant. If you are planning to attack someone because they possess something that you gave them, you're on pretty shaky moral ground.
3. It's all about oil.
Well, Medved doesn't think so. But, even if it is, "so what," he asks. He says that because the whole American economy depends on imported oil, national security does as well. And that apparently gives America the right to go wherever it wants and just take what it wants. Because if America needs a raw product, then they should damn well have it and no tinhorn dictator with a big mustache should be allowed to stand in the way of it simply taking what it needs.
America's imported oil doesn't come from Iraq, he says. Indeed. That's why this fight is all about oil, sir, to ensure that it does come from Iraq, but under American suzerainty.
4. Instead of planning war, we should be developing alternate energy sources to lessen our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Well, he agrees alternate sources should be sought. Unfortunately, his suggestion is to destroy the Arctic to get at whatever reserves lay under the tundra. Now here's a guy the world needs on its team.
Frankly, I have paid a good deal of attention to the issue of war with Iraq and I don't believe I've heard anyone raise the issue of windmills or solar panels as an alternative to bombing Baghdad. I can't imagine anyone seriously raising alternative energy development as part of the debate over war versus peace.
5. If we make war on Iraq, it will only enrage the Arab world and provoke even more terrifying results by terrorists.
Medved's take on this one is so stupid I'm just going to quote him directly: "The 'don't get the crazy Arabs mad' argument rests upon the premise that their fury arises in reaction to some action or policy of the United States, rather than as an expression of their own self-destructive insanity and suicidal evil."
6. The U.S. is no better than Saddam because we've murdered some 1.5 million Iraqi children with our sanctions.
According to Medved, it's the "leftists" who have this all wrong. He says the number keeps changing and that it's "a stupid lie" in any event. Moreover, he says that anyone who repeats this sort of drivel is "an unpaid but loyal propagandist for Saddam." Hard to argue with logic like that, but here goes.
Of course there has been suffering as a result of the sanctions. There has recently been an 'Oil for Food' program administered as part of the sanctions but the key word here is 'recent.' And it doesn't provide medicine or housing or potable water. Medved blames Saddam's hoarding of wealth and he is probably right about the hoarding, but wealth is not much use if sanctions prevent you from spending it on the things you need. Even if Saddam were inclined to help out the Iraqi people, just where would he spend that wealth when his borders are locked up tighter than Medved's brain?
Call it what you will; Iraqi civilians have certainly died as a result of the sanctions and the incessant bombing in 1991 and since. It is murder; uniforms don't change that.
7. There is no connection between Islamic terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime.
He offers no evidence but simply says this is untrue. He claims al Qaida and Iraq are in bed with each other. My God, even the internationally-renowned moron George Bush doesn't try to claim that.
8. All the talk of war against Iraq has caused us to lose focus on the war against terrorism.
Mr. Medved says that, even though George Bush has become a one-trick pony, the focus hasn't been lost. Oh, please, tell me this man is not this naïve.
It's more than 15 months after the incident that set Bush on his own personal quest for fire and the bad guys that were the alleged targets of his rage are still out there, still causing trouble. But Bush has only one thing on his mind (one more than he usually has) and that is tackling the Butcher of Baghdad. It's all he talks about; it's what all of his waking moments are spent obsessing over; it's what has driven America for about a year now.
But Mr. Medved thinks the focus on terrorism has not been lost. Right.
9. If we go ahead with war against Iraq, it will represent a betrayal of our values and mark the first time in history that we attacked another country that never attacked us first.
I suppose if you frame the statement in such an idiotic way, you can justify Medved's response: "Only those with a truly pathetic public-school education [you know, the kind you get in U.S. public schools] could believe such rubbish." He then iterates a list of engagements where there was no direct attack on the United States. Well, duh. There haven't been very many of those, have there?
The real point here is that this will be first time the United States has taken upon itself the right to attack a sovereign nation just because they might be a problem to someone, someday, in someway; all based on the possibility that they may have some weapon or other that we just can't seem to find. Despite Medved's assertion, this is out of character with what America has always claimed to represent and it will be betrayal of those values. Manipulating the way the statement is worded isn't going to change the fact that the upcoming war against Iraq puts America at its lowest moral point.
10. Iraq is no military pushover and we will suffer appalling losses in any war we launch.
Medved says that no credible military analysts (that is, those whose position supports his) agree with that assessment. He figures this is going to be easy.
Now, I know I am not going to make myself very popular here, but the list of American military successes is embarrassingly small. Despite all the hubris and national chest-beating that America-loving patriots have voiced over the years, there are precious few military campaigns that they can be said to have 'won.' It isn't so much that Iraq is strong (or not); it's really that the American military is nowhere near as good as its press. This is going to be Vietnam, without the jungle.
One of Medved's conclusions is that "all humanity - especially the 200 million Arabs who suffer under the fanatical oppression of their own regimes - will benefit from a sweeping U.S. victory and an increase in American influence." Isn't it odd that most of the rest of humanity doesn't see it that way? We've all seen the recent news about studies showing that America is not 'liked' as much as it used to be in more and more places around the world. People who think like Michael Medved are the reason why.
I don't know if this guy is a decent movie critic; no doubt it is an honorable profession, but who cares? I also don't know if the books he writes have any merit. But if this article of his is typical of his mindset, the less the world hears from him, the better off we will all be.
[Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing Canadian businesses with the tools and expertise to successfully reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. He has traveled extensively in what we arrogant North Americans refer to as "the Third World," and he believes that life is very much like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. Paul lives in Canada.]
Paul Harris encourages your comments: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated. |
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
Meet Singles
