BYU Alternative Commencement Details [Updated]
[Updated]
The BYU Alternative Commencement Organizers have made their goal. They raised over $20,000 and booked a site and got some very well known and impressive speakers [Jack Healey!] all in less than three weeks. Wow.
I wish I could go and support them, but I live far, far from there. It would be so cool to have a crowd of hundreds. [or thousands!] Perhaps you could make it?
Details from the website:
When: Thursday April 26, 2007, 7:30pm
Where: McKay Events Center, Orem, Utah
Who will speak:
* consumer advocate Ralph Nader
* human rights activist Jack Healey
* former US Senate candidate Pete AshdownWho is invited: Everyone! While the event is being organized by BYU students, we welcome everyone who wants to show their support for this important cause
What will happen: BYU students, faculty, alumni, and friends will march to an alternative commencement following BYU’s official graduation ceremony
Update 1 — there will be no march. Arrive individually at the Commencement.
Update 2: For events, media coverage and details please visit their website.
Update 3: BYU is planning on awarding Cheney an honorary PhD. [WT$%# ?????????] Please, please get out and support the Aternative Commencement.
I just watched the video on Rich’s link here. Unbelievable! I think Cecil Samuelson needs a debate coach. Or something.
Lisa, Commencement Friday night?
Comment by Artemis — April 25, 2007 @ 11:33 am
It’s actually Thursday. I don’t know if I could pull that off. Hum. Dangit. I’ll try.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 25, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Thanks posting this! We’re really excited we met our goal. To be honest, there were a couple times when I didn’t think it was going to happen and worried for the two students who said they’d use their student loan money or whatever.
Anyone who can come tomorrow night–it should be a really great time. In addition to the great speakers, I think we’re planning on having some music. It’s a celebration after all.
Comment by Hannah G — April 25, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Oh I wish I could be there to support. This Alumni is so very proud of you guys.
Comment by reese — April 25, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
I am not an Alumni,. but I am sooo excited for what you guys have organized! I think it’s fabulous!
Comment by Nicole — April 25, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
I want to go so badly my teeth hurt, but as I’m trying to work out the child care stuff, It’s really not going to happen. I wish it was on Friday.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 25, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Whoah, Jack Healey. *swoon*
Comment by jjohnsen — April 25, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Artemis…
thanks for that link… that totally made my day.
“next question please” I want that printed on a shirt!
Comment by G — April 25, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
This has almost restored my faith in humanity.
I am truly amazed at how much came together so quickly and really wish that I could be there tomorrow. I hope that someone reports here after the event.
Comment by Paula — April 25, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
I can’t say how excited it makes me to see that this really is going to happen…and so, of course, being unable to say it in a comment, I’ve said it in a post, twice: here Of course, I had to blog something about this. Twice, here and here.
There’s plenty of room to criticize. Yes, Nader is a questionable vehicle of protest; yes, activism can and often is abusive and wishy-washy and self-indulgent; and yes, much of this wouldn’t have happened if certain professional protesters hadn’t turned it into a netroots cause. But still, all in all, I think this is fantastic—pulling off a protest AND an alternative commencement on the very day of Cheney’s visit is a greater demonstration of raw, naïve, possibly immature but nonetheless wonderfully democratic idealism than I ever expected to see in Provo, and indeed it is more than I could probably ever muster on my own. Good work, everyone!
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — April 25, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
I wish I was going to be there just to hear Jack Healey speak. Seriously, what an awesome line-up of speakers. I am so incredibly impressed by this, you guys are my heroes!!
Comment by Veritas — April 25, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
so, do you think I’ll read about this in my next issue of BYUmagazine?
you guys rock!
Comment by G — April 25, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Maybe not, but I did read a blurb about it in my Newsweek (April 9 edition, p 10).
Comment by Lupita — April 25, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
I soooooo wish I could be there. Alas, I live too far away. But I will be there in spirit and cheering you on from up here in Canada. As a BYU graduate, it makes me kinda proud to see students at my old alma mater stand up to the powers that be.
Comment by Lorelei Lee — April 25, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Dang, if we weren’t having a family reunion tomorrow night I’d be there! I want to hear those speakers!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Janet — April 25, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
I so hope that someone is documenting all this on video. That’s one DVD I’d love to add to the collection.
Comment by Chino Blanco — April 26, 2007 @ 5:16 am
Well done BYU protesters! Because of your efforts the world will know that not all Mormons or BYU alumni are comfortable with BYU and the Church honoring such a dishonorable man. I will be there in spirit.
Comment by Guy Murray — April 26, 2007 @ 5:53 am
I think this idea is a great one, but I think the goal has been lost.
Originally planned as a BYU alternate commencement, this event is now simple just a Cheney protest.
Most the money has come for sources with no association with BYU, and most of the people that attend will also have no association with BYU. If it was all alumni and students, that would be cool. It unfortunately is not, and is turning into nothing more than a sideshow act. Bummer
Comment by Does it even matter now — April 26, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Interesting perspective.
I was thinking of all the BYU alum types [like me] or maybe some local folks would come out. I find it hard to believe anyone will bother to travel all the way to Provo. [Unless they live in SL.] Except [of course] the news people.
Hmmm
Comment by Not Ophelia — April 26, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Jack Healey spoke at discussion night last night and he was amazing. I would encourage anyone who is able to come and hear him speak. He is inspiring–and I don’t say that about very many people! I guarantee he will make you want to go out and do good!
Comment by Hannah G — April 26, 2007 @ 11:47 am
P.S. I disagree with the characterization of alternative commencement being “simply a Cheney protest.” There *are* protests happening, but alternative commencement is going to be very much like a true commencement–people in caps and gowns, opening and closing prayers, music, and three speakers (none of whom are going to be discussing partisan politics, as far as I know).
Comment by Hannah G — April 26, 2007 @ 11:48 am
The tiny percentage of attendees in cap and gown still do not change it from a protest to a commencement
Comment by Does it even matter now — April 26, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Does it,
as much fun as it is to be a gloomy gus, you can’t rain on my parade. I think it’s simply spectacular, and if you want to be debbie downer then you can just go ahead and sit in your corner and mope. As for me, I’m going to smile all day today and grin in between times. Probably with several chuckles and sighs of pure happy interspersed.
Have fun moping though, and good luck with that little black rain cloud following you around.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 26, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Did y’all see the article about the woman who started it all? Click here for my take and a link. I’ve loved watching this come together from afar.
Comment by Deborah — April 26, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
I admit I’d find listening to Cheney intriguing. He’s well-spoken and intelligent. I tend to disagree with him on 99% of the stuff he says, but I’d still be intrigued. I’d be intrigued to hear Machiavelli speak as well. I don’t believe we have to like the speakers at commencement, or agree with their ideologies. My problem w/Cheney isn’t that I don’t veer to the political right, but rather than his particular version of the right has taken us so far afield from this country’s founding principles that it is now, and not the 50s, where I see the constitution hanging by a thread. And that’s nothing I want to honor with a “honorary degree in public service.” I’d still be interested to hear him speak somewhere–but NOT at a commencement. If George Will speaks at my doctoral commencement, I won’t protest. If Cheney does, you bet I will.
The speakers at the alternative commencement are better orators anyhow (with whom I’m more likely to agree, true, but they simply have better rhetorical skills as well). Plus, Joe Hill would be so proud that the mormon populace has finally figured out how to organize!! Woohoo! I shall sing Joan Biaz songs on the drive to Provo in the organizer’s honor!
Moot for me; I’ve got a family reunion to attend. A family reunion chock-full of Cheney fans. I’ll be interested to hear their take, since some of them are going and then coming to the party right afterwards.
Comment by Janet — April 26, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Update: my nephew said Cheney’s talk was apolitical and that he spent a while talking about how his wife’s ancestors were pioneers who crossed the plains. I didn’t know he had a “Mormon connection.”
Nobody at the reunion went to the alternative commencement, so I’m really excited to hear about it from people who went!!!!!
Comment by Janet — April 26, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
So, I just read who the commencement speaker is at the University of Utah. BYU gets Cheney and the U gets President Monson?! Wow.
Comment by Lupita — April 26, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
On the bycommonconsent blog on this there’s this question:
“What was the critical comment that he made about Church leadership? Not that I’m surprised at all, but I am curious what he said and how the Mormons in the audience felt about it.”
Anyone have an answer?
You could say the alternative event itself was a form of appropriate criticism.
Comment by Margaret — April 27, 2007 @ 7:58 am
Margaret,
Nader said something like this, “The Mormon Church was born through revelation, rebellion, and dissent. Joseph Smith understood this. His modern day predecessors seem to have forgotten”
That’s a rough paraphrase from memory, but it’s the general gist. The crowd didn’t cheer, it just sort of was glossed over.
I thought the alt. commencement was wonderful - each speaker (students included) was articulate and brilliant. Ashley Sanders’ speech on authenticity and integrity could be required Mormon reading.
Comment by S.L — April 27, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Nader also said something in his press conference about the young organizers of the alternate commencement having more understanding than their leaders, and that might have been the offending statement. (But really if we can’t stand even little remarks like that we’ve got a problem.) I heard that quote on NPR’s morning edition:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9870478
Comment by Paula — April 27, 2007 @ 9:52 am
I’m still throwing up in my mouth over the fact that BYU gave him an honorary doctorate in public service. WTF!?!
And Pres. Hinckley seemingly couldn’t have been more pleased. The two “buddies” got a full minute of standing ovation from the sheeple present. Testimony challenging times…
Comment by Rich — April 27, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
This reminds me of Nibley’s Leaders and Managers essay/speech. And [unfortunately] there’s probably something to it as we seem to be more managed than lead these days . . .
Comment by Not Ophelia — April 27, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Shouldn’t that be successors ?
Comment by Chino Blanco — April 27, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Rich,
With therapy, I’m sure you’ll overcome this.
Comment by Seth R. — April 27, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Do you think that our enemies will just join hands and sing kumbayah?
Useful idiots. I live in Seattle among thousands of fools. It is unfortunate that you wasted your tuition money just to become what you are now…so sad.
Comment by Rick — April 27, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
Rick,
Wouldn’t happen to have an address for us, would you? We’ve all been concerned since you wandered off.
Comment by Chino Blanco — April 27, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
’scuz me but . . . enemies? Exactly what ‘enemies’ are you talking about. Enemies of the church? If so, well, what sort of paranoid delusion is this? I didn’t realize we were living in an us vs. them kind of society. Most of the people that live here in my very liberal city are kind, generous, and good. They also don’t really care for Mormons [no good reasons or good role models — we try and do damage control but statements like yours don’t help] but I would hardly classify them as ‘enemies.’
Or are you talking about the war? If so, well, our enemies there have multiplied due to serious neo-con stupidity. We will pay for Bush/Cheney’s arrogance for generations.
Like Nader[?] said: in this technological world, brute force military just can’t overpower and crush determined and hostile individuals anymore.
So we need another solution. A ’surge’ of 20,000 just isn’t it.
Try putting yourself in their place — what would you do if such a ‘liberating’ force came here destroyed our homes, rained death on us, killed our sons and daughers, jailed us, tortured and abused us, raided our homes, installed a puppet governement and tried to remake us in their image.
Take out that ‘God-given gun’ you got in your closet, no?
Convince an enemy, convince him that he’s wrong
Is to win a bloodless battle where victory is long
A simple act of faith
In reason over might
To blow up his children will only prove him right
History will teach us nothing
Comment by Not Ophelia — April 27, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Where I live, there is an Avenue of Honor with one tree planted for each man and woman from this town that served in WWI. The trees are evenly spaced, but close together. That avenue stretches for 17 kilometres. Many of the nameplates under the trees have crosses - those indicate the men and women who died in WWI. I drive down the Avenue of Honor every now and then, and think, War is such a tremondous waste.
In 90 years, will this war be worth the cost? Is it worth the cost today? There is the financial cost - this war is crippling the US financially, imparting a debt to our grandchildren, and perhaps their children. Instead of killing Iraqi children, we could be using that money to educate them, to vaccinate them, to provide them with health care. What will win their friendship in the end? Instead of killing Iraqi children, we could be using that money to provide our own children with health care and a better education. There is also the personal cost - how many soldiers have to die, or come back missing limbs, before it’s enough? George W Bush said they were over there to avenge the lives of the 3000 killed in 9/11. Haven’t more soldiers died in Iraq than died in 9/11? And what is it proving? More American lives, wasted, and for what? Is anyone living a better life because of this war? Well, maybe Cheney. I’m sure he’s made money from it.
In my own family, I now have two nieces and a nephew I almost never see, because their father, who is from the Middle East, and who has a sister living in Iraq, hates me. He and I have never gotten along, but I used to be able to see his children. Now, he tells his children that Americans want to murder them. I try to understand what it must be like for him: His sister and her husband and their five children used to live in relative peace and prosperity. Sure, everyone knew Saddam Hussein was a bastard, but there was food on the table (Iraqis had a higher standard of living than almost any other people in the Middle East) and their children were getting a good education. Now, the family struggles to find enough food. Their children are no longer in school. College tuition jumped from something like $500 a semester to $5000 a semester, and they can’t afford that. It’s not safe to send the younger children to school. Electricity is sporadic. The phones almost never work. In one week, his sister had five missionaries from different US churches knock on her door trying to save her soul. She wanted to say, “Who cares about my soul, I just want to eat!” When I asked what was needed, my sister-in-law asked me to please not help, because if it got out that they’d recieved help from an American, they would be killed. And so it goes. We are not helping. We are not helping ourselves, we are not helping them, we are only exacerbating a horrible situation and creating a new generation of terrorists.
Comment by Quimby — April 28, 2007 @ 12:28 am
NO: your attempt at equating our existence with iraqi’s is offensive.
have you put thought in what ‘their place’ was like before saddam was deposed? have you talked to any of them? was iraqi life in the saddam area comparable to your life right now? were they able to speak and act freely without fear of reprisal and violence? why would anyone come into america to ‘liberate’ us? are we oppressed? do we need liberation? the logic doesn’t work. their live’s with saddam weren’t great and it remains to be seen what their lives will be like if the violence can be contained and peace restored.
is it only p.c. to blame america when it doesn’t intervene in government atrocities–sudan, bosnia, etc? why is it when the u.s. intervenes it isn’t p.c. anymore? could it be a partisan response?
Comment by paulf — April 28, 2007 @ 12:41 am
quimby: the iraqis are in the midst of a civil war. of course life is bad right now. we americans have never experienced this type of awful state. even our own civil war was more civil with less devastating weapons. making a comparison of saddam era lifestyles and life in a war zone is apples and oranges. what will the iraqi people choose as their new form of government? will that choice lead to a life better than during saddam’s rule? that is the real comparison. bush and company handled the post-war events extremely poorly. we are paying the price. the iraqi people are paying a terrible price. it is awful for everyone involved right now.
Comment by paulf — April 28, 2007 @ 12:59 am
paul, the Iraqi civil war is one we created, with our actions. They wouldn’t be in this civil war if it wasn’t for the US-led invasion.
In the entire modern history of the Middle East, no country (outside of Israel) has ever gone from a bad government to a better government. The status quo is always better than what follows. (I’m talking about when governments change, not when a despot dies and leaves the country to his son. Actually I think the West blew it bad in Syria - Basir Asad spent decades in the UK, obviously liked something of the Western way of doing things, but instead of building on that, almost from the minute he came into power, he was attacked.) So, yes, I’m pessimistic, but I don’t think Iraq will see better days - at least not any time soon.
And I think NO has a very valid point. If anyone ever invaded either of my countries (I have dual citizenship and feel deeply about both), I’d fight tooth and nail to get them out. I’d get dirty. I’d get so dirty, I’d make the Iraqi insurgents look like kindergarten kids.
Saddam Hussein was a horrible man. You won’t find anyone who’ll disagree with you there outside of his own family. But remember who built him. Remember who created him. Remember that the US is still propping up dictators all around the world. History has shown the US loves its dictators - so long as they toe the American line. The minute Mubarak, or Mugabe, or anyone of them crosses the US, suddenly they’ll be the new threat to world peace.
Comment by Quimby — April 28, 2007 @ 1:35 am
paul, I have a feeling we probably feel about the same way about things. I’m really not sure what the answer is . . . Economic sanctions usually don’t work. (South Africa was an exception.) War usually doesn’t work. My main problem with the invasion of Iraq was and is that I think it’s terribly dangerous to meddle in a soveriegn state. The outcome is usually not good. So, what do we do? I don’t know. Is it better to do something or to do nothing? I don’t know.
It does seem hypocritical to build up a dictator then seek to depose him when he’s no longer doing things the way we want him to do them. It’s like that joke - “Mr Bush, How do you know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?” “Because I’ve got the reciepts right here!”
WWII was clear-cut and easy: Hitler was invading countries left, right, and centre, so it was easy to say, We’ve got to stop this guy. Japan’s actions at Pearl Harbor were clearly a call to war. WWI - I don’t know that it was worth it. Maybe it would’ve been better if that war never would’ve happened. Afghanistan I can justify and understand. Iraq - it just seems like we’ve messed it up so thoroughly. I really don’t like to call the situation there a “civil war” because I think it absolves the US of blame. But now what? Do we leave or do we stay? I really don’t think we can make things better if we stay. We can’t make things better if we leave, either, but at least no more US lives will be lost.
Comment by Quimby — April 28, 2007 @ 2:00 am
ps - i said mugabe but was thinking musharraf - sorry! mugabe is a nightmare but i don’t know that he is one we helped create
Comment by Quimby — April 28, 2007 @ 2:04 am
quimby: what do you mean by dirty? insurgents right now are killing kindergarten kids… are they iraqi’s outraged at a foreign government? or are they zealots perpetrating atrocities in the name of religion, racism and hatred. i think, quimby, that you have very little in common with those outraged in iraq.
america is two-faced in its foreign policy. i prefer diplomacy to violence. when should the u.s. intervene and how should they intervene when they do? all problems cannot be solved by talk, and violence is rarely the answer. however, simplistic one-sided answers are usually the stuff of partisanship and rarely constructive, truthful or helpful.
iraq is a mess. we should not choose to intervene then leave when the going gets tough. however, the going is tough in large part because of the ineffective and poorly thought out post-war management. so what now? blame it all on bush and pretend that the whole mess was a mistake? or place blame where blame is due, but work constructively to a solution.
it’s hard to know where you are headed with your discussion of american foreign policy when it comes to dictators. you decry our support of foreign dictators and puppets, but you admit that deposing or not supporting these dicators usually leads to a poorer choice for a leader. perhaps what had been done in iraq with the attempt at a democratic government is an answer. i know the neo-conservatives have been laughed out of washington and they were probably living in a bubble far from reality, but america is trying to establish a change from the status quo of going from one poor dictator to the next.
it seems that what has happened in iraq is more in line with the idealistic cries to do something about mugabe and cruel dictators in africa than those doing the crying are willing to admit.
thank you for civil response quimby. i often lurk at FMH am always sad when a commenter is shouted down by the powers here that be for an opinion that is out of line.
Comment by paulf — April 28, 2007 @ 2:07 am
quimby: my last comment was made before i had read your comments in 42 and 43. i agree, after reading all of your statments, that we are mostly in agreement.
mugabe is a mess. there is no clean way to mop up a mess.
hopefully, bush’s neo-conservatives will have learned something from iraq as they advise him in dealing with iran…
Comment by paulf — April 28, 2007 @ 3:47 am
paul, my #42 was in response to your post - the time stamp thing has messed up the order again.
To be honest with you - and here you probably will disagree with me, and in all sincerity (assuming you disagree) I would love to read your reasons why - I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the United States to be a superpower. I don’t think it’s in the best interests of any nation to be a superpower. Government should be, first and foremost, about serving your own people. When a government (any government, from any party) is more interested in interfering in problems in other countries, it fails in its primary duties to serve its own people.
Of course it’s complicated. I believe there is a place for foreign aid. (It’s also worth remembering that foreign aid generally helps the donor country more than the recipient country. I’m not sure this is necessarily a bad thing, so long as the recipient country is also helped in a real, genuine way, not in a “lab rat” way as often happens - gm food is sent to Africa because it hasn’t passed requirements in the US, drugs are tested in India because they don’t have FDA approval, etc.) But I think when it comes to actually advocating for change in sovereign countries, that is a task best left to the UN - and that is a task the UN should be fully empowered to make.
This is where it gets really tricky and a bit mean-hearted. I don’t think it’s up to the US to solve the problems in Darfur (to give one example) because I don’t think it’s practical to do so without interfering in the sovereignty of Sudan. I don’t like what’s happening in Darfur. I also don’t like what’s happening in Saudi Arabia (where I wonder how many of these “terrorists” arrested are actually just political enemies), Egypt, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, and a host of other nations. But ultimately, if sovereign nations don’t respect each others’ borders and sovereign powers, it all gets very messy very quickly.
The idealist in me wants to say, Go in there and right the wrongs. The pragmatist in me believes it would be opening up Pandora’s box. It’s this dichotomy of wanting to help and wanting to respect sovereignty that sees me waking up in cold sweats in the middle of the night.
Comment by Quimby — April 28, 2007 @ 5:07 am
What Quimby said.
Also:
No. not really. Just because someone doesn’t have all the rights and privilidges we do doesn’t mean they don’t love their country, hate occupying forces or want to solve their own problems.
Again, I agree with Quimby. Notice the part about her brother in law. As for me, no I haven’t talked to them [how could I? [And if I did, I suspect those on the right would just say I talked to the wrong ones . . ] But I have read what they have to say. And I think it does support my position.
There’ a difference between intervening with international agreement and support in a bad situation, and going in to a stable, though despotic and oppressive country and causing the chaos ourselves. Bosnia wasn’t our creation and we didn’t try to unilaterally ‘fix’ it. The chaos in Iraq is our doing, and that makes a huge difference in how the population views our intervention there.
Comment by Not Ophelia — April 28, 2007 @ 7:45 am
quimby: i’m sorry if you wake up at night in cold sweats. i hope it doesn’t happen very often.
i feel you ideas are very good. foreign aid is sticky. third parties are probably better left giving the aid–like the UN. i do think the corporations and rich of the US should be giving on their own though. the work of bill gates in vaccinating etc. is exciting and an important part of what should happen in a capitalist society. america can do a lot for 3rd world countries by opening itself to competition and stop protectionist tariffs etc. allowing countries to compete and allowing the US to adapt and move in to more technical positions should help change the conditions in many areas of the world. with all that said, governments will still be despotic and oppress their people.
the world can give the UN the chance to work, but it is still made up of the world’s nations and doesn’t often work. we can see in retrospect to the run up to the iraq war that the big nations were making their decisions politically. france and russia had real economic ties in iraq. i truly hope that the specter of oil for us oil magnates did not personally affect bush’s decicison to go in. the UN most often tends towards inaction. it isn’t inconceivable that nations may have to break from the UN’s inaction to make change. but generally i agree with on the UN.
NO: thank you for your kinds response. thank for the link to the blog from an iraqi citizen.
bosnia was not our creation. it was fixed too late. many called for us to go in sooner–similar to iraq.
for years, america’s style of democracy was truly unique in the ability of the general populace to make meaningful change and create consensus. in a ruthless dictatorship love of a country and the realistic chances for change are slim if impossible options. there are so many ways that life in many countries around the world do not allow for the type of comparison you are making.
quimby’s story about the lives of her niece and nephew and hatred felt from their father is heartbreaking. we made a mess of the post-war occupation from the very beginning. the UN didn’t want to help to say i told you so. we didn’t put enough people on the ground and we didn’t have specific and rapid timetables. bush in his bumbling loyalist way stayed with an ineffective leader for six months. the damage done in that time was immeasurable. i can’t help but think if bill clinton (to mention one recent american leader)–in his way of staying up for hours a night during a crisis and personally working through problems (like his work in the israel/palestinian conflict)–might have cut through red tape and made changes quickly with a better thought out time table.
in retrospect, we shouldn’t have gone into iraq. at the time, with the evidence presented (truly devastating weapons, unwillingness to dismantle, real ties to al qaeda, a real reason–grounded in september 11–put our foot down on terror) i thought america needed to take more action than the UN was willing to take. many of the reasons stated were believed by politicians and leaders on both sides of the aisle.
we are making enemies right now in iraq. we need to do our best to help fix the problem we created. pulling out immediately is absolutely not the answer. pulling out with specific targets and incentives (not dates–read hillary clinton’s earlyl ideas) is more reasonable. harry reid’s defeatism is partisan is weakening his party.
Comment by paulf — April 28, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Paul, from what I remember, the UN was clamouring to help, Kofi Anan said now was the time for the UN to go in, and the US refused because they wanted all the reconstruction contracts. They didn’t even share them with their allies who had followed them into war. In fact, Australia had a lucrative wheat contract (it’s since come out that this was largely due to bribing Saddam - but then, Haliburton’s sub-companies did the same) and the first thing the US did, to “reward” Australia for joining in the Coalition, was pull this wheat contract and give it to American farmers.
This - and the fact that the US often sells its worse second-hand military equipment to its allies, while saving the “good stuff” for enemies they’re trying to woo (for example, Pakistan) - leads me to believe that you are far better off not being an ally of the US through thick and thin.
Comment by Quimby — April 28, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
On further thought, about the UN - and this is just from memory, I don’t have the time right now to look it up - I think Kofi Anan and several member countries wanted to go, and other member countries (I think France and Russia but again I’m not sure) were against it, because they thought it was up to the US to clean up their own mess.
Also, while I agree with you that it would be nice to think the US went into Iraq for the right reasons and not for oil, I have a hard time thinking it was really as altruistic as that, especially in the face of actions - defending the oil ministry while letting the cultural museum be rampaged is a pretty clear message as to where US interests lay.
Comment by Quimby — April 28, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Quimby,
WWII was clear-cut and easy: Hitler was invading countries left, right, and centre, so it was easy to say, We’ve got to stop this guy. Japan’s actions at Pearl Harbor were clearly a call to war.
It’s important to remember that the church’s position during WWII was to remain carefully neutral. (I refer to the church’s statement on war at the time. I wish I had the link but it’s pretty inspiring — it offers an overview to the effect that wars are generated by man and are not of God. It’s also refreshing because it goes contrary to the prevailing political winds of the day.) The Saints in Germany were told to support their government. I’m sure this came as a consolation to my LDS grandfather who was as an officer in the Luftwaffe.
Wars are almost always fought for control over resources. (In this case oil in Iraq and heroin in Afghanistan.) Those who benefit from war are not those who bear the costs. And of course, innocent civilians are the pawns.
It’s disappointing to me to see the church abandon it’s previous neutral position on war to give approval to this government (BYU is a church school. Inviting Cheney to speak shows tacit approval.) I realize that there may be political advantages for the church, but I can’t help but feel that by participating in this trade off we’ve lost the moral high ground.
Comment by Lorelei Lee — April 30, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
I think this isn’t true. For one, I thought they accepted Cheney volunteering to speak, not invited him. For two, I think it is in line with the “support your government” sentiment the Church has always given, even in WWII. Obviously, there is some sort of delicate balance between condoning unChristlike behavior and supporting your government that most people simply don’t walk.
Comment by SilverRain — April 30, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
SilverRain,
I hear what you are saying re. supporting the government, but was an honorary degree really necessary — especially to the one person who probably bears more responsibility for starting this war than anyone else? Supporting the government is one thing, kissing up to it is quite another.
Comment by Lorelei Lee — April 30, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Lorelei - I certainly didn’t mean to impugn the German people. I was speaking in political terms, not religious terms. I think the church thinks it’s on shaky grounds if they come out with political statements supporting or denouncing wars. (Other churches have no problem doing so, but the LDS church prefers to stay out of it.) But from a political point of view, I can see and understand why we fought in WWII. (Much to my husband’s disgust, I can also see and understand why we stayed out of it for as long as we did.)
Comment by Quimby — April 30, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Lorelei - no, I don’t agree with how the University treated Cheney, especially the honorary degree (I hate the idea of honorary degrees, having spent the requisite blood, sweat and tears on mine) but that wasn’t what I was trying to say. I think inferring that the Church is putting a tacit stamp of approval on the war from those actions may be jumping the gun a bit.
Comment by SilverRain — April 30, 2007 @ 10:14 pm