The Iraq crisis...

[hitchhiker]

Just wanted to share this with everyone. I asked the Yi if the war on Iraq would take place (of course I'm hoping it doesn't) and I got #3 Difficulty at the beginning changing at line 3 to #63 After Completion...

Line 3 of #3 reads:
Six in the third place means:
Whoever hunts deer without the forester
Only loses his way in the forest.
The superior man understands the signs of the time
And prefers to desist.
To go on brings humiliation.

Interesting?

hh

 

[suzy]

Now that's fascinating. I wonder if it means that if Bush Nation continues to blunder into a war without world support (as it seems hell-bent on doing), we (US) will suffer humiliation, a quagmire, an unwinnable mess. Heavens, heavens.

Last night I was cheering Belgium for whipping out that veto -- Go, Belgies! Feels odd to be rooting against my own country -- but then, it is not my country I oppose but the folks running it at the moment. Well, guess I've revealed my political viewpoint, eh? Oh, how it hurts to think of this war. It breaks my heart.

 

[lenardthefast]

Hi Hitch,

Extremely so, I believe. I know that, I, for one, have never considered George Dubya a superior anything; with the possible exception of liar. Nahh, he's not even very good at that, on second thought. Maybe 'frat boy' would be the extent of his competency. Which, if carried out to its grim conclusion means he probably fired or 'terminated with extreme prejudice' the poor forester right after entering the White House. *sigh*

Little known trivia bit; Guess who received 17 oil wells in Kuwait as a wedding present? None other that Dubya's pater and mater(George Sr. and Barbara). No, it can't be possible that our former president, the present one's Dad, had a vested interest(financial, of course), in starting Desert Storm?

Namaste,
Leonard

 

[gene]

Woah

Think I will stay out of this one, but as you can see, it is hard to stay out of it totally. Just remember, now that the "Patriot Act" is in place, big brother is watching. Like father like son?

Gene

 

[lenardthefast]

Hi Gene,

So, the ""Patriot Act" negates our right to free speech? Not from where this homeboy sits! Gee, next we might all say "I was just following orders, Sir". Come on, Gene, this a forum, surely you have the courage of your convictions. And from what I have read of those convictions in your past posts, they appeared to issue from an enlightened mind.

This is just a forum for discussion and an experiment has been suggested(in Val's thread), we are not suggesting sabotage or assassination here(the ruling class already has the corner on that market), merely an experiment followed by discussion.

Namaste,
Leonard

 

[gene]

Hi Leonard

Yeah, I understand. If I truly felt serious danger, I would have said nothing at all. However, that being said...Well, I'll stick to the forum.

Gene

 

[hilary]

What I find most interesting about the answer is that it neatly avoids predicting an outcome. The wise and noble man reads the signs and desists. The not so wise or noble one, presumably, doesn't.

I don't think we need any political discussion with this reading. We can just quote in all innocence from commentaries on the text, while hoping that the relating hexagram, otherwise known as 'Already Crossing the River', doesn't mean what it looks like.

For instance, Wu Jing Nuan, writing on Hexagram 3, suggests that it is about enlarging one's territory and making one's position more secure: hence the need to establish feudal lords.

For another instance, try LiSe's comment on the line. Or look at the idea that the fan yao (ie 63,3) represents the protagonist's point of view on the issue. Or indeed at the nuclear hexagram.

I should just mention for anyone who hasn't noticed that the main discussion on this is over here

 

[suzy]

Dear Hilary (and any other Brits on the forum):

I wonder if I might ask a question about how the war prospects are perceived over there in the UK. Here in the US, I believe the polls are showing now that most Americans are persuaded that Bush's case against Iraq is just. That is not really surprising, since the Bush administration has kept up an unremitting media campaign, and when all is said and done, most Americans do tend to be "led" on foreign policy. (The widespread opposition to the war in Vietnam was, historically speaking, an anomaly in American public life.) On the other hand, the polling statistics don't reveal how fragile the consensus really is. Water cooler talk around the country, even among diehard Republicans, is uneasy. I've listened to conservative, double-Bush voters nevertheless express profound uncertainty and bafflement over what is happening. It seems to me as if average Americans have almost been browbeaten into this thing -- and, feeling that they don't have all the facts and aren't really sure what is best, decide to trust their leaders.

So that's the ground-level view over here. I just keep wondering what on earth is really going on in the UK. I read the Guardian, and it looks there like opinion polls are trending away from the Blair/Bush stance. On the other hand, one of my (former) colleagues is a Brit, and he's all for the war -- and would have me believe that the rest of you lot are just as hawkish. So which is it? How would you characterize the mood there?

 

[hilary]

The impression I've got is that most people would be in favour if there was a UN resolution, but not otherwise. (The Guardian's left-wing, as you've probably noticed, so its polls might have a dove-ish bias. Be interesting to contrast it with any from the Torygraph, sorry Telegraph.)

 

[candid]

Hawk and dove are not applicable terms such as it was during the Vietnam era. Liberals tend to be anything but liberal, in the literal sense. Conservatives are fired up when there appears to be a mission. Especially one which concerns security. I don't sense either faction really rallying around Bush's war cry. Conservatives have a sense of duty to stand behind the party leader, but that's about it.

No one is happy about 911, except the radicals that support 'justifiable murder.' I don't believe its going to be a popular engagement.

There's only one aspect of this which would give the rest of the world cause to fear and tremble at the western alliance, and that?s sophisticated weaponry. There must be some scary stuff in our arsenals by now. All those years of relative peace, and all the R&D that's gone into aircraft (space program notwithstanding) and other implements of war and citizen control. When these muscles are flexed, I think it will cause worldly terror and cause most of the world to fall into submission. Its happened before.

Asking Yi questions about it I think will result in several different perspectives. Yi takes no political position, other then what we may read into it. A victory to one camp would mean defeat for the other. Would each get the same reading? hmmm they might.

If I was a German soldier fighting for my life during WW-2, I doubt Yi would tell me to throw down my weapons and abandon my home land. (Wilhelm was German, yes?)

I'm not suggesting that both sides are equally wrong, but evil can not justify evil. I, by majority consensus here, would be judged as a hawk for my conservative views. That would not cause Yi to stop guiding my own path. Nor anyone else?s, so long as rightness was truly our intent.

I doubt I'll participate in the collective oracle reading, but who knows? It could be really interesting to see how Yi responds to individuals and to see if there is any kind of "group message."

God help us all.
Candid

 

[yancy]

What do you think of this? I did a hexagram for the Mideast and got 46, Pushing upwards. I've done the IChing for many years and still find hexagrams that remain obscure whereas others are as revealing as a beautiful portrait. There have been times I wanted to get the perspective of others. Just found this site. Look forward to your understandings

 

[gene]

The technology of the United States and some parts of Europe are beyond anything most people can imagine. Some of it would likely be used in a war with Iraq. Some would not because it is too secret, and not necessary. However, the technology we have is nothing compared to what has been on this planet in the ancient past. Part of what this war is about is what might be buried under Iraqi sand. North Korea is a more serious threat, but we largely ignore them.

Yancie

I would be curious how you worded your question, with a response of #46.

Geneg

Gene

 

[hilary]

Welcome, Yancie, nice to have you here!

With 5 minutes before I go out, I had to drop in and point out my own rather lamentable lack of awareness earlier on this page. It never entered my head to question who might be in danger of entering the forest without a guide (/going up the creek without a paddle). Presumably a natural hawk would see it differently.

46 - if only! Were there any changing lines?

Have to run.

 

[binz]

Suzy et al,

another Brit view (this is my personal perception, I could never claim to represent the views of a nation, and apologise if anyone is offended by my opinions)

There is a healthy variety of views in our media. Including the stock reports on Tory Blairs statements and those of the US warheads, through informed discussion on what might actually happen and the associated consequencies (200,000 deaths, 2 million refugees according to one BBC article), and also a considerable amount of questioning the true reason why US/UK is going to war (Saddam is evil / Bush is a power hungry bully, etc). Australia barely gets a mention in all this.

There is also a tradition of irony and satire in our media, and there have been recent programs highlighting the hipocrisy e.g. Mark Thomas trying to inspect the UK and US facilities where we are producing weapons of mass destruction and breaking UN treaties on nonproliferation, Rory Bremners weekly show highlighting facts such that blanket bombing of kurds was started by the British and that Churchill wanted to use chemical weapons to terrorise the kurds, also views such as Bush only agreed to wait for a second resolution because it gives more time to get forces in place, and that US will do the initial fighting and UK will be left to clear up the mess (a.k.a. the peacekeeping forces). Following the cock-up with the chemical weapons etc dossier last week, BBC radio 4 produced it's own from stuff found in listeners kitchens!


As for the person on the street. well they estimate that there will be upto 500,000 people demonstrating there desire for peace on the streets of London (and Glasgow I think) this Saturday (The rally at the end of the march was originally banned from being in Hyde Park, but the weight of opinion changed this). www.stopwar.org.uk for more info.

This mass support for peace doesn't mean that all Brits are fluffy doves - the most recent demonstration on this sort of scale was by the Countryside Alliance which was a demonstration for the right to kill animals for fun.


Overall I think that although there is hope for peace, there is also an acceptance that the war is pretty much inevitable. If the UN doesn't agree, the US (and UK and Australia) will either force it to agree, or go to war anyway and make the UN irrelevent.

OK, that's it from me on this subject. Sorry I didn't mention I Ching once. Must do work now before I get sack for writing this in company time!

Binz

 

[candid]

Hilary, would you please define a natural hawk?

Binz, by killing animals for fun, do you mean hunting?

 

[candid]

Welcome, Yancy Marie. Thanks for joining us. Looking forward to your input.

 

[binz]

Candid,

yes - I have experience from both sides of this issue (meaning I hunted in my youth, and I am now actively anti-hunt).

Binz

 

[candid]

Binz,

I hunted once. Killed a squirrel and felt like crap. Never went again. Still, I have no negative feelings about those who legally hunt. Here in the US, deer go through massive winter starvations, and other years, they are so thick they become a serious road hazard. Most (practical) wildlife health and preservation programs are paid for by those who hunt and fish. There are just too many positive things that hunters/fishers contribute to wildlife to condemn it wholesale. Just my view.

Candid

 

[hilary]

Re-hawks - I only meant that a somewhat dove-ish bias meant that I automatically thought that the one heading blindly into the forest was Bush. But from the general nature of the question, this wasn't actually explicit. One with more of a pro-war bias might have decided that Saddam was meant - it would certainly fit at least as well. So on our very first question on this, my interpretation has been completely - and completely unconsciously - controlled by personal views.

Not sure which kind of bird I am. Rather dithering dove, I think, with an ostrich in its ancestry somewhere...

(P.S. Could be that hunting in US and UK are rather different - let's not go there, though!)

 

[candid]

If there's one thing Bush isn't, its blind. He's not doing this automatically. His motives are questionable, but he has a motive.

I have a difficult time with the whole hawk/dove labeling. I think its more complex than that. I think it tends to force people into taking one side or the other. Common sense seems to get lost when looking at things from a such a narrow vantage point, no matter which side a person stands on.

(P.S. It could be, and I respect your wishes.)

 

[suzy]

Perhaps not blind, but myopic. At least that is my opinion. I think Bush and his administration are suffering some kind of tunnel vision. In their nearly obsessive focus on Saddam I think they've lost sight of the big picture. It's appalling to me the way they've squandared the near-universal goodwill we enjoyed (if that's the term) after 9/11. And this move to a first-strike, damn-the-allies kind of police mentality is simply unprecedented, and bodes ill in a world where we are already regarded as entirely too big for our britches. What ARE they thinking?

Hawk vs. dove: Candid, I wonder if your discomfort with these terms is because you think of them as immutable categories, rather that situational labels? I was thinking of that when you mentioned the Vietnam thing. A key difference between anti-war sentiment now and then is that, back then, the youth movement and 60's zietgeist had created a large class of genuine pacificts, people who oppose all war on principle. That is fairly rare nowadays (though by no means unheard of, and I'm sure some people on this forum would qualify). In today's world, most "doves" are pragmatists -- they regard war as an extremely inefficient, cruel "solution" and one that should be used only as an absolute last resort. In this particular case with Iraq, they do not see that it is justified. I myself fall into this category. I abhor war, but admit that in some cases it is unavoidable, even appropriate. With the Iraq situation today, I am a "dove." If this were 1940 and I was a Brit living through the German bombardment, I'd be a hawk.

 

[suzy]

Binz -- thank you for the delightful tour of the landscape over there. Tory Blair indeed -- and how do you feel about New Labour? (I'm reminded of a scene in one of the new episodes of AbFab, where Saffy is sort of apologizing to the government job guy for being well-off. He says something like, "Oh, it's okay to be rich now. We actually sort of encourage it.")

 

[candid]

Suzy,

It could be. I volunteered for Nam, then later was chased by mounted police in Central Park for protesting the same conflict. After that and for quite some time, I was a dove, no question about it. My views were extreme on the matter. I was for socialized everything and thought artists should be sponsored by government. Of course the fact that I was a starving artist had little to do with it, right? *chuckles* There then came a turning point where I swung just as radically toward just right of Barry Goldwater. Allot of their points made sense, at least to my own personal needs at the time. It all fit together so nicely. Now, I'm more of a libertarian. I believe that people should be allowed as much freedom as possible while still maintaining a sense of order and peace. Its just a pipe dream, I suppose, but its where I'm at at this time.

Like yourself, I believe there's a time when war becomes the only choice besides annilation. I really can't say for sure if that's the position we're in. Some say, yes. Some say, no. I'm not convinced. If I believed that Sadam was truly a threat to our countries' security, I'd support the war effort whole-heartedly. I'd make the engagement sure and swift and install a colony operated government in his place. It sounds controlling, and it is. I have the right to protect my life and country from destruction of its life and culture, even if that means controlling another government who plots our demise.

Because of these complexities, I can't say I'm a hawk or a dove. I'm for freedom, but not liberal to the point where I'll allow my neighbor's freedom to destroy me.

Candid

 

[hilary]

Hi Candid,

I have to admit that (in my 30-second posting earlier) I hadn't really thought about all the history and implications behind 'hawk' and 'dove' - didn't intend any huge labelling enterprise there. Mea culpa. But then I'm only a) English and b) 30.

Dad and I called unidentified birds (the ones that fly away when you get the binoculars out, every time) lesser-spotted hoodwinks. Perhaps I'm one of them.

By the way, listening to Alistair Cooke's 'Letter from America' on the radio a month or so ago - he was comparing the anti-war arguments now to those heard in the UK before the second war. Apparently public opinion here was very much against getting involved, and the resemblance was very strong. Not that I'm particularly convinced of the parallel - it just made me wonder what I would have thought back then.

Definitely a hoodwink. They're greyish-brown, you know. Or was it brownish-grey?

 

[suzy]

Dear Hilary:

I suspect anti-war sentiment always sounds rather the same. Pro-war sentiment as well, for that matter. What's different is the facts supporting the sentiment. That's the problem with comparing the actual situation today to the actual situation in the late 1930s. The sentiments are similar, but the situation is vastly different. For Saddam to be anywhere near what Hitler was, he would have to a) publish and continuously preach a plan of world domination, b) publicly snub the U.N. and their silly resolutions and inspectors, c) build up the world's most intimidating military/air/naval capacity without any attempt whatsoever at subterfuge -- in fact he'd flaunt it, d) invade Syria and incorporate it as part of a new, Greater Iraq (Kuwait isn't big enough for the comparison -- Hitler absorbed Austria), and e) march his troops into the borderland with either Iran or Turkey, claiming that the Iraqi people need room to breathe. On top of that, for the comparison to be really true, Iraq would have to be geographically situated right on the border with the United States or Western Europe. If and only if those conditions were met could this situation be compared to the days before World War II.

Of course, stating it all baldly like that makes the "appeasers" back in 1938 seem like fools -- but we have the benefit of hindsight. At the time, the shadow of WWI was so dark, it was inevitable that Hitler would just seem like the Kaiser redux and the whole bloody show just a replay of the Great (pointless, futile, horrible) War. I can very well understand how someone back then would have opposed the war and favored appeasement -- I may have done so myself. As it turned out, peace was impossible, and Hitler had to be beaten. Is that the case today with Saddam? I don't think so, not by a mile.

I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing you or anyone -- just pointing out the historical circumstances.

Best regards,
Suzy

 

[candid]

Hilary,

I don't consider being English or 30 to be an "only". Have no idea why you would either.

I was offering a different perspective. Thought that's what we're here to do?

Decidedly staying out of this emotional topic, hence.

Candid

 

[anita]

Since I've already asked the Yi about the crisis a while ago, let me post the answers here. As always I have asked three times the same question - Will the war happen at two different occasions -- separated by time.

On January 13:

a. 63 b. 58, lines 2, 5, 6 to 21
c. Hex.5 line 2 changing to 63.

On Feb. 1st when I asked again:

a. hex.2 line 2 changing to 7. b. 51 lines 2,3,4,5 changing to 5.

Here I do see 63 reappearing as well as 5.

It seemed to me that it wouldn't happen.
I wonder whether 51 was in some way referring to the shuttle disaster.

Best for your Quest

Anita

 

[binz]

Suzy,

re your points a to e. There are similarities to what is happening in the world today as points b and c apply to the USA.

On the radio this morning were the results of a poll in the UK. Q do you support a war on Iraq if there is a second UN resolution? The result was 40% yes and 45% no. So within the limits of accuracy of polls I say that was an even split. Less than 10% supported an attack if there was not a second resolution.
On the same program they pointed out that the US was ignoring, or hadn't noticed, the part of bin ladens statement where he says the 'fight' is not for championing non-islamic regimes, including Iraq. Al Qaeda supports the people of Iraq, but does not support its government is the view that is being expressed.

Following Candids way, this will be my last post on the war and politics. In future I will try and keep my posts to I Ching and related wider aspects of life and all it's wonders.

If anyone wants an update of the view from where I stand......For what the mainstream brit media are saying, try www.bbc.co.uk/news For an independent view (globally) see www.indymedia.org (independent meaning not worried about selling papers, advertisers, viewer ratings, the influence of governments or business - rather than not being to the left or right of the political spectrum).

Back to the here and now

Binz

 

[cal val]

Candid...

Regarding your uncertainty as to whether Saddam Hussein is a threat or not, here's an excellent paper http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html by two foreign policy experts, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.

John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison distinguished service professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he codirects the Program in International Security Policy. He is the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001). Stephen M. Walt is the academic dean and the Robert and Renee Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard?s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is faculty chair of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and is writing a book on global responses to American primacy. You'll indulge them, I hope, their use of the word 'hawk.'


Hilary...

I just got to this section of your forum, so I apologize if this response is late. My feeling on Hitchhiker's Hexagrame 3 is, since Bush is treading into the Middle East and since his administration is trying to convince us of a most unlikely alliance between Hussein and bin Laden, HE'S the one going in without a forester. Either he and his administration are totally ignorant of the dynamics of the interaction between the different Muslim sects, or they really underestimate our ability to learn and understand. Suzy, I don't know who distrusts whom the most, bin Laden Hussein or Hussein bin Laden. I know Hussein has a strong dislike for bin Laden as well, and, again, it's that secular (Sunni) Muslim versus militant Muslim thing that mentioned.

Also, the Bush/Blair manipulation of the media is not without a plethora of mistakes that are obvious even to me. One day CNN runs a story about the leader of the opposition, the Kurds, giving the US government his full support in its war against Hussein, and two days later they a run a story that the Kurds of Iraq are harboring members of Al Qaeda. Then there's Powell brandishing 'brilliant' proof of a threat, the British/Iraq dossier that is the next day exposed (by a DIS 'leak' no less) as being blatantly plagiarized and inflated, while members of our FBI and CIA simultaneously leak the fact that Powell distorted THEIR intelligence information as well to prove a threat they believe is minimal and an Al Qaeda link they can't establish. The list of mistakes goes on and on. And I think it's because they're in such a rush to war. Haste makes waste. It really reminds of running around in the forest without a forester. I've thought a number of times, where IS the press secretary in all this? Why isn't this effort coordinated.


Suzy...

I cheer the Belgians as well. That was very happy news indeed. I hope the opposition in NATO (and the UN) snowballs.


Candid...

One more quick question if you please. I got a tad lost in your train of thought in your post. Are you saying, "When these muscles are flexed, ...it will cause worldly terror and cause most of the world to fall into submission" is a GOOD thing? I think that makes US the terrorists now. It's the same kind of thinking. I can easily imagine bin Laden saying something just like that when he was planning the 9/11 attack.


Cheerio the noo,

Val

 

[candid]

Val,

No, I didn't mean it was a good thing. I meant its what I think would come of it.

I'm not getting drawn into debate. I put little confidence in the kind of liberal bias you've presented with your link and see no good coming from involving myself in this forum, aside from assisting with I Ching readings and discussions. I hope we will continue our focus on that rather than stirring animosity among our own troops.

Candid