jet political!

March 19 (last Sunday) marked the third anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, spurring a fresh round of anti-war protests across the world.

Then, on Tuesday, US President Bush admitted that US forces would remain in the country for at least three more years (so six years after his administration launched the Iraq war) but refused to set a deadline for withdrawal.

Add to this the invasion's controversial rationale and the mounting death toll (which is already in the tens of thousands (at least)) and the case for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq seems very weak indeed.


It also begs the question (again) of was the Iraq war necessary.

And, more generally, is war ever necessary?

A couple of posts back we discussed riots and their questionable legitimacy and/or necessity in effecting political change.

Now, I would like to ask similar questions of war:

• Is war a legitimate means to effect change?


• Is there such thing as a "good" war? (World War II is often refered to in Allied accounts as this)


• Is war inevitable? (that is, will the human race forever continue to go to war?)

Below is an email I received today from Get Up! (see under the links section in the sidebar). Have a read and check out the video. Pretty full on shit. The Howard government really sucks. Sorry if this is a bit Australian-specific but I thought instead of forwarding the email to five friends I'd post it up for all to see.


Dear friends,

We're 11 weeks into the Cole inquiry over the AWB wheat bribes scandal and everyone's eyes have glazed over. In this drawn-out tale of corporate scheming, accountability loopholes and legalese it's become almost impossible to keep track of the facts, much less why the public should care.

Unfortunately, this just lets the government off the hook - which is just what they're counting on.

The real story here is simple and very serious. Under the Howard government, Australia's monopoly wheat exporter paid Saddam Hussein's government almost $300 million in bribes, a rort of the oil-for-food program that Saddam used to get around UN trade sanctions, and buy weapons.

The Howard government received at least 24 clear warnings of these bribes, but instead of investigating the allegations, it chose to vigorously defend AWB to our allies and the UN.

Last October, when the UN inquiry finally revealed what the government should have known all along, the official reaction was a stock-in-trade response: deny and delay. Eventually, they announced an inquiry with limited powers to question the government; silencing the critics while ensuring a third party gets all the blame.

It is crucial that people understand the seriousness of this scandal before it slips off the radar. We've created an ad to explain it --- can you forward it to five people today?

Click the link below to watch the ad and send it to your friends:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/AuthorisedBribes

Sometimes a bit of direct humour can send a strong message. Australians deserve to understand why AWB matters.

Thanks for being a part of this,

The GetUp team

(Photo: cooked dogs in SE China)

When engaged with a new society, with different cultural values should the newcomer be expected to convert completely to the cultural and social etiquette around them? Language, dress norms, and the use of narcotics are all major issues that separate societies, posing major issues for newcomers. With France, Spain, America and now Australia flirting with laws limiting traditional symbols of Arabian culture (the wearing of headscarves for girls in school), these are certainly testing times for civil liberties and cultural independence in the face of the traditionally 'free' western countries.

Yet, even in more benign issues, what is a reasonable expectation of a new-arrival to respect and conform to the values of their adopted country?

To draw this away from the previous topic of the burqa and make it less culturally specific, I would like to explore the example of inter-cultural fare (food being a typical marker of culture as it works in every-day society).

What would you draw the line at in terms of food?

Is it rude to refuse to eat something that is culturally off-the-table at home, or that plain tastes awful? In what circumstances would it be acceptable or not to eat something controversial at home that is on the menu in another country?

Many issues of religion, biological conservation, moral beliefs and historical pressures shape our views and what foods are acceptable. Would you try whale at a sushi-ya? Would you refuse the heart and liver of a Marmot in a mongolian-ger? Would you be offended if your guest refused to eat a non-kosher dinner, or be frustrated with a partner's strict vegan diet?

Where do your personal lines lie, and what should we expect of ourselves and others when engaged in a new society?

Related article: http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=113