The Beastly Hun
Thursday, March 13th, 2003 04:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robinturnerThe Australian Prime Minister's speech today took a number of people by surprise, largely because he was actually committing himself to a political position, which apparently is quite unusual for this administration. What interested me was the way, in order to justify Australian participation in any war on Iraq, he dwelt on Saddam's atrocities in loving detail, talking about children having their eyes gouged out and so on.
I am confused. I thought the reason for our going to war with Iraq is that Saddam Hussein is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Or is developing weapons of mass destruction, or at any rate has some weapons of some kind, which are probably quite destructive. That is what UN resolution 1441 was about, and the general consensus of world opinion is that either Saddam doesn't have these weapons, or doesn't have enough of them to pose a serious threat, or has them but isn't likely to use them unless, of course, he is attacked by America. Now we are being told that we should be making war on Saddam because he tortures his own citizens.
If the UN were actually to agree that member states would use military force to dpose any government that killed and tortured its own people, I'd say "By jingo, let's go and show those filthy blighters what for!" Unfortunately, such a resolution has never been on the table, and will not be for the foreseeable future, since if the non-torturing states were to declare war on the torturing states, they'd be seriously outgunned, especially if you count American treatment of Taliban prisoners as torture.
What we are seeing here is just another variation on the "Beastly Hun" rhetoric of the First World War. German soldiers were supposed to routinely rape nuns and bayonet babies (ironically, they probably didn't commit any atrocities of note in the First World War, though they made up for it in the Second).
Persuading people to go to another country and kill people they've never met is not easy, and persuading your public that it's a fine idea is no easier. Every little atrocity helps.
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
- Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues -
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
I am confused. I thought the reason for our going to war with Iraq is that Saddam Hussein is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Or is developing weapons of mass destruction, or at any rate has some weapons of some kind, which are probably quite destructive. That is what UN resolution 1441 was about, and the general consensus of world opinion is that either Saddam doesn't have these weapons, or doesn't have enough of them to pose a serious threat, or has them but isn't likely to use them unless, of course, he is attacked by America. Now we are being told that we should be making war on Saddam because he tortures his own citizens.
If the UN were actually to agree that member states would use military force to dpose any government that killed and tortured its own people, I'd say "By jingo, let's go and show those filthy blighters what for!" Unfortunately, such a resolution has never been on the table, and will not be for the foreseeable future, since if the non-torturing states were to declare war on the torturing states, they'd be seriously outgunned, especially if you count American treatment of Taliban prisoners as torture.
What we are seeing here is just another variation on the "Beastly Hun" rhetoric of the First World War. German soldiers were supposed to routinely rape nuns and bayonet babies (ironically, they probably didn't commit any atrocities of note in the First World War, though they made up for it in the Second).
Persuading people to go to another country and kill people they've never met is not easy, and persuading your public that it's a fine idea is no easier. Every little atrocity helps.
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
- Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues -
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-13 08:59 am (UTC)And I agree with you: morally, that would be more justifiable (moreso if the sanctions hadn't been in place all these years, however). But that has never been the UN position, and though I know that he is doing horrible things, I'm not sure going in and killing a whole lot more innocent Iraqi people is the answer right now, particularly given that the Bushites are incapable of articulating a postinvasion longterm plan for setting up a truly democratic state. As you say, where do we stop with that? I think Texas should be invaded for its barbaric use of the death penalty, for giving the world Dubya, and for keeping the tradition of big bouffant hair on women alive past the point of all decency.
Really, the best idea I've heard so far was from Eric Idle. He was on The Daily Show here (a very funny faux-news program/chat show with Jon Stewart) and said "If they want regime change in Iraq, there's no need to send the Army. Just send the Supreme Court."
no subject
Date: 2003-03-13 11:30 pm (UTC)Howard said there was plenty of intelligence which proved that Iraq=Osama and the proof was that there were links between Iraq=Osama.
You'll probably remember better than I, that the Iraqis have already been the beastly hun... what with the impaling of newborns and ripping them from incubators in Kuwait.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-14 02:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-14 01:12 pm (UTC)xoxo
no subject
Date: 2003-03-14 01:42 pm (UTC)