Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives
Discussion Questions

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: February 3, 2003
Latest Update: February 3, 2003
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Bomb Iraq
A Song of Protest by

Martin E. Eigenberger, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Parkside

* * * * *

On Saturday, February 1, 2003, Susan shared this with us from UWP:

Sing to the tune of "If You're Happy And You Know It, Clap Your Hands"

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see
'Cos it's all the proof I need,
And that's good enough for me
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Martin E. Eigenberger, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin-Parkside

On Monday, February 3, jeanne responded to Susan:

Gee, you guys are making this hard for me. You send me great costumes from peace rallies, and songs of protest. And then I have to jerk you all back to the serious legal approach of considering the legitimacy of these issues and their many short-term and long-term consequences, when I'd much rather just play with you.

As you enjoy the wit and humor and caring of our friends who are out there protesting, bear in mind the arguments of critical race theory, that the law is not neutral and objective, is not an interpreter and referee for things that happen "out there" in society, but is a major player in constructing the very situatedness upon which it is now called to rule. (Critical Race Theroy, Kimberle Crenshaw, etc. eds., The New Press, New York, 1995. ISBN:1-56584-226-x. Introduction, at pp. xiii - xxxii.) These are complex issues. Men and women of sound mind are going to differ. And that is when we are going to need illocutionary discussion more than ever. Killing ourselves off in debate won't bother Saddam at all. Trust me.

Discussion Questions

1. Is Iraq the only or the chief threat to the US at this time?

   If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
   If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
   If the terrorists are frisky,
   Pakistan is looking shifty,
   North Korea is too risky,
   Bomb Iraq.

   Consider that there are a number of threats presently out there. That Saddam is only one of them. And that we don't seem to have the evidence we need to weigh their relative threats. The stanza lists five other sources of danger to US interests.

2. How might Critical Race Theory help us understand the complexity of these threats?

   Consider that we have had active and continuing relationships with each of these five sources of danger. Critical Race Theory would say that we have been interdependent with these groups in shaping the present situatedness. And Critical Race Theory would remind us that we are not just supposed to look at present situations as the starting place for legal determination and just intervention, for we are a part of those situations. Instead, we should be seeking solutions to end such confrontation and bring us closer to illocutionary understanding, which might hasten meaningful governance.

3. What's the key issue that seems to hold the second stanza together?

   If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
   If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
   So to hell with the inspections,
   Let's look tough for the elections,
   Close your mind and take directions,
   Bomb Iraq.

   For me, one plausible clue is "someone has dissed us." Consider the old John Wayne six shooter approach to insults and disagreements. Part of our Western tradition, but hardly part of peace and social justice. Time for anger management, folks. Remember, Wyatt Earp finally took the guns out of their hands.

   Interesting that the traditional Western machismo seems mixed in with the "dissin' ": "let's look tough"

   And what about the "close your mind" in the next to last line of this stanza? Colonialization? A subjective people? Or an ideology that permits no questioning? Where does all this fit with critical thinking?

4. What's the key issue in stanza 3?

   It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
   Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
   They've got weapons we can't see
   'Cos it's all the proof I need,
   And that's good enough for me
   Bomb Iraq.

   Consider evidence, and how we weigh it. For one thing, evidence is different from every perspective, because there are differences between core and peripheral values across cultures. For example the John Wayne West might have considered macho and control more important than social justice. That would make security and control and stability core values, and social justice a peripheral value. This is an issue, the difference between core and peripheral values, we still can't agree on in hte 21st Century.

   Perhaps the evidence is weighed differently for a pre-emptive strike than for a retaliatory strike. But where are the rules? Is there a sunshine clause that requires that these decisions be made in full view of the public whose lives are at stake? Is a mass destruction threat different from a straightforward threat of violence? Are terrorsit kills mass destruction? Must we see or prove the existence of the evidence? Remember that Catharine MacKinnon said of women's validity claims that we should take them on face value as valid, not force them to "prove" them in a male-dominated institution that denied access to women anlegislated the proof requirements with no regard to women's reality? Is there a similar problem today with aggression and violence? How has this affected gang-related criminology?