Saturday, June 14, 2008

the marketing of war

everything is about branding and marketing these days. Even when waging a war. A democratic country like U.S. can no longer just wage war as they like. They have to package it, re-brand it and "sell" it to the people. Then, the people would have to buy it.

And you know what? the Americans bought it.

The war on Iraq was packaged with the idea that Saddam had chemical weapons and other WMD that he will not hesitate to use. And I remember vividly, in pushing for the war on Iraq years ago, Bush used the slogan, "let there be no doubt..." (it was used as the beginning of all the speeches given by White House during that time)

During the recent visit to Europe, Bush re-iterated that he has no regrets over the war he waged in Iraq. Despite the fact that the initial motivation behind the war was completely flawed. Iraq has no WMD, has no intention of having WMD and has no capability of WMD. So all he can say now is that the world is a better place without a tyrant like Saddam.

The world is a better place without a lot of people (including Bush). Saying that the leader of a country is tyrant is not a sufficient reason to wage a war! I am pretty sure he wouldn't have make a case for war in 2003 if all he got on Saddam was that he is a tyrant.

Tyrants are abundant on this globe. And there's a handful of them which are more despicable than Saddam.

Iran and North Korea, both have confirmed WMD capabilities, but U.S. did not declare war. Myanmar's military junta refused to acknowledge the results of the election, put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest and put the citizens in grave danger after refusing international aid for the recent disaster - U.S. did nothing. And how about Zimbabwe and other war-ridden countries in Africa? Are these tyrants any less dangerous than Saddam?

So why don't Bush just invade them all?

Being a tyrant doesn't give Bush the green light to invade. And the least he could do is to apologise to the world for causing thousands of unncessary deaths.

And what is appaling to me is that the Americans are only concerned about the death toll of the American soldiers. How about the death of the Iraqis? Collateral damage you say? What gives the Americans the right to say those innocent Iraqis killed everyday are called collateral damage but those that were killed in the world trade center are called heroes?

I believe that the Americans have to show that they take responsibility over this war that should have never happened. They will have to take responsiblity by not voting for the Republicans in the coming election. By telling the World that they are sorry. And that they promise the world that this will not happen again - that US will not abuse its intelligence and wage war as she pleases. Bush is like the murderer and voting for the Republicans again just made the Americans the accomplice in this homicide. That's how democracy should work.

It may sound a bit pre-mature to vote against the Republicans based on the war alone. But I think that waging a war is not a game. It's a serious decision. And a wrong move here should be punished by the stepping down of the President, at the very least. This wrong move here should eclipse all other economy candy that the Republicans may offer.

I am happy that Obama has won the party nominee for the Democrats. And I hope he will continue to win in the coming presidential election in November. Hilary, was equally worthy of the nomination. As Obama put it, "she has shown the women around the world that there is no limits to your dream"

Either way, I hope the Republicans will not win.

2 comments:

boon thye said...

yum geng!

田园树 said...

理性的反战。
其实伊拉克战争挺有争议的,在中共看来,完全成了一种工具或是一种搞公关的手段,转移人们的视线罢了