cartoon mary
thanks for this idea, jon. here's me as a cartoon ... incredibly accurate, i'd say.
visit www.weeworld.com.
Labels: web fun
posted by Mary @ 9:31 AM
30 comments
[in progress]
typos are very important to all written form. it gives the reader something to look for so they aren't so distracted by the total lack of content in your writing. randy milholland
Saturday, February 03, 2007
visit www.weeworld.com.
30 Comments:
cute! but have you ever been to a protest?? i hadn't heard!
see you soon, shell
this is the cutest site -- I added mine to my sidebar, and made one for Fermin and incorporated it into an e-card. =)
i haven't been to a protest, but i've been to a few awareness rallies. does that count?
and yep, this is the funniest site. i think i'll send an ecard, too :)
Did you protest Saddam's human rights atrocities before the war? Maybe a "free Iraq" bumper sticker while in college? I doubt it.
Keep in mind that the same "no war" chants were made in Madison through the mid 1970's. The result: 3 million South Vietnamese civilians were killed once the U.S. exited Vietnam, including many Christians. Taking your "no war" advice will surely bring Iranian backed Shi'a Muslims to power in Iraq who will ruthlessly crush all opposition, including Christians. Will you protest then? I doubt it.
whoa - just to clarify, it was not shelly who wrote the anonymous angry message in regards to your rally comment.
i think protesting or awareness rallies are a beautiful expression of our freedom of speech. :)
whoops - and then i forgot to sign my last one. anonymous sent at 11:51am was shelly. :)
shelly
I agree that protests are a beautiful expression of free speech, even when I disagree with the content of the protest. That is my point exactly, as Saddam's Iraq and post-war Vietnam eliminated all contrary speech. At least the war creates a meaningful opportunity for free speech in Iraq for the first time is 40 years.
Wow! Some anonymous person (not Shelly) is angry....
"At least the war creates a meaningful opportunity for free speech in Iraq for the first time is 40 years."
Seriously... for real?
Then, let's go to war with any country that doesn't have free speech. Is that a good idea too? Or only the ones that have pissed off a president's father, or ones that have a lot of potential for oil....
Laura,
My argument regarding free speech is clearly not exhaustive, seriously...for real. Rather it was a relevant example (this is a post about protests after all) of a broader case for war based on a human rights regime that most agree rivaled only North Korea as most oppressive. We went to war with Yugoslavia for similar crimes against humanity and opposition was rightly muted. Look, there is a thoughtful case to be made under international law that the war is legally questionable. I just don't care for glib "no war" protests, particularly from Christians, because it seemingly ignores the serious persecution of Christians that existed under Saddam (and in Communist Vietnam), and would surely have continued under his son's (Uday and Qusay) had we not intervened.
Regarding your point about invading all nations that suppress free speech if we are going to invade Iraq: clearly national security, geopolitical, legal, and personal reasons went into the decision to go to war. We are a nation with finite resources that cannot use military force everywhere civil and political rights are oppressed. We use diplomacy in North Korea, economic sanctions in Iran, force in Iraq/Afghanistan. That is just the way international relations play out.
For a broader understanding of why we went to war (other than leaders who "have pissed off a president's father", or course!) this speech is worth considering:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html
Who knew a cartoon could spur such a response! :) Haaahaaaahaaa!
i've been to an anti-war protest. in DC a few years back. it was surreal. not at all what i expected but a great experience nonetheless. cartoon people are fun. it was great to see you last weekend. peace.
How is it that all you have to do is post a cartoon of yourself and you get 12+ comments. That is popularity.
I just don't care for glib "no war" protests, particularly from Christians, because it seemingly ignores the serious persecution of Christians that existed under Saddam (and in Communist Vietnam), and would surely have continued under his son's (Uday and Qusay) had we not intervened.
Are you suggesting that God might mandate a war that punishes people who persecute Christians? That's ironic.
BTW, your link doesn't go anywhere, anonymous. But I highly doubt what appears to be a Whitehouse Press release is going to provide convincing evidence that the president was right.. More like one-sided propaganda
I gotta say, I think it's pretty cheap to post such a verbal attack on someone and not use a name. Seems downright cowardly to me.
It makes me sad that there is a concern expressed exclusively for the persecution of Christians. Is it not equally horrible that in our own country we elect very conservative evangelical leaders and marginalize people of other religions or no religion?
-Matt
Laura,
The links works. I think what would be ironic is if you heard the President give a speech that was two-sided. Do you really expect him to say "while Saddam gassed his own people, paid families of suicide bombers in Palestine, and invaded Kuwait, he nonethless has completed wonderful economic development projects in Tikrit and treats Sunnis with great respect"? If you dismiss out of hand everything the President says, that seems as mindless as doing the opposite. I suggest reading it merely to get a sense of the reasons he posited for invading Iraq, as you will see they are not merely because Saddam attempted to assassinate his father.
Regarding whether or not God mandated the invasion of Iraq: that is certainly not my claim. There is a large difference between something being morally justifiable and morally compelled. Has God ever mandated the U.S. to go to war? I don't know. It is at least arguable that it is consistent with God's character that the oppressed be set free. We hear Soujourner's type folk saying this all the time about minorities in the U.S. Most agree that WWII was consistent with God's law. Do you?
This gets us into Matt's objection. "Is it not equally horrible that in our own country we elect very conservative evangelical leaders and marginalize people of other religions or no religion?" This is a somewhat stunning claim. To say that the torture, rape, and murder of Iraqi Christians is akin to marginalizing people of other faiths in the U.S. is almost not worth a response. Don't confuse political differences of opinion with crimes against humanity.
Oh, and I think the only verbal attack on this thread to this point comes from you calling me a coward. I try and use argument instead of insult as a means of persuasion.
Scooter: That link takes me to a page that says, "file not found." I tried it three more times just now.
I do not disregard everything the president says. I believe he has some realistic/pragmatic views on immigration, which I feel very strongly and know a lot about.
I am assuming Matt's suggestion that you anonymously verbally attacked someone was referring to this comment: "I just don't care for glib "no war" protests, particularly from Christians..." I'm not sure I would call that an attack, more a snide dig at Mary.
Next, I am not defending Saddam, not in the least, but there are plenty of evil people in this world, and levels of evil, I would argue, are far more complicated than can be expressed in the idea of "good and evil."
(I believe) There is a lot of gray, and I feel that the fact that you have mentioned two or three times the persecution of Christians implies that you believe wars that liberate Christians are somehow justified. I would guess a lot of American Christians at least subconsiously believe that protecting their so-called "own" is justified. I'm not assuming you are an American Christian, but it seems likely.
I'm not sure how I feel about war, part of me believes Jesus would never, ever, ever condone war. Never. It seems totally outside of everything he ever said and did. And as far as my wierd brand of not-Christianity, the words of Jesus are about the only things I still hold onto, because they seem to be utterly good, in any circumstance.
Politics are a big mess, everywhere, and I believe in always questioning what any politician says, because they are usually out for personal or economic good, and it's almost never been true in history that world leaders have done things that have been good for humanity, or good for people who disagree or oppose them. Therefore, I am ruthlessly skeptical of this president, and any president, for that matter.
The events that led us into the war in Iraq, and what is happening there now, and the way things have slowly been revealed that dispute our original intents there, only fuel the fire of discontent with our presence there. I would argue we have caused an all-out civil war that has resulted in tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, thousands of US lives. Those lives are just as valuable as the ones lost under Saddam. Is one better than the other? I don't know. If this downward spiral of violence, factionism, etc continues, are the supporters of this war still going to claim it was worth it to get Saddam out? Have we increased or decreased stability in the middle east? It seems to be greatly decreased.
"I think what would be ironic is if you heard the President give a speech that was two-sided."
No, no and no! This is the opinion that bothers me the most. I wish, I hunger, I crave to hear politicians express both sides of issues.
Real, thinking people consider both sides of things all the time. Sure, I tend to be liberal, but that doesn't mean I don't hear conservative arguments and ponder them, argue them, deal with them, research them. The reason so many people either disregard politics outright or are totally disillusioned with political leaders is because they generally seem fake and impossible.
What person doesn't battle with tough issues? Especially when you throw religion/faith into it? When I hear a politician struggle with an issue, waffle even, I respect them, I relate to them. Those who believe they are right all the time and can't be bothered with debate will never earn my respect.
Laura,
Sorry, the link worked for me. Try typing....West Point Bush Speech...(not in quotes) into Yahoo and click on the first link.
Scooter
Okay, so my coward comment was uncalled for. Appologies, Mr. Libby.
I've been frustrated lately over some religious issues, and therefore overstated my point about religious freedom. Let me restate it here. While it's true that people aren't systematically persecuted for religious views in our country, we're hardly a shining example of religious freedom for the reasons I mentioned before. That's all I meant to say.
-Matt
Its been an intresting discussion... thought about it quite a bit over last days. I think overall that although its vital and meaningful talking through these issues - the most realistic viewpoint belongs to those on the ground - living the life and knowing the reality. Its kind of like the new film "Blood Diamonds". I grew up in Sierra Leone - and I'm wary to see a hollywood film depicting Sierra Leonean life. Its probably worth me seeing the film though. I read a blog by a girl in Freetown, Sierra Leone - and she watched the film there. I really appreciated her comments on the film. Though she herself only knows a small part of what it means to experience the life of Sierra Leone. Emily's blog is called "Live from Freetown" Her comments made sense to me and reflected the difficulty of being worlds apart and truely understanding the realities compared to being in the midst and speaking realistically. I know we cant all be in the places of extreme suffering in this world (though we all are in places of suffering in this world - its inescapable) but undoubtedly being in the heart of a messed up reality gives a deeper reality to these issues. Don't know what I'm saying exactly - but I think its something along the lines of - I think that unless we live and be amongst those we are trying so hard to defend, we will not have the sincerest voice in relation to these deep issues that you are all braver than me in trying to address.
One other niave thought that came from reading through all this was - there is no turing back to innocence is there?
And finally Mary - I have made a cartoon beth if ya want to go see!! It was fun! Thanks xx Beth
Laura,
A further point about Bush invading Iraq for personal reasons: in 2000 Tony Blair sent thousands of British troops to Sierra Leone after some 500,000 people had been killed in bitter fighting. As a London paper explained: "Within six months of British paratroopers and special forces arriving in Freetown, the rebel groups had agreed to a ceasefire. Mr Blair's connection to Sierra Leone was personal. On a triumphant visit to Freetown in 2002, Mr Blair recalled how his father had once taught at Free-town's university. "And I remember him telling me what a wonderful country it was and how warm and friendly the people were," he told cheering crowds."
My point is this: if the situation in Iraq were more stable (a situation arguably as difficult to predict in 2003 as in Sierra Leone in 2000) Bush would be hailed as a liberator of the oppressed (like Blair) and his personal connection to the invasion forgotten or ignored. Not a perfect analogy, but worth considering.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Actually, the Sierra Leone example is a very poor analogy. British soldiers were stationed in Sierra Leone as part of an ongoing United Nations attempt to broker a cease fire between rebel forces and the government based on the 1999 Lome Peace Accord. The peace accord failed and in 2000 several British soldiers were kidnapped by a rebel group. After several days of negotiations, the British government concluded that their soldiers were not going to be released and sent an expeditionary force to oust the rebels from their base.
Britain's military intervention occurred with the strong support of the Sierra Leone government and was only superficially related to Tony Blair's personal history. The British tend not to make national policy based on the personal lives of their prime ministers.
As for the notion that "if the situation in Iraq were more stable (a situation arguably as difficult to predict in 2003 as in Sierra Leone in 2000)Bush would be hailed as a liberator of the oppressed", it was actually much easier to predict that military intervention in Sierra Leone would be much easier than an invasion of Iraq.
First, as mentioned earlier, Britain's force was sent in with the agreement of the Sierra Leone government. The Brits did not have to rebuild infrastructure, reconstitute a government, and serve as the country's de facto police force. They also received NATO and UN support for their intervention.
Second, popular opinion in Sierra Leone was strongly supportive of British involvement. Sierra Leone's rebel groups were primarily formed from RUF forces located in Liberia and were not viewed as an indigenous political movement (or a faction in a civil war).
Just thought I would add some thoughts on Sierra Leone, since I hate to see a successful example of military intervention used as a pretext to justify every military intervention. (And, in defense of politicians, some leaders do actually make well-reasoned decisions).
And Beth, if you've read this far, could I ask where you grew up in Sierra Leone? Were you on the coast or in the interior?
Mary, as always, it is pleasure to post on your blog!
Braden,
I appreciate your understanding of aspects of the situation in Sierra Leone. However, I raised the comparison for a very narrow purpose, namely to show that personal reasons validly influence virtually all use-of-force decisions. To be clear, personal consideration were equally superficial for both leaders, yet only Bush is vilified by leftists for it. It is stunning to me that otherwise thoughtful individuals can claim that Bush invaded Iraq exclusively or even primarily because Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush 41 (or to increase his personal oil-related wealth). This completely overlooks pre-war reality: ie. the many attacks on U.S. military personnel by Saddam in the No-Fly Zone prior to the war, the many ignored UN Resolutions warning Saddam to come clean on whether or not he possessed WMD's, the regional instability caused by Saddam's willingness to invade his neighbors (Iran in the 80s, Kuwait in the 90s), his open support of terrorist organizations in Palestine, his willingness to provide a safe-haven to Al Qaeda's Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, using chemical weapons on the Kurds, and on and on.
On the other points you raise:
The analogy between Iraq and Sierra Leone is much closer than you recognize.
In both instances the UN sat back as the innocent were slaughtered. How many more would have died if the U.S. had not intervened in Iraq? The lesson of Sierra Leone, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia is that the UN/NATO is very effective at brokering peace agreements once much of the killing is complete. Anti-war proponents have no tenable alternative for pre-war Iraq that would not have involved Saddam and Family continuing to torture and murder all opposition. 500,000 had to die in Sierra Leone before the heroic UN stepped in. It is clear that the UN would NEVER have ousted Saddam, given the mutually beneficial corruption that ensured the status quo.
"I hate to see a successful example of military intervention used as a pretext to justify every military intervention."
Again, you misread my argument to say that one successful use of force justifies all. This is fallacy that is rather obvious. It seems as though you are making a similarly fallacious argument, namly that all military endeavors must have the same pre-conditions as Sierra Leone (easy to predict the outcome, UN/NATO backing, invitation by the government etc). WWII (pre-UN of course) is a good example of how that is false (not easy to predict and with no invitation by the Germans or Japanese).
Hi Braden,
Its a priveledge to read how much current affairs you and scooter seem to know (and everyone else commenting!). Where did the intrest spark from? I know its an intrest and awareness ideally we should all have - but generally we don't seem to.
My parents were in Freetown - turns out I fall into the same category as Blair with having a father who taught at a Sierra Leonean university! I would be in Freetown during the holidays - I went to school in Liberia. 1986-1990
Have you been there?
Beth
Hi Beth,
Unfortunately, I haven't been to Sierra Leone, but because of the UN's involvement it is frequently studied by international affairs scholars. I'm a doctoral candidate in international relations at Syracuse University and a graduate of UW-Madison (where I had the pleasure of meeting the wonderful and talented Mary!).
Wow, school in Liberia! If you were attending school in 1990 you must have witnessed the start of the Liberian civil war. Did you leave the region due to the violence?
And to anonymous (or various other pseudonyms),
War is a funny thing in that the outcome is very rarely predetermined. I certainly respect the argument that human rights violators throughout the world should be confronted by force. Unfortunately, the Iraq war doesn't seem to have been particularly successful (unless you're using a standard for success that I'm unfamiliar with). The Iraq war was extremely risky, and U.S. policy makers should have taken more seriously the possibility of Iraq disintegrating into sectarian violence.
I don't ascribe bad motives to President Bush. But I do think that he now bears the full responsibility for our failure up to this point. Perhaps his new strategy will work, but if it doesn't I think your line of argument will become a tragic, but amusing footnote to one of the worst foreign policy decisions in U.S. history.
Hello again Braden,
The studies sound so interesting.
Do you know what you hope to do with the doctorate or just generally with your future? I suppose its not neccesarily the kind of thing to tell a stranger or the rest of the online world! :) Internationl relations would be a study I know I would really like to embark on - but if I did it would probably be my whole life's vocation. Though... maybe you could reccommend good ways for the average person to keep up to date with good journalism or summary on how things (generally for world situations) reached the way they are and how things currently look?
Its great you met Mary! I think I met Mary just once in Chicago - but its been brilliant reading her blog and getting to know her a bit better that way :) She seems like a great girl to know!
I was in school in Monrovia - my parents sent me and my sister back on a plane from Freetown and on the way back in the car they heard the radio say that the rebel forces were coming down to Monrvia on two fronts. They felt sick! Anyway - wasn't long (some days) before I had an hour to leave - May 2nd 1990. I followed the war for quite a few year after that - though was just 14 years old and onwards at the time. Anyway... I just had an awareness of what the Liberians were actually experiencing, and then later on the Sierra Leoneans. Though they had not been strangers to war from other times before. These more recent civil wars may well have been more brutal with the whole world of child soilders and drugs. Anyhow. I don't really consider myself one with authority to talk on these matters.
Thanks for asking though - about Liberia and Sierra Leone. Quite rare to get to talk about them.
God Bless,
Beth
ps - Sierra Leone and Liberia are both beautiful places - as is Africa. If you get a chance - go :)
I love much of this dialogue. And I hate to interrupt it, but my best friend is getting married on Saturday, and attention is due :)
Thank you!
Post a Comment
<< Home