anthropology gets political
I can not stress enough that everyone take some form of an anthropology course in college.
Not only because it's freaking cool, but because it will make you see things in a different light.
For example,
In an article looking at the ever changing reasons Bush claims why we are at war with Iraq, this was mentioned:
Bush's changing rhetoric reflects increasing administration efforts to tie the war, increasingly unpopular at home, with the global fight against terrorism, still the president's strongest suit politically.
"We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West," Bush said in a news conference last week in the Rose Garden.
In theory, yes... a terrorist state would be harmful to America. But the problem is it is not a terrorist state
As learned in my anthro 101 class, a state is an autonomous political unit that encompasses many, with a centralized power (that could be broken into sub-powers) that oversee trade, exchange, production and distribution, and an agreed upon law. A state is also geographically defined, with set borders.
As Bush has repeatedly told us, not all Iraqis are against us; they want change. They are not all terrorists. So, the "state" of Iraq is not a terrorist threat.
The terrorist groups that threaten us are not a state. They are a tribe, spread over state boundaries, with forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and surrounding areas. It can not be said that by winning the war in Iraq, we will beat terrorism. If terrorism was a nation, possibly. But it is not, and the war in Iraq so far as not been explained for any other viable, practical reason.
"I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part of the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.
If Iraq is only a subset, how many other nations are we going to have to fight? How many people will we send to war to realize that we do not understand the terrorist culture? How can we fight a war when we don't understand who we are fighting against? Can we really win at all?
Is killing every terrorist going to save us? Or just turn others into terrorists.
So why are we still there?
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/10/14/498949.html
Not only because it's freaking cool, but because it will make you see things in a different light.
For example,
In an article looking at the ever changing reasons Bush claims why we are at war with Iraq, this was mentioned:
Bush's changing rhetoric reflects increasing administration efforts to tie the war, increasingly unpopular at home, with the global fight against terrorism, still the president's strongest suit politically.
"We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West," Bush said in a news conference last week in the Rose Garden.
In theory, yes... a terrorist state would be harmful to America. But the problem is it is not a terrorist state
As learned in my anthro 101 class, a state is an autonomous political unit that encompasses many, with a centralized power (that could be broken into sub-powers) that oversee trade, exchange, production and distribution, and an agreed upon law. A state is also geographically defined, with set borders.
As Bush has repeatedly told us, not all Iraqis are against us; they want change. They are not all terrorists. So, the "state" of Iraq is not a terrorist threat.
The terrorist groups that threaten us are not a state. They are a tribe, spread over state boundaries, with forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and surrounding areas. It can not be said that by winning the war in Iraq, we will beat terrorism. If terrorism was a nation, possibly. But it is not, and the war in Iraq so far as not been explained for any other viable, practical reason.
"I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part of the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.
If Iraq is only a subset, how many other nations are we going to have to fight? How many people will we send to war to realize that we do not understand the terrorist culture? How can we fight a war when we don't understand who we are fighting against? Can we really win at all?
Is killing every terrorist going to save us? Or just turn others into terrorists.
So why are we still there?
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/10/14/498949.html