Malcolmdsilvas Blog | Just another WordPress.com weblog

Time 2021-10-17 16:05:02

Web Name: Malcolmdsilvas Blog | Just another WordPress.com weblog

WebSite: http://malcolmdsilva.wordpress.com

ID:205973

Keywords:

Just,Blog,Malcolmdsilvas,another,weblog,com,WordPress,

Description:

keywords:
description:Just another WordPress.com weblog
Malcolmdsilvas Blog Just another WordPress.com weblog

---

Illogicality of IraqInvasion December 18, 2009

Illogicality of the Iraq Invasion

Our society’s extraordinarily malleable animus was inexorably metamorphosized in the wake of the calamitous extirpation that was the 9/11 terrorist attack as a result of the likely unintentional use of enthymematic reasoning by the vacuous mooncalf we were forced to call our president, George W. Bush. The blithering cretin said, “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. . . .” He conveniently left out the whole part where they found no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Understandably, our jingoistic society ignorantly embraced this fallacy and imprudently regarded the Iraqi nation with contempt. Sun Tzu put it well in his Art of War from 514 B.C., “People are in complete accord with their ruler, and will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.” People bought Bush’s lie, thus began the battle. “The Iraq War, often called Operation Iraqi Freedom, is not, in fact, an attempt to save lives and spread democracy, but rather, is the result of bigotrous calumniation and unbridled equivocation.

Discussion of the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion cannot start without mention of the atrocities that occurred on 9/11. Contrary to the idea created by Washington and licentiously perpetuated by the media, Iraq was not involved in the attack. Of the nineteen hijackers, not one hailed from that middle-eastern nation; most were from Saudi Arabia, with some from Lebanon, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks concluded that no credible evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda existed. So, what then was the rationale for invading Iraq?

In his declaration of war, George Bush stated a few key reasons behind invading. He claimed to want to spread democracy to the oppressed Iraqis, and end the abhorrent atrocity that was Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical dictatorship. His accusation of Iraq’s part in the attacks created his casus belli. Finally, he claimed he had “good, solid intelligence” that substantial stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction existed. His accomplice, Vice President, Dick Cheney, corroborated this with his own “conclusive evidence” of said weapons. Who could argue with that? The improvement of Iraqi life, the expatriation of an evil dictator, and the sequestration of dangerous weapons all sound like fantastic results to a war.

These would truly be fantastic if they had not been based on false information. Then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, admitted that he, as well as the Bush administration, lied to the UN when presenting the motives for the invasion. No clear evidence existed showing the presence of mobile biological weapon labs. So, how “good,” “conclusive” or “solid” can Bush and Cheney’s intelligence truly be?

Now, I shall attempt to understand the real reasoning behind the Iraq invasion. Terrorism is the act of threatening someone with non-mandated violence to obtain something or accomplish a goal, and/or acting upon said threat. Perhaps, since Saddam Hussein did not act upon alleged knowledge that terrorists resided in Iraq, he is a terrorist. Or, maybe his usage of WMDs in the 1980s set a precedent upon which Bush declared war, or his “significant links” to Al-Qaeda. So, since Saddam Hussein purportedly committed acts of terrorism, though not the one upon which the invasion was based, can the war still be justified?

The U.N. defines terrorism as the calculated use, or threat, of violence in order to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature, often through coercion or scaremongering. Strangely, the United States has a different definition. According to the United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, an act of terrorism is any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. Two main aspects of that definition are obviously missing. A threat is not an act of terrorism, and there is no mention of political gain. As a matter of fact, by both definitions, the United States is, in fact, a terrorist state. I am pretty sure that the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis is a violation of a criminal law in the United States. Oh, and concerning Saddam’s harboring terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, one of the world’s most wanted men, met with a CIA agent while on dialysis, and no attempt was made to apprehend him. Also, Donald Rumsfeld and Tommie Franks allowed Bin Laden to walk free in Tora Bora. Oh yeah, here is a fun fact, from 1989 to 1992, the United States gave Al-Qaeda six billion dollars. They were worried about Iraq’s WMDs? The United States has approximately 10000 nuclear weapons. Bush’s reasoning behind invading Iraq because of Saddam’s threats was invalid, since, by this definition, terrorism does not include threats.

We entered Iraq because there was insubstantial evidence that Saddam Hussein was a threat and to spread democracy to the Iraqis. Well, Saddam Hussein was no more a threat than George W. Bush himself. And, as for spreading democracy to the Iraqi people, that was a cover created to install a regime more favorable to the US oil interests.

The government deceived the UN, whose purpose is to promote global peace. What else could the government have lied about? Is it purely coincidence that late in the year 2000, Saddam Hussein switched the pricing of Iraqi oil from US Dollars to Euros, a move with the potential to destroy the already plummeting dollar, and conceivably abrogate US markets? Moreover, I am sure that Vice President Cheney, CEO of oilfield services corporation, Halliburton, had no interest in the vast and extraordinarily valuable oil fields in Iraq. Oh, and while on the topic of the oil fields—there is absolutely no way that Bush could want a puppet government in Iraq to switch back to the dollar standard.

There have been many direct and indirect events resulting almost entirely from the Iraq War. Of course, the sheer number of unnecessary fatalities and injuries are reason enough to conclude that the war has been especially cataclysmic. The death toll of the Iraq soldiers is nearing 5000 and more than 30000 have been injured. In addition, more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis lost their lives. But, on a more proximate scale, we, in America, now live in a more delimitated and prescribed society.

We live in a society governed by the Bush Doctrine. This bullshit set of policies reinterprets the equally abhorrent Wolfowitz Doctrine, which pretty much declared that America had the biggest dick in the world and could swing it however she pleased. It enunciated the United States’ supremacy as the suzerain of the entire world, and further promulgated the idea that America acted as the world’s Big Brother and Police officer. The Bush Doctrine further exacerbated many of the issues and spawned atrocities like the Patriot Act, which essentially ignored all rights to privacy

Though my invective objurgation thus far has primarily imputed the putrescent exigency that is the Iraq war on Bush, the true brains behind the President were his supposed subordinates, who turned out to be sycophantic miscreants. Known as the War Architects, these malefactors often evade the scrutiny of the public. I mentioned the Wolfowitz Doctrine before. Paul Wolfowitz, its writer and Bush’s Deputy Secretary of Defense, pushed Bush to war, justifying it by claiming the US would look like liberators and that the excessive costs would be defrayed by the increased oil revenue. Both claims proved fallacious because the US looked like a cantankerous hellion and the cost of the Iraq war surpassed 700 million dollars(Milbank). The incompetent ideologue, Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, told Bush to base the declaration of war on the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and, according to Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, machinated intelligence concerning the relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in order to gain support for the Iraq invasion(Risen). Richard Perle, the chairman of Defense Policy Board perspicaciously made the false connection between 9/11 and Iraq, a reason Bush claimed to go to war (‘Atta’). Vice President Cheney’s chief of Staff, Scooter Libby beseeched CIA analysts to claim WMDs existed, and leaked this false information to Judith Miller, a NY Times reporter who publicized it, providing this casuistry to the masses (Jehl). Whitehouse Communications Director, Dan Bartlett proffered the nonexistent Iraq threat (Gellman). George Tenet, CIA director claimed responsibility for the false statements Bush made in his State of the Union address (Woodward). Secretary of State, Colin Powell lied to the UN about the existence of Biological weapons in Iraq (Page). Condoleeza Rice, National Security Adviser, conveniently forgot to mention CIA memos and a phone call from George Tenet predicating the vitiate information concerning Iraq’s uranium acquisition (Allen). Its almost as if George Bush was a puppet controlled by the reprobates described above.

The War in Iraq has become a bottomless pit that swallows the pensions of our elderly, the retirements of our working, and the grants for our children. It is calculated that every second in Iraq costs $6300 and each day costs 2.5 American lives. Unfortunately, we are already balls-deep, so what now? There is no benevolent way to approach this problem. If we leave, Iraq will remain in the turmoil we wrought, but if we stay, only more money and lives will be spent. I know the sound of complete withdrawal seems cacophonous, but it is the only logical solution. The United States had absolutely no right to invade in the first place, and as of the first of this year, this war is illegal. In fact, the name War on Terror is infelicitously malapropos, given the admission by the government that Iraq never truly posed a threat as a terrorist state. Even with the US presence, civil war still ensues, and really, who came to our help during the Civil War? We battled it out, and democracy won, purely because of its logicality. Our nation formulated the idea that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Should we not allow the Iraqis to decide what is right for them? Really, the war has reached a point where no visible benefit exists, should our troops remain.

Given the circumstances surrounding the invasion in Iraq, no perspicuous reason exists to justify the continuation of the US occupation. Not only has the United States’ attempt to bring democracy to the Iraqis been a tenebrous train wreck, but we are no safer as a result. The countries harboring the most terrorists continue to do so, and we cannot expect to attack them as well. This mess of a war has ravaged the Iraqi nation and has inexpiably innervated the global perception that the United States is a rapaciously antipathetic, war-mongering overseer. The United States can begin to reestablish itself as a propitious land of opportunity only after ending the war, and acknowledging, and apologizing for its impropriety over the last decade.

Works Cited

Allen, Mike. Iraq Flap Shakes Rices Image. Washington Post. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51224-            2003Jul26?language=printer.

Atta met Hussein before Sept 11: News24: xArchive: Archive. News24. Web. 13 Dec.             2009. http://www.news24.com/Content/xArchive/Archive/968/9b96b7c586ee4683b0c679f2d            9469812/08-09-2002-01-24/Atta_met_Hussein_before_Sept_11.

Gellman, Barton. Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence. Common Dreams             | News Views. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.http://www.commondreams.org             /headlines03/0810-01.htm.

The Iraq War Exposed. Netctr.com! Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://netctr.com/iraqwar.htmlgt;.

Jehl, Doug. THE LEAK INQUIRY: THE VICE PRESIDENTS OFFICE; Through             Indictment, a Glimpse Into a Secretive and Influential White House Office New             York Times. The New York Times. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807EFDD1F3FF933A05753C            1A9639C8B63.

Milbank, Dana. Intelligence Design and the Architecture of the War. Washington Post 8 Dec. 2005. Print.

Munk, Michael. The Real Cost of the Iraq War: 50,000 U.S. Casualties | World |             AlterNet. Home | AlterNet. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://www.alternet.org/world/46161/gt;.

Page, Susan. Confronting Iraq. USA Today. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htmgt;.

Risen, James. How Pairs Finding on Terror Led To Clash on Shaping Intelligence             NYTimes.com. The New York Times . 28 Apr. 2004. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/us/how-pair-s-finding-on-terror-led-to-clash-on-            shaping-intelligence.html.

Safdari, Cyrus. Rhetoric of War: First Iraq, Then Iraq? Global Dialogue 8.1 (2006).             Print.

Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a slam dunk Apr 19, 2004. CNN.com                         Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment Video News. Web. 13             Dec. 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/gt;

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

I am Peter, Hear MeRoar December 18, 2009

I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar

In our modern American society, we have become accustomed to a few key notions about the characteristics of masculinity and femininity. Masculinity is customarily associated with strength, power, and assertiveness, while femininity is typically associated with propriety, temperance, and kindness. But, what happens when a man embraces the characteristics of a woman after a lifetime of masculinity? We encounter such a quandary in the episode of Family Guy, I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar.

Family Guy joined the ranks of shows like South Park, the Simpsons, and Futurama as a popular satirical comedies on television. Known for its in-your-face dialogue often discussing topics which are pertinent in todays society, Family Guy often takes it over the edge with its unconventional approaches to problems, usually followed by a farcical, yet indubitably feasible solution. To some, Family Guy may, at first glance, seem to be an insensate and puerile lampoon which is pro-pot, pro-choice, anti-Semitic, and anti-christian, due to its often avant-garde approaches to tackling the characters latest conundrums. But, when you get past the often callow humor, the ideas presented in the show just make sense. If one does wrong, he must make it right. Essentially every episode can be condensed into a few phrases; someone fucks something up, that person tries to right his wrongs, all is well, hilarity ensues.

In the chosen episode, I am Peter, Hear me Roar, we find Peter acting in his usual imbecilic way.  After turning down a free boat for a piece of string and tickets to a comedy club(which came from a Mystery Box), Peter attempts to present his humor to the comedy club. In his deliriously drunk state, he absentmindedly placed an open bottle of beer in his pocket. This makes it seem like he urinated on his pants, and the audience is hysterical. Peter is oblivious to the true cause of the laughter, and truly believes that people found his humor meritorious. At work the next day, Peter decides to share his newfound knack for jokes with some of his coworkers. Among the male coworkers, Peter asks, Why do women have boobs? So you got something to look at while youre talking to em!Of course, the men found it rather funny, and a female coworker heard the giggling and asked to hear the joke. Peter tells the same joke to her. She did not seem amused. The company was slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit, which would be dropped if Peter completed a sensitivity course. Peter continued his sexist ways even in the sensitivity course. Gloria Ironbox, the lawyer and coach of the sensitivity course recommended that Peter go on a womens retreat. It is here that Peter feels the pain of childbirth and finally refrained from misogynistic ways. The only problem was, Peter took it too far. Instead of becoming a sensitive male, he just became effeminate. He believes that he has a menstrual cycle, gives himself breast exams, and even attempts to breast feed Stewie. He begins to embrace some of the stereotypical habits of American house women. He writes letters requesting an extension of the daily womens talk show The View and begins fighting for female rights, all while regarding the male race with opprobrious disdain. While Lois initially appreciated the additional sensitivity of Peters feminine side, she grew to see the necessity of Peters man-status. She futilely tried to get him back to his old self. His friends, too, were unable to get Peter to lust after the female sex again. It took a catfight between Gloria Ironbox and Lois before Peter was snapped back. Of course, the episode ends with Peter exercising his chauvinistic demeanor by asking Lois to make him a sandwich after sex.

The chosen episode displays a profound logos of sexism, stereotyping women. It is pointing out the faults that are made everyday, making a claim that society treats women differently, at a lower priority than men. It supports this fact by referencing many recent happenings and using general stereotypes that people understand. However, Family Guy contains warrants that assume that the audience will look past the offensiveness and appreciate the humor. It is also assumed that the audience will understand the complexity of the jokes made and that it is not reinforcing such behaviors of stereotyping but to point it out. We might not realize this but when we watch Family Guy, we tend to believe what they say is true, mainly because it is a show that we find an interest in. The ethos is also established by Peter because he is the main character of the show and experiences the problems, therefore we see him undergo the situation and resolve the problem at the end.

This representation of masculinity and femininity in Family Guy definitely portrays occurrences in society today. However, what the show presents does not happen everyday because it is an extreme example of a plausible situation. The show appeals to everyday people as a comedic entertainment, but it appeals more to the men because of the humor and disposition of the characters behavior. Peters irrational behavior and how he treats everything is absurd because no man with such a callous disregard for his responsibilities and almost everything around him would be able to maintain a wife, children, a career, and a social life. Nevertheless, Peter is always shown as loving his wife and kids, (except Meg) a hard worker, and a good friend, yet he disregards all responsibility that he has as a person, father, and husband. The pathos of Family Guy is directed towards society, where it points out the faults of the everyday person. It has elicited other points such as family disputes, adultery, and racism. We could even say that shows like Family Guy is a parent of society, emphasizing the mistakes in our actions.

Family guy manages to convey everyday issues effectively using hyperbole. The underlying idea is that some men can seem effeminate, and some women can seem masculine, but their congenital gender does not, and will not, change. Just think about itthe only thing differentiating men from women is a Y chromosome. Judith Butler confirmed this in arguing that gender, as a delineation of sex, does not truly exist unless acted upon. If this is true, why is it that it is commonplace for women to press sexual harassment charges for even the most seemingly trivial comments, but the antipode is not true?

There are individuals that perform such representations, mainly for selfish purposes. Men are mainly subject to performing these stereotypes. Their reasoning to being sexist is to raise their own self esteem and to establish dominance over the females, that men are the alpha-male. Men want to feel their sense of pride which in return, it produces a feeling of confidence and higher priority. Stereotypes in general are used so that groups or individuals can establish a dominance over another group or individual. Such stereotypes are taken into account in sports; a prime example would be football, it is an all male game and there are no women on any teams or a womens league. This example not only appeals to the mens perspective but it defines them as well. It defines men as muscular, tall, handy man, athletic, and the person of a family that brings home the bacon. These representations of masculinity and femininity are accurate in the episode Family Guy and slightly in society as well. We account these as accurate because Family Guy is a satirical comedy, pointing out the wrongs in society. In society, there are women who are a stay-at-home mom, a full time worker, single mom, single woman, that are completely competent without the dependence of an alpha-male.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Stereotypes in Thought as shown in Harold and Kumar Escape from GuantanamoBay December 18, 2009

Our pluralistic society has given birth to an American populous that both consciously and subconsciously perpetuates stereotypes. Furthermore, this subconscious quality complicates any action against promoting said stereotypes.  As a minority, I am no stranger to these unwarranted expectations, and am forced to deal with them ad nauseum. According to these stereotypes, my parents’ birthplace dictates my mental capability, my career opportunities, and my expected demeanor. The media is the meretricious, melodramatic bitch who continuously exacerbates and perpetuates these crass mental constructs.  Moreover, it has allowed the desensitization of the American psyche to the point that people naturally overlook the false, and more importantly, harmful nature of stereotypes. Fortunately, these significantly destructive thought processes are being forcefully rebelled by new, thought provoking works of entertainment. The film Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle was the first in recent history to overturn the trite portrayal of Indians as mephitic misogynists and Asians as insipid ignoramuses. However, the sequel, Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay did more. It repudiated almost all social stigmas, and turned convention on its ass.

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay has been called a stoner comedy, a romantic comedy, an adventure comedy, or a cult comedy, among other things. The common factor in each of these is comedy. Kal Penn and John Cho, Kumar and Harold, have been known for starring in these brilliant, yet jocular films. While the underlying meaning is admittedly esoteric, it manages to present itself in a simplistic manner that increases its appeal. Harold and Kumar plan to go to Amsterdam, but get sent to Guantanamo Bay prison after one of Kumar’s idiotic stunts. The duo escapes, and tries to get to Texas where Harold hopes to get the help of his politically connected friend, who happens to be marrying one of Kumar’s ex girlfriends. During this journey, the two encounter almost every demographic. The brilliance of this film lies in the extravagant, and often exaggerated, portrayals of these demographics which is done in a manner that is meant to open the eyes of the viewer.

Taken at face value, this film appears to be astonishingly racist. But, those who only appreciate the superficial humor exemplify the growing desensitization of stereotypes.  The more profound, poignant intention of this film is to demonstrate the pure illogicality and harmful effects of embracing stereotypes. This emphasizes the necessity of an active change in conventional thought. Of course, our post 9/11 society has given Americans yet another reason to prejudge all minorities, but both films in the series effectively showed that stereotypes are not definitions, and demonstrated that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The pathetic appeal of this film lies in the exploitation of the greater perception post-9/11, coupled with the exaggeration of stereotypes. The character of Harold Lee represents the realization of the writers, Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, that while certain stereotypes may seem accurate, they exist only as coincidences. The fact that Harold is skilled with numbers is not a product of his race, but rather, is a testament to a culmination of personality, upbringing, genetics, and education, concisely defined as his individuality. He represents those individuals that do, interpretably, fit into modern stereotypes. However, the assumption that person’s race predetermines his or her destiny in society is both iniquitous and inimical. This conjecture must first be clarified before America can vanquish the deleterious practice of stereotyping.

Kumar Patel, on the other hand, contradicts many of the Indian stereotypes, which he admits to doing so because he “was scared of being one of those nerdy Indian guys turned doctor.” A free-spirited, and carefree individual, he lives life the way he feels right. Though he often acts like a stereotypical stoner, he is remarkably intelligent, evident in his virtuosic ability to persuasively manipulate the English language to smuggle weed onto the plane. He smashes not only the stereotypes associated with his race, but also those associated with his lifestyle.

A vital, yet often overlooked character, is Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, Ron Fox, whose blatant racism towards minorities hyperbolically embodies the collective attitude of the American public. There is a particular scene in which Fox’s. After Kumar neglects to give Harold proper directions, they end up in an overwhelmingly black area on a street where a large group of black men are playing basketball. When Harold refuses to drive through, Kumar attributes it to blatant xenophobia, but Harold defends himself by saying, “I’m not scared because they’re black; I’m scared because they’re scary.” However, when turning the car around, he hits a fire hydrant, leading to the flooding of the street directly resulting in the frying of a boombox thereupon disrupting the basketball game. When the car stalls, the two panic and flee because they assumed the men, now approaching the car, would attack them. In reality they were only coming towards the car in hopes of offering assistance. When Secretary Fox finds out, he goes to interrogate a witness (ironically named Javon White). As he steps out of his car, a Lincoln Navigator, he looks to the bystanders and says, “Like the ride?” When the witness, a black man, comes out talking on his cell phone, Fox reacts by drawing his gun, assuming that the object in Javon’s hand is a dangerous because he seems to be a stereotypical gangbanger. When the two are introduced, Fox doubts the witness’s veracity though the witness says he has no reason to lie. Fox gets a can of grape soda and proceeds to pour it out, an ignorant attempt to elicit a reaction. Dr. Beecher, the voice of reason in the film, ends the madness. It turns out the witness was an orthodontist proving that despite his seemingly vicious physical appearance, Javon is in fact a well learned man.

This is perhaps the most racially charged scene in the movie, and all of the stereotypes depicted concern black people. Kumar assumes that Harold will not drive through the game because of he fears the stereotypes associated their skin color. Fox antagonizes an onlooker by bragging about his car. He assumes the witness, a black man, on his phone is somehow dangerous, and threatens him with his gun. He lacks trust in the witness because he was black, and assumed that all blacks have an abnormal infatuation with grape soda. Fox attempts to use this supposed love of grape soda by wasting it, trying to get the information that he wants by getting the black man to save his beloved grape soda.

Jews are also depicted as ignominious misers. After Fox finds that Kumar had been in contact with Rosenberg and Goldstein(stereotypical Jewish names), he called them in for interrogation. In order to extract information, he jingled a coin pouch, and dumped the contents onto the table. The writers decided to play to the stereotype, so the two accurately counted the change that fell, and gathered it once Fox left. But, the stereotype that Jews are swayed by money was not maintained.

After Harold and Kumar escaped from Gitmo, their parents were called in for questioning. As expected (a subconscious stereotype), Kumar’s parents spoke with a strong Indian accent, but defended their son’s innocence. Surprisingly (again, a subconscious stereotype), Harold’s parents spoke surprisingly well, though the translator claimed that they used a dialect of Korean he had never heard. Our collective societal quintessence has grown accustomed to the churlish generalizations that the media has so licentiously eternalized through the incessant ingemination of what characteristics they feel define a race. We have been groomed to believe that all brown and yellow skinned citizens should have indecipherable accents that perturb even the most scrupulous listener. The scene closes with Fox telling the translator to say that the boys will go down, dead or alive, in “that fake ching-chong language,” an insult to the Lee’s Korean heritage.

Hurwitz and Schlossberg left almost every demographic battered and bruised by exaggerating the perpetuated stereotypes which have become societal norms. Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay is a humorous eye-opener, which exposes the illogicality, and more importantly, the pernicious nature of stereotypical thought. It is a call for Americans to look past the superficial somatic differentia of societal demographics, and to recognize individuals based on the implicit congenital value of their being.

Works Cited

Analysis of Racial Identities in Harold and Kumar -. Associated Content             associatedcontent.com. 19 Feb. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2009.             http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1479714/analysis_of_racial_ide            ntities_in_harold.html?singlepage=truecat=38.

Draski, Lisa. Harold and Kumar Blaze Stereotypes: Intelligent Stoners Embark on             Journey to Sliders and Self-Discovery | Suite101.com. Comic Films |             Suite101.com. 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2009. http://comic-            films.suite101.com/article.cfm/harold_and_kumar_blaze_stereotypes.

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. Dir. Jon Hurwitz and Hayden             Schlossberg. Perf. Kal Penn and John Cho. Newline Cinema, 2008. DVD.

Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. Dir. Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg.             Perf. Kal Penn and John Cho. Endgame Entertainment, 2004. DVD.

Leydon, Joe. Varietys Analysis Of The Film Harold and Kumar Escape From             Guantanamo Bay. Variety.com. 09 Mar. 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2009.             http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936447.html?categoryid=1263c            s=1.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Indian Subculture in AmericanSociety December 18, 2009

Indian Subculture in American Society

Indian people are cheap, foul-smelling, caitiffs who either drive taxis or work in tech support, all while eating monkey brains and rats. While this may not actually be true, these are the misconceptions that popular culture has thrust upon the American populous. As an Indian kid in an American society, I feel that I have the right to say that the Indian subculture is extraordinarily unique.

First, it is necessary to explain what exactly differentiates a subculture from a culture. In essence, a subculture is a slice, or a portion, of culture. It may not be an accurate representation of the entirety, but it lives, works, or functions within it. The subculture is typically characterized by a certain trait that all members share. In my case, my Indian ethnicity puts me into that group.

In this piece, I shall attempt to enlighten and entertain, to clarify and teach, and to enrich the minds of young America, on the intricacies of the Indian subculture.

The keystone of the Indian subculture in America is education. There are two types of Indian immigrant: the professional and the uneducated. While these two types vary greatly from a socioeconomic standpoint, they are both similar on one significant front: both almost unanimously demand academic excellence from their children. Their demands are not fruitless; according to the Indian embassy, approximately 73% of Indian Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 are either in college, or are already graduates.

I have personally experienced the wrath of Indian parents. It is worth noting that both my parents are doctors, so they are not strangers to the education systems. For my entire life, they always demanded excellence, and while I did not always acquiesce, I am part of the 73% the embassy mentioned.

Another vital part of the Indian subculture lies in entertainment. Both Indian music and film industries are booming, and as time goes on, more and more “mini-bollywoods” are cropping up.  Indian music primarily consists of a call and response pattern, usually with a female with an unbelievably high voice. Indian movies are almost always love stories where the guy wants the girl, the guy can’t have the girl, the guy finds a way, and they live happily ever after. With over 800 movies produced every year, it was inevitable that they would reach some popularity in America. Music played by the Indian American subculture tends to combine elements of hip-hop, rap, techno, and reggae with Hindi film music and bhangra. This remix music is a testament to the Indian youths efforts to maintain their ethnic roots while at the same time integrating into American culture.

Because of this essay, I was forced to break one of my most unbreakable vows. I attended an Indian Student Organization(ISA) gathering. Now, why would I vow to avoid meetings of my fellow South Asian peers? I have always considered these ethnic clubs to be no more than voluntary segregation. Why must I associate myself with people who look like me only because they look like me? The argument can be made that these associations allow for the introduction of culture to non-members of the race, but the ISA meeting I went to was primarily attended by Indians.

The Indian subculture is particularly intriguing because, given their relatively new status in the country, they have managed to assimilate rather well. The thrive in schools, excel musically, and produce many, many films.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Cover Letter December 18, 2009

I never would have thought that English 111 would be such an influential class. No longer were we censored by our high school teachers. No longer were our assignments limited, not because of our comprehension, but because of our age. I discovered that primarily using big words to perturb my reader to the point where they disregard the actual content would no longer cut it.

The precocity of the readings not only improved my reading skills, but expanded my vocabulary and influenced my writing style. Had I not taken this class, I never would have heard of Chomsky, Anderson, or Volosinov. The idea of enthymematic reasoning would have no bearing on my writing, and ethos, pathos, and logos would still be Greek to me.

The directed essays were a welcome change from the cookie-cutter prompts to which I was accustomed. No longer was I forced to follow some hackneyed prompt that hundreds of kids analyzed before. I picked my own topic-One I found interesting.

The most revolutionary change from high school to college lies in the quality of the writing accepted. No longer could the putrescent bullshit I was so accustomed to submitting be considered for actual credit. This is evident in my improvement from the lackluster ethnography to my spectacular(at least in opinion) analysis of the irrationality of the iraq war.

Prior to English 111, the only semblance of style that could be attributed to my work stemmed from my seemingly immense vocabulary. I took advantage of my reader by attempting to lose my reader in my verbosity. This worked throughout high school because it made it look like I cared, when in reality, the opposite was true. Now in college, I won’t say that I have avoided being overly verbose, but rather than focusing on word choice, I focused on thoughts and ideas.

This class has opened my eyes to the intricacies of various forms of literature. It allowed my to use alternative mediums to present my ideas. It helped me realize the inadequacies in my writing and gave me the motivation to improve.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Portfolio December 18, 2009

Malcolm D’Silva

Amir Hassan

ENG111

December 17, 2009

I never would have thought that English 111 would be such an influential class. No longer were we censored by our high school teachers. No longer were our assignments limited, not because of our comprehension, but because of our age. I discovered that primarily using big words to perturb my reader to the point where they disregard the actual content would no longer cut it.

The precocity of the readings not only improved my reading skills, but expanded my vocabulary and influenced my writing style. Had I not taken this class, I never would have heard of Chomsky, Anderson, or Volosinov. The idea of enthymematic reasoning would have no bearing on my writing, and ethos, pathos, and logos would still be Greek to me.

The directed essays were a welcome change from the cookie-cutter prompts to which I was accustomed. No longer was I forced to follow some hackneyed prompt that hundreds of kids analyzed before. I picked my own topic-One I found interesting.

The most revolutionary change from high school to college lies in the quality of the writing accepted. No longer could the putrescent bullshit I was so accustomed to submitting be considered for actual credit. This is evident in my improvement from the lackluster ethnography to my spectacular(at least in opinion) analysis of the irrationality of the iraq war.

Prior to English 111, the only semblance of style that could be attributed to my work stemmed from my seemingly immense vocabulary. I took advantage of my reader by attempting to lose my reader in my verbosity. This worked throughout high school because it made it look like I cared, when in reality, the opposite was true. Now in college, I won’t say that I have avoided being overly verbose, but rather than focusing on word choice, I focused on thoughts and ideas.

This class has opened my eyes to the intricacies of various forms of literature. It allowed my to use alternative mediums to present my ideas. It helped me realize the inadequacies in my writing and gave me the motivation to improve.

Indian Subculture in American Society

Indian people are cheap, foul-smelling, caitiffs who either drive taxis or work in tech support, all while eating monkey brains and rats. While this may not actually be true, these are the misconceptions that popular culture has thrust upon the American populous. As an Indian kid in an American society, I feel that I have the right to say that the Indian subculture is extraordinarily unique.

First, it is necessary to explain what exactly differentiates a subculture from a culture. In essence, a subculture is a slice, or a portion, of culture. It may not be an accurate representation of the entirety, but it lives, works, or functions within it. The subculture is typically characterized by a certain trait that all members share. In my case, my Indian ethnicity puts me into that group.

In this piece, I shall attempt to enlighten and entertain, to clarify and teach, and to enrich the minds of young America, on the intricacies of the Indian subculture.

The keystone of the Indian subculture in America is education. There are two types of Indian immigrant: the professional and the uneducated. While these two types vary greatly from a socioeconomic standpoint, they are both similar on one significant front: both almost unanimously demand academic excellence from their children. Their demands are not fruitless; according to the Indian embassy, approximately 73% of Indian Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 are either in college, or are already graduates.

I have personally experienced the wrath of Indian parents. It is worth noting that both my parents are doctors, so they are not strangers to the education systems. For my entire life, they always demanded excellence, and while I did not always acquiesce, I am part of the 73% the embassy mentioned.

Another vital part of the Indian subculture lies in entertainment. Both Indian music and film industries are booming, and as time goes on, more and more “mini-bollywoods” are cropping up.  Indian music primarily consists of a call and response pattern, usually with a female with an unbelievably high voice. Indian movies are almost always love stories where the guy wants the girl, the guy can’t have the girl, the guy finds a way, and they live happily ever after. With over 800 movies produced every year, it was inevitable that they would reach some popularity in America. Music played by the Indian American subculture tends to combine elements of hip-hop, rap, techno, and reggae with Hindi film music and bhangra. This remix music is a testament to the Indian youths efforts to maintain their ethnic roots while at the same time integrating into American culture.

Because of this essay, I was forced to break one of my most unbreakable vows. I attended an Indian Student Organization(ISA) gathering. Now, why would I vow to avoid meetings of my fellow South Asian peers? I have always considered these ethnic clubs to be no more than voluntary segregation. Why must I associate myself with people who look like me only because they look like me? The argument can be made that these associations allow for the introduction of culture to non-members of the race, but the ISA meeting I went to was primarily attended by Indians.

The Indian subculture is particularly intriguing because, given their relatively new status in the country, they have managed to assimilate rather well. The thrive in schools, excel musically, and produce many, many films.

Our pluralistic society has given birth to an American populous that both consciously and subconsciously perpetuates stereotypes. Furthermore, this subconscious quality complicates any action against promoting said stereotypes.  As a minority, I am no stranger to these unwarranted expectations, and am forced to deal with them ad nauseum. According to these stereotypes, my parents’ birthplace dictates my mental capability, my career opportunities, and my expected demeanor. The media is the meretricious, melodramatic bitch who continuously exacerbates and perpetuates these crass mental constructs.  Moreover, it has allowed the desensitization of the American psyche to the point that people naturally overlook the false, and more importantly, harmful nature of stereotypes. Fortunately, these significantly destructive thought processes are being forcefully rebelled by new, thought provoking works of entertainment. The film Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle was the first in recent history to overturn the trite portrayal of Indians as mephitic misogynists and Asians as insipid ignoramuses. However, the sequel, Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay did more. It repudiated almost all social stigmas, and turned convention on its ass.

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay has been called a stoner comedy, a romantic comedy, an adventure comedy, or a cult comedy, among other things. The common factor in each of these is comedy. Kal Penn and John Cho, Kumar and Harold, have been known for starring in these brilliant, yet jocular films. While the underlying meaning is admittedly esoteric, it manages to present itself in a simplistic manner that increases its appeal. Harold and Kumar plan to go to Amsterdam, but get sent to Guantanamo Bay prison after one of Kumar’s idiotic stunts. The duo escapes, and tries to get to Texas where Harold hopes to get the help of his politically connected friend, who happens to be marrying one of Kumar’s ex girlfriends. During this journey, the two encounter almost every demographic. The brilliance of this film lies in the extravagant, and often exaggerated, portrayals of these demographics which is done in a manner that is meant to open the eyes of the viewer.

Taken at face value, this film appears to be astonishingly racist. But, those who only appreciate the superficial humor exemplify the growing desensitization of stereotypes.  The more profound, poignant intention of this film is to demonstrate the pure illogicality and harmful effects of embracing stereotypes. This emphasizes the necessity of an active change in conventional thought. Of course, our post 9/11 society has given Americans yet another reason to prejudge all minorities, but both films in the series effectively showed that stereotypes are not definitions, and demonstrated that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The pathetic appeal of this film lies in the exploitation of the greater perception post-9/11, coupled with the exaggeration of stereotypes. The character of Harold Lee represents the realization of the writers, Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, that while certain stereotypes may seem accurate, they exist only as coincidences. The fact that Harold is skilled with numbers is not a product of his race, but rather, is a testament to a culmination of personality, upbringing, genetics, and education, concisely defined as his individuality. He represents those individuals that do, interpretably, fit into modern stereotypes. However, the assumption that person’s race predetermines his or her destiny in society is both iniquitous and inimical. This conjecture must first be clarified before America can vanquish the deleterious practice of stereotyping.

Kumar Patel, on the other hand, contradicts many of the Indian stereotypes, which he admits to doing so because he “was scared of being one of those nerdy Indian guys turned doctor.” A free-spirited, and carefree individual, he lives life the way he feels right. Though he often acts like a stereotypical stoner, he is remarkably intelligent, evident in his virtuosic ability to persuasively manipulate the English language to smuggle weed onto the plane. He smashes not only the stereotypes associated with his race, but also those associated with his lifestyle.

A vital, yet often overlooked character, is Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, Ron Fox, whose blatant racism towards minorities hyperbolically embodies the collective attitude of the American public. There is a particular scene in which Fox’s. After Kumar neglects to give Harold proper directions, they end up in an overwhelmingly black area on a street where a large group of black men are playing basketball. When Harold refuses to drive through, Kumar attributes it to blatant xenophobia, but Harold defends himself by saying, “I’m not scared because they’re black; I’m scared because they’re scary.” However, when turning the car around, he hits a fire hydrant, leading to the flooding of the street directly resulting in the frying of a boombox thereupon disrupting the basketball game. When the car stalls, the two panic and flee because they assumed the men, now approaching the car, would attack them. In reality they were only coming towards the car in hopes of offering assistance. When Secretary Fox finds out, he goes to interrogate a witness (ironically named Javon White). As he steps out of his car, a Lincoln Navigator, he looks to the bystanders and says, “Like the ride?” When the witness, a black man, comes out talking on his cell phone, Fox reacts by drawing his gun, assuming that the object in Javon’s hand is a dangerous because he seems to be a stereotypical gangbanger. When the two are introduced, Fox doubts the witness’s veracity though the witness says he has no reason to lie. Fox gets a can of grape soda and proceeds to pour it out, an ignorant attempt to elicit a reaction. Dr. Beecher, the voice of reason in the film, ends the madness. It turns out the witness was an orthodontist proving that despite his seemingly vicious physical appearance, Javon is in fact a well learned man.

This is perhaps the most racially charged scene in the movie, and all of the stereotypes depicted concern black people. Kumar assumes that Harold will not drive through the game because of he fears the stereotypes associated their skin color. Fox antagonizes an onlooker by bragging about his car. He assumes the witness, a black man, on his phone is somehow dangerous, and threatens him with his gun. He lacks trust in the witness because he was black, and assumed that all blacks have an abnormal infatuation with grape soda. Fox attempts to use this supposed love of grape soda by wasting it, trying to get the information that he wants by getting the black man to save his beloved grape soda.

Jews are also depicted as ignominious misers. After Fox finds that Kumar had been in contact with Rosenberg and Goldstein(stereotypical Jewish names), he called them in for interrogation. In order to extract information, he jingled a coin pouch, and dumped the contents onto the table. The writers decided to play to the stereotype, so the two accurately counted the change that fell, and gathered it once Fox left. But, the stereotype that Jews are swayed by money was not maintained.

After Harold and Kumar escaped from Gitmo, their parents were called in for questioning. As expected (a subconscious stereotype), Kumar’s parents spoke with a strong Indian accent, but defended their son’s innocence. Surprisingly (again, a subconscious stereotype), Harold’s parents spoke surprisingly well, though the translator claimed that they used a dialect of Korean he had never heard. Our collective societal quintessence has grown accustomed to the churlish generalizations that the media has so licentiously eternalized through the incessant ingemination of what characteristics they feel define a race. We have been groomed to believe that all brown and yellow skinned citizens should have indecipherable accents that perturb even the most scrupulous listener. The scene closes with Fox telling the translator to say that the boys will go down, dead or alive, in “that fake ching-chong language,” an insult to the Lee’s Korean heritage.

Hurwitz and Schlossberg left almost every demographic battered and bruised by exaggerating the perpetuated stereotypes which have become societal norms. Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay is a humorous eye-opener, which exposes the illogicality, and more importantly, the pernicious nature of stereotypical thought. It is a call for Americans to look past the superficial somatic differentia of societal demographics, and to recognize individuals based on the implicit congenital value of their being.

Works Cited

Analysis of Racial Identities in Harold and Kumar -. Associated Content             associatedcontent.com. 19 Feb. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2009.             http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1479714/analysis_of_racial_ide            ntities_in_harold.html?singlepage=truecat=38.

Draski, Lisa. Harold and Kumar Blaze Stereotypes: Intelligent Stoners Embark on             Journey to Sliders and Self-Discovery | Suite101.com. Comic Films |             Suite101.com. 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2009. http://comic-            films.suite101.com/article.cfm/harold_and_kumar_blaze_stereotypes.

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. Dir. Jon Hurwitz and Hayden             Schlossberg. Perf. Kal Penn and John Cho. Newline Cinema, 2008. DVD.

Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. Dir. Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg.             Perf. Kal Penn and John Cho. Endgame Entertainment, 2004. DVD.

Leydon, Joe. Varietys Analysis Of The Film Harold and Kumar Escape From             Guantanamo Bay. Variety.com. 09 Mar. 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2009.             http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936447.html?categoryid=1263c            s=1.

I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar

In our modern American society, we have become accustomed to a few key notions about the characteristics of masculinity and femininity. Masculinity is customarily associated with strength, power, and assertiveness, while femininity is typically associated with propriety, temperance, and kindness. But, what happens when a man embraces the characteristics of a woman after a lifetime of masculinity? We encounter such a quandary in the episode of Family Guy, I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar.

Family Guy joined the ranks of shows like South Park, the Simpsons, and Futurama as a popular satirical comedies on television. Known for its in-your-face dialogue often discussing topics which are pertinent in todays society, Family Guy often takes it over the edge with its unconventional approaches to problems, usually followed by a farcical, yet indubitably feasible solution. To some, Family Guy may, at first glance, seem to be an insensate and puerile lampoon which is pro-pot, pro-choice, anti-Semitic, and anti-christian, due to its often avant-garde approaches to tackling the characters latest conundrums. But, when you get past the often callow humor, the ideas presented in the show just make sense. If one does wrong, he must make it right. Essentially every episode can be condensed into a few phrases; someone fucks something up, that person tries to right his wrongs, all is well, hilarity ensues.

In the chosen episode, I am Peter, Hear me Roar, we find Peter acting in his usual imbecilic way.  After turning down a free boat for a piece of string and tickets to a comedy club(which came from a Mystery Box), Peter attempts to present his humor to the comedy club. In his deliriously drunk state, he absentmindedly placed an open bottle of beer in his pocket. This makes it seem like he urinated on his pants, and the audience is hysterical. Peter is oblivious to the true cause of the laughter, and truly believes that people found his humor meritorious. At work the next day, Peter decides to share his newfound knack for jokes with some of his coworkers. Among the male coworkers, Peter asks, Why do women have boobs? So you got something to look at while youre talking to em!Of course, the men found it rather funny, and a female coworker heard the giggling and asked to hear the joke. Peter tells the same joke to her. She did not seem amused. The company was slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit, which would be dropped if Peter completed a sensitivity course. Peter continued his sexist ways even in the sensitivity course. Gloria Ironbox, the lawyer and coach of the sensitivity course recommended that Peter go on a womens retreat. It is here that Peter feels the pain of childbirth and finally refrained from misogynistic ways. The only problem was, Peter took it too far. Instead of becoming a sensitive male, he just became effeminate. He believes that he has a menstrual cycle, gives himself breast exams, and even attempts to breast feed Stewie. He begins to embrace some of the stereotypical habits of American house women. He writes letters requesting an extension of the daily womens talk show The View and begins fighting for female rights, all while regarding the male race with opprobrious disdain. While Lois initially appreciated the additional sensitivity of Peters feminine side, she grew to see the necessity of Peters man-status. She futilely tried to get him back to his old self. His friends, too, were unable to get Peter to lust after the female sex again. It took a catfight between Gloria Ironbox and Lois before Peter was snapped back. Of course, the episode ends with Peter exercising his chauvinistic demeanor by asking Lois to make him a sandwich after sex.

The chosen episode displays a profound logos of sexism, stereotyping women. It is pointing out the faults that are made everyday, making a claim that society treats women differently, at a lower priority than men. It supports this fact by referencing many recent happenings and using general stereotypes that people understand. However, Family Guy contains warrants that assume that the audience will look past the offensiveness and appreciate the humor. It is also assumed that the audience will understand the complexity of the jokes made and that it is not reinforcing such behaviors of stereotyping but to point it out. We might not realize this but when we watch Family Guy, we tend to believe what they say is true, mainly because it is a show that we find an interest in. The ethos is also established by Peter because he is the main character of the show and experiences the problems, therefore we see him undergo the situation and resolve the problem at the end.

This representation of masculinity and femininity in Family Guy definitely portrays occurrences in society today. However, what the show presents does not happen everyday because it is an extreme example of a plausible situation. The show appeals to everyday people as a comedic entertainment, but it appeals more to the men because of the humor and disposition of the characters behavior. Peters irrational behavior and how he treats everything is absurd because no man with such a callous disregard for his responsibilities and almost everything around him would be able to maintain a wife, children, a career, and a social life. Nevertheless, Peter is always shown as loving his wife and kids, (except Meg) a hard worker, and a good friend, yet he disregards all responsibility that he has as a person, father, and husband. The pathos of Family Guy is directed towards society, where it points out the faults of the everyday person. It has elicited other points such as family disputes, adultery, and racism. We could even say that shows like Family Guy is a parent of society, emphasizing the mistakes in our actions.

Family guy manages to convey everyday issues effectively using hyperbole. The underlying idea is that some men can seem effeminate, and some women can seem masculine, but their congenital gender does not, and will not, change. Just think about itthe only thing differentiating men from women is a Y chromosome. Judith Butler confirmed this in arguing that gender, as a delineation of sex, does not truly exist unless acted upon. If this is true, why is it that it is commonplace for women to press sexual harassment charges for even the most seemingly trivial comments, but the antipode is not true?

There are individuals that perform such representations, mainly for selfish purposes. Men are mainly subject to performing these stereotypes. Their reasoning to being sexist is to raise their own self esteem and to establish dominance over the females, that men are the alpha-male. Men want to feel their sense of pride which in return, it produces a feeling of confidence and higher priority. Stereotypes in general are used so that groups or individuals can establish a dominance over another group or individual. Such stereotypes are taken into account in sports; a prime example would be football, it is an all male game and there are no women on any teams or a womens league. This example not only appeals to the mens perspective but it defines them as well. It defines men as muscular, tall, handy man, athletic, and the person of a family that brings home the bacon. These representations of masculinity and femininity are accurate in the episode Family Guy and slightly in society as well. We account these as accurate because Family Guy is a satirical comedy, pointing out the wrongs in society. In society, there are women who are a stay-at-home mom, a full time worker, single mom, single woman, that are completely competent without the dependence of an alpha-male.

Illogicality of the Iraq Invasion

Our society’s extraordinarily malleable animus was inexorably metamorphosized in the wake of the calamitous extirpation that was the 9/11 terrorist attack as a result of the likely unintentional use of enthymematic reasoning by the vacuous mooncalf we were forced to call our president, George W. Bush. The blithering cretin said, “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. . . .” He conveniently left out the whole part where they found no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Understandably, our jingoistic society ignorantly embraced this fallacy and imprudently regarded the Iraqi nation with contempt. Sun Tzu put it well in his Art of War from 514 B.C., “People are in complete accord with their ruler, and will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.” People bought Bush’s lie, thus began the battle. “The Iraq War, often called Operation Iraqi Freedom, is not, in fact, an attempt to save lives and spread democracy, but rather, is the result of bigotrous calumniation and unbridled equivocation.

Discussion of the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion cannot start without mention of the atrocities that occurred on 9/11. Contrary to the idea created by Washington and licentiously perpetuated by the media, Iraq was not involved in the attack. Of the nineteen hijackers, not one hailed from that middle-eastern nation; most were from Saudi Arabia, with some from Lebanon, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks concluded that no credible evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda existed. So, what then was the rationale for invading Iraq?

In his declaration of war, George Bush stated a few key reasons behind invading. He claimed to want to spread democracy to the oppressed Iraqis, and end the abhorrent atrocity that was Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical dictatorship. His accusation of Iraq’s part in the attacks created his casus belli. Finally, he claimed he had “good, solid intelligence” that substantial stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction existed. His accomplice, Vice President, Dick Cheney, corroborated this with his own “conclusive evidence” of said weapons. Who could argue with that? The improvement of Iraqi life, the expatriation of an evil dictator, and the sequestration of dangerous weapons all sound like fantastic results to a war.

These would truly be fantastic if they had not been based on false information. Then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, admitted that he, as well as the Bush administration, lied to the UN when presenting the motives for the invasion. No clear evidence existed showing the presence of mobile biological weapon labs. So, how “good,” “conclusive” or “solid” can Bush and Cheney’s intelligence truly be?

Now, I shall attempt to understand the real reasoning behind the Iraq invasion. Terrorism is the act of threatening someone with non-mandated violence to obtain something or accomplish a goal, and/or acting upon said threat. Perhaps, since Saddam Hussein did not act upon alleged knowledge that terrorists resided in Iraq, he is a terrorist. Or, maybe his usage of WMDs in the 1980s set a precedent upon which Bush declared war, or his “significant links” to Al-Qaeda. So, since Saddam Hussein purportedly committed acts of terrorism, though not the one upon which the invasion was based, can the war still be justified?

The U.N. defines terrorism as the calculated use, or threat, of violence in order to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature, often through coercion or scaremongering. Strangely, the United States has a different definition. According to the United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, an act of terrorism is any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. Two main aspects of that definition are obviously missing. A threat is not an act of terrorism, and there is no mention of political gain. As a matter of fact, by both definitions, the United States is, in fact, a terrorist state. I am pretty sure that the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis is a violation of a criminal law in the United States. Oh, and concerning Saddam’s harboring terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, one of the world’s most wanted men, met with a CIA agent while on dialysis, and no attempt was made to apprehend him. Also, Donald Rumsfeld and Tommie Franks allowed Bin Laden to walk free in Tora Bora. Oh yeah, here is a fun fact, from 1989 to 1992, the United States gave Al-Qaeda six billion dollars. They were worried about Iraq’s WMDs? The United States has approximately 10000 nuclear weapons. Bush’s reasoning behind invading Iraq because of Saddam’s threats was invalid, since, by this definition, terrorism does not include threats.

We entered Iraq because there was insubstantial evidence that Saddam Hussein was a threat and to spread democracy to the Iraqis. Well, Saddam Hussein was no more a threat than George W. Bush himself. And, as for spreading democracy to the Iraqi people, that was a cover created to install a regime more favorable to the US oil interests.

The government deceived the UN, whose purpose is to promote global peace. What else could the government have lied about? Is it purely coincidence that late in the year 2000, Saddam Hussein switched the pricing of Iraqi oil from US Dollars to Euros, a move with the potential to destroy the already plummeting dollar, and conceivably abrogate US markets? Moreover, I am sure that Vice President Cheney, CEO of oilfield services corporation, Halliburton, had no interest in the vast and extraordinarily valuable oil fields in Iraq. Oh, and while on the topic of the oil fields—there is absolutely no way that Bush could want a puppet government in Iraq to switch back to the dollar standard.

There have been many direct and indirect events resulting almost entirely from the Iraq War. Of course, the sheer number of unnecessary fatalities and injuries are reason enough to conclude that the war has been especially cataclysmic. The death toll of the Iraq soldiers is nearing 5000 and more than 30000 have been injured. In addition, more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis lost their lives. But, on a more proximate scale, we, in America, now live in a more delimitated and prescribed society.

We live in a society governed by the Bush Doctrine. This bullshit set of policies reinterprets the equally abhorrent Wolfowitz Doctrine, which pretty much declared that America had the biggest dick in the world and could swing it however she pleased. It enunciated the United States’ supremacy as the suzerain of the entire world, and further promulgated the idea that America acted as the world’s Big Brother and Police officer. The Bush Doctrine further exacerbated many of the issues and spawned atrocities like the Patriot Act, which essentially ignored all rights to privacy

Though my invective objurgation thus far has primarily imputed the putrescent exigency that is the Iraq war on Bush, the true brains behind the President were his supposed subordinates, who turned out to be sycophantic miscreants. Known as the War Architects, these malefactors often evade the scrutiny of the public. I mentioned the Wolfowitz Doctrine before. Paul Wolfowitz, its writer and Bush’s Deputy Secretary of Defense, pushed Bush to war, justifying it by claiming the US would look like liberators and that the excessive costs would be defrayed by the increased oil revenue. Both claims proved fallacious because the US looked like a cantankerous hellion and the cost of the Iraq war surpassed 700 million dollars(Milbank). The incompetent ideologue, Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, told Bush to base the declaration of war on the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and, according to Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, machinated intelligence concerning the relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in order to gain support for the Iraq invasion(Risen). Richard Perle, the chairman of Defense Policy Board perspicaciously made the false connection between 9/11 and Iraq, a reason Bush claimed to go to war (‘Atta’). Vice President Cheney’s chief of Staff, Scooter Libby beseeched CIA analysts to claim WMDs existed, and leaked this false information to Judith Miller, a NY Times reporter who publicized it, providing this casuistry to the masses (Jehl). Whitehouse Communications Director, Dan Bartlett proffered the nonexistent Iraq threat (Gellman). George Tenet, CIA director claimed responsibility for the false statements Bush made in his State of the Union address (Woodward). Secretary of State, Colin Powell lied to the UN about the existence of Biological weapons in Iraq (Page). Condoleeza Rice, National Security Adviser, conveniently forgot to mention CIA memos and a phone call from George Tenet predicating the vitiate information concerning Iraq’s uranium acquisition (Allen). Its almost as if George Bush was a puppet controlled by the reprobates described above.

The War in Iraq has become a bottomless pit that swallows the pensions of our elderly, the retirements of our working, and the grants for our children. It is calculated that every second in Iraq costs $6300 and each day costs 2.5 American lives. Unfortunately, we are already balls-deep, so what now? There is no benevolent way to approach this problem. If we leave, Iraq will remain in the turmoil we wrought, but if we stay, only more money and lives will be spent. I know the sound of complete withdrawal seems cacophonous, but it is the only logical solution. The United States had absolutely no right to invade in the first place, and as of the first of this year, this war is illegal. In fact, the name War on Terror is infelicitously malapropos, given the admission by the government that Iraq never truly posed a threat as a terrorist state. Even with the US presence, civil war still ensues, and really, who came to our help during the Civil War? We battled it out, and democracy won, purely because of its logicality. Our nation formulated the idea that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Should we not allow the Iraqis to decide what is right for them? Really, the war has reached a point where no visible benefit exists, should our troops remain.

Given the circumstances surrounding the invasion in Iraq, no perspicuous reason exists to justify the continuation of the US occupation. Not only has the United States’ attempt to bring democracy to the Iraqis been a tenebrous train wreck, but we are no safer as a result. The countries harboring the most terrorists continue to do so, and we cannot expect to attack them as well. This mess of a war has ravaged the Iraqi nation and has inexpiably innervated the global perception that the United States is a rapaciously antipathetic, war-mongering overseer. The United States can begin to reestablish itself as a propitious land of opportunity only after ending the war, and acknowledging, and apologizing for its impropriety over the last decade.

Works Cited

Allen, Mike. Iraq Flap Shakes Rices Image. Washington Post. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51224-            2003Jul26?language=printer.

Atta met Hussein before Sept 11: News24: xArchive: Archive. News24. Web. 13 Dec.             2009. http://www.news24.com/Content/xArchive/Archive/968/9b96b7c586ee4683b0c679f2d            9469812/08-09-2002-01-24/Atta_met_Hussein_before_Sept_11.

Gellman, Barton. Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence. Common Dreams             | News Views. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.http://www.commondreams.org             /headlines03/0810-01.htm.

The Iraq War Exposed. Netctr.com! Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://netctr.com/iraqwar.htmlgt;.

Jehl, Doug. THE LEAK INQUIRY: THE VICE PRESIDENTS OFFICE; Through             Indictment, a Glimpse Into a Secretive and Influential White House Office New             York Times. The New York Times. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807EFDD1F3FF933A05753C            1A9639C8B63.

Milbank, Dana. Intelligence Design and the Architecture of the War. Washington Post 8 Dec. 2005. Print.

Munk, Michael. The Real Cost of the Iraq War: 50,000 U.S. Casualties | World |             AlterNet. Home | AlterNet. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://www.alternet.org/world/46161/gt;.

Page, Susan. Confronting Iraq. USA Today. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.             http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htmgt;.

Risen, James. How Pairs Finding on Terror Led To Clash on Shaping Intelligence             NYTimes.com. The New York Times . 28 Apr. 2004. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/us/how-pair-s-finding-on-terror-led-to-clash-on-            shaping-intelligence.html.

Safdari, Cyrus. Rhetoric of War: First Iraq, Then Iraq? Global Dialogue 8.1 (2006).             Print.

Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a slam dunk Apr 19, 2004. CNN.com                         Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment Video News. Web. 13             Dec. 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/gt;

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Hello world! December 17, 2009

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

PagesAbout Archives December 2009 Categories Uncategorized (7) Blogroll WordPress.comWordPress.org Meta Register Log in XFN WordPress

---

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

TAGS:Just Blog Malcolmdsilvas another weblog com WordPress 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Hot Websites