Ranting Gentleman and Iraq (and musings on humanitarianism)

I'm always a fan of ranting, but I think I might very well abdecate the crown of editorialism in favour of this gentleman here.

It's refreshing to hear a view of Iraq who's limit doesn't reside at `Bush is such a gaylord`, and, as much as the happy days of a nation siding with itself rather than its media are all but anachronous, the mindset of the patriotically American and greater-good humanitarianism of this chap is really rather intriguing.*

I've never been entirely decided about the war in Iraq, but the way the media (inc NOFX/Greenday) have capitolised on the war they supposedly despise and the way the left wing populus have a field trip in Bush attacks at a personal level (for what IMO is no more than an internecine edification of their own fabricated moral standing), I've tended to side with my contrary nature and abjectly beleive that all this money, effort and vote wasting [by Bush ; Blair] is doing at least some good, even if it is at a level which surpasses the `o my gosh, that's someone's dad and husband who died` stage.

I can't speak for the American mood over the last year or few, but it does seem that everyone vehemently despises Bush, despises the war, and with every bus bomb there's a media surge to get the higher ground, however; when Iraq is freed, the statues of Hussain are pulled down, when Hussain himself is captured and tried, when Zaqawi is killed and when we're kilometers away from Bin Laden :- the furore hushes and whether it's a perspective that dawns on these left wing humanitarianists or whether they're saving face and don't feel like it's a current moment to disparage the war, silence falls and only acceptence if felt by the populus. I should venture with every `termination`, the populus of each country involved should be euphoric. I find it regrettable this is not the case.

I should think the term payback is a bitch is a little too uncouth for my tastes of objectivity in respect of world affairs, but I'm with said blogging gentleman in so far as I am pleased that a murderer [al Zaqawi] who orchestrated other murderers has been killed, and if Bin Laden were to be killed, and Sadam bought to justice at the expense of a fraction of innocent civilians, then I think it's more humane to let these things to pass than to turn a blind eye.

I think one of the many things I love about being British is the calm consideration one gives to a situation, and as such, it's taken me this long to make any sense of what's happening in the Middle East. However, scenes like the `termination` of Al Zaqawi assure me that progress is being made, even if it is at the expense and sacrifice of what could be deemed `much more`.

When all said and done, I think Oldranter, the left wing objecters, the right wing supporters, the informed politician and the layman on the street are all humanitarian - the only difference being: where the individual defines `much more`. Furthermore, I conclude** the media are the least humanitarian of the all parties involved. They are the ones who make money on it all (and argue if you must that France (or even America) have prophited amorally on the war, but don't for a second think that they are any less moral than the media themselves). It's true that there's no news like bad news, and it's true that Bush and Blair are celebrities and we [Brits?] are the one's who love to grind their names into the mud and jump on their graves.

But isn't the ultimate goal of the war freedom, democracy and peace? How much of that does the media actaully advocate in its actions towards the war?



* sorry for the poor sentence construction there.
** wow, `furthermore, I conclude` are a great three word word!