February 6, 2004

Best Cultural Design And...politics Again
Bob Praz

This Weapons and Warfare book is really getting me fascinated into the art design of the movie. My question is, in your opinion, which Middle-earth culture was best portrayed in the movie, either visually or according to your personal expectations? I found that all the elven cultures looked far more wonderful and beautiful than I could ever have imagined; it simply surpassed my greatest expectations. Yet I must also commend the design of Rohan and its people. The Scandinavian-like culture of the Rohirrim was brilliantly portrayed, from the carved timbers of the Golden Hall to the arms and armour of Théoden or Éomer. Am I getting carried away or do others agree?

Now my response to the political debate. Before starting, however, I would like to tell Everett that I hate to disagree with you, but I must respectfully do so, or be silent completely. It is really only on the subject of Bush that we differ. Anyhow, here goes.
First, I agree with Annatar (who also is a good political debater) about Bush's speaking skills. When I watch his speeches on TV I can't help but knock my head on the table in frustration...alright, maybe not literally, but you know what I mean.
However I won't complain much about that (after all, I can't say Jean Chrétien was the most stirring speaker of all time either). What bothers me about Bush is his disdain of other nations and allies. He doesn’t seem to realize that one cannot force democratic countries to act against their people’s will, and if he had any noble qualities of his own he wouldn’t have gone to war against the will of his own nation either (especially since it’s not quite established that he was suppose to win the elections in the first place).
The invasion of Afghanistan was fully justified, as I think most will agree. The Taliban were supporting terrorists that were responsible for horrible, unprovoked attacks, and thus were sponsoring an international threat.
The war in Iraq, however, was NOT justified. In fact, it was simply redundant, which almost frightens me. I am sorry to say that it should never have taken place, and the only thing that partly redeemed the Bush administration is the capture of Saddam Hussein (otherwise all the casualties would have been, arguably, for nothing). There was no reason to go to war in Iraq: despite claims there were no real weapons of mass destruction (and it’s funny how that little fact is strangely omitted by the general media nowadays), and even though Saddam was a tyrannical madman, he is far from being the only one in the world right now. There are many terrible atrocities that have taken place in other countries before and which the Western world did not seem to perpend as much. Not to mention that most of the Middle-East is run by dictatorships of one kind or another, and we don’t seem to mind them, as long as they keep selling us oil. I’m starting to truly believe that the only real reason behind the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam was not being “generous” enough, and of course George wanted to finish what his father had begun.
Now I don’t know what all of you believe or believed, but I would like to state clearly that Saddam had little or nothing to do with terrorism. Even the White House knew this, and it never claimed that the war in Iraq was related to the war on terrorism, and has also issued a statement on this recently. Yet many people somehow assumed, on their own, that this was one of the main motives to oust Saddam Hussein. Apparently, some Americans even felt safer after Saddam was captured; how on earth do they figure that (leaving aside the fact that he had already been reduced to a pathetic man living in a hole)? Saddam was not a very religious person, and neither was the Baath party. In fact, one of the good things about his downfall is that the Iraqis can now fully practice Islam on their own, as religious activity was limited under his rule. Thus Saddam gave little, if any, support to terrorist groups because they were all religious extremist organisations for which he had no love, and they in turn probably did not like him because he kept them out of one of the most powerful countries in the Middle-east. Ironically, now that he is gone, the terrorists can finally enter and operate in Iraq freely (after a fashion) and kill as many americans as possible every day, as well as rallying some of the Iraqi population to their cause. It was obvious from the beginning that there would be little welcome for the United States in post-Saddam Iraq, and now I don’t see how all the violence and chaos in that region will ever be solved. In the view of many of the Arab people, Bush has justified Osama bin Laden’s accusations of American imperialism in the Middle-east by occupying Iraq, and so the situation is not improving.

All that to conclude that Iraq was no threat to the US or to any other countries at the time, whatever has been said. Saddam wasn’t stupid: he wouldn’t have jeopardized his sovereignty by carrying out further military action against his neighbours, knowing that the UN and especially the US was watching him closely. Therefore, in the end, Bush could only have acted out of american self-interest, which is a pitiful excuse. No nation has the right to invade another country and impose its own ideologies upon that country’s population - however noble those ideologies may be - unless it, or another innocent country, is under threat. There was no threat and therefore there was no legitimate reason for war. We can’t go around the world and overthrow every government that causes suffering, because problems like that can’t be solved so easily nor so harshly, and there are too many of them. Iraq is an excellent example of that: the nation is not much better off after Saddam, and probably will not be for a very, very long time unless miracles take place. I can only prey that things may in fact work out eventually and that I’m wrong.

Thank you for reading, and I await to your inevitable responses. Any of you can e-mail me if you prefer (bobpraz@hotmail.com) to keep this outside the forum.

PS: I’m glad this debate has been interesting and civilised so far, because too often do political discussions become heated. I enjoy all of your posts.