Irreconcilable Differences. Some thoughts about grief, malice and public discourse

[shereads]

A year or so ago, I clicked a link at Salon.com that offered a view of the Iraq war as it had been seen in foreign newspapers but not at home. I looked for no longer than the few seconds it took to understand what I was seeing:

The face of a sleeping boy. Beautiful, maybe seven or eight years old, enjoying the depth of rest that my dad used to call "the sleep of a clean conscience," enviable because it's unavailable to anybody except young children and dumb animals.

It took a second or two to see that the face was no longer fully attached to its head.

I had just recently read this statement by then and current Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, quoted for the record in Vanity Fair:

"We chose WMD as the reason {to solicit support for the Iraq invasion} because it was the one reason everybody could agree on."

The implications of those two pieces of information - the dead child, the statement that there was a choice - have colored the way I view my role in the world, and yours, ever since. I understand the meaning of "collateral damage," and that each of us deals in our own way with the necessity of taking some innocent lives in wartime. I also know that our country gives its leaders the right to take us to war and limit some of our freedoms for the duration, when there is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. Not a contained threat, not a potential threat that might someday develop into a clear and present danger.

Not when there is a choice.

Not when the danger to America is unclear, to the extent that cabinet meetings are held to determine the best way to persuade us that a present danger exists, of sufficient urgency to require the sacrifice of our sons and daughters.

I thought Wolfowitz's admission would cause an outpouring of righteous anger; it caused a trickle, limited mostly to people who had already spoken out against the war. Then the evidence of fraud began to be revealed, beginning with the forged "yellow cake uranium" documents and following, one after another, until the presence of a clear and present danger was so illusory that its perpetrators were reduced to chanting "Stay the course."

I'm writing this to explain to anyone who's listening, why the topic of politics is no longer "just politics" for me: we killed a child. You and I, if you are a citizen of the U.S. or Britain and you have the right to vote, are complicit in the unlawful death of the sleeping boy whose face was ripped from his body during the bombing of Baghdad. For anyone no longer clinging to an illusion, or who lacks faith that the war is the will of God, there is evidence that would convince the most reluctant jury that the death of this child more resembles a negligent homicide than an act of self-defense. We allowed it to happen, whether we allowed ourselves to be deceived, or whether we suspected the truth and failed to devote our lives to stopping it.

Multiply the one child by many, and add the young men and women in our military whose sacrifice has been proven unnecessary, and you have an event of such magnitude, it can be debated with civility only by those who are lucky enough that it doesn't rend their hearts.

Add the diversion of resources that might have secured our borders and brought justice to the victims of 9/11; add the consequences of the Iraq invasion, which won't be fully known for generations, and I'm both appalled and grateful that any of us are still able to escape it occasionally, working some internal, emotional "off" button that allows us to play, flirt, laugh, post silly non-sequitors, catty remarks and deeply considered discussions of philosophy.

For some of us, it's possible to reserve our grief and remorse for our own dead, and to consider the loss of life in even an unwarranted war as something unfortunate that doesn't touch them deeply.

I don't hate those people; in fact, I envy them. But when a discussion trivializes the death of that sleeping boy by directing anger anywhere but where it rightly belongs, they need to realize that they are dealing with grief that's as deep for some of us as they feel when the deaths are closer to home.

You might never understand those of us who won't or can't accept the distinction that makes dying in the rubble of the World Trade Center more horrific than dying in the rubble of your bedroom in Iraq. But what we feel is real, and it sometimes horrifies us to see that not everyone shares it. That's not a criticism of your own hearts, which I know are touched by other things. It's just a fact.

This isn't a political divide. It's an unbridgeable divide between two halves of society that can't quite click at the center: those whose hearts hurt for every unnecessary death, and even more when we know ourselves to be complicit; and those who use "bleeding heart" to connote a weakness of character.

I think they're right about that. Empathy that isn't contained within appropriate borders makes us weaker than those who have the luxury of experiencing the world as "America" and "Other." It's a weakness that will probably assure that there is never a long-lasting liberal power in the U.S.

It's also a weakness when we try to debate rationally, without revealing the part of our anger that's directed at you for not sharing our grief and rage at what we, together, have allowed to be done in our name.

On the other hand, when I picture the world you would make without us to hold you back, I know our bleeding hearts are of benefit to you whether you appreciate it or not.

I caused an oh-so-dramatic scandal in the AH a few months ago when I posted a link to the Faces of the Fallen, accompanied by a political statement, and was accused of somehow having insulted our war dead, as if I had posted not a link, but pictures and names that you were tricked into looking at. It was said that I used these fallen kids for my political agenda. You're right about one thing, I do have an agenda. I want justice for the ones who might not have willingly offered their lives if they hadn't been presented with false evidence that their sacrifice was protecting their homeland from a clear and present danger. i want justsice for the child that died for the wrong reasons. I derive no comfort from the fact that he might have grown up to hate America, or that he might have someday been a victim of Saddam Hussein; because there is also the possibiility that he would have grown up to lead a free Iraq, to help defeat Saddam, or to celebrate the old bastard's death by natural causes. We'll never know.

Some of you will be additionally pissed off because I posted this. Most of you will ignore it. A few of you, and I already know who they are, will understand.

Thank you in advance. You don't have to say anything.

I'll bump this link until I feel better about the accusations of unwarranted vitriol and malice. I think the malice in the Moore movie was more than justified; the vitriol on my part probably wasn't, but it was one of those times when the face of that little boy seemed to demand that I not keep quiet. In the end, how could a movie about the carelessness with which we killed that child, not be colored with rage?

 

[Guest]

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?threadid=263149

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Thank you

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There's no accurate tally of the number of Iraqi dead in the war, but the best numbers give a total of something like 20,000, of which half were probably Iraqi soldiers, the rest of course being civilians.

The rule of thumb in such matters is 5 to 10 people seriously wounded for every death.

---dr.M.

 

[Somme]

Thank you

ditto........

 

[Somme]

ditto........

...and a vicious wee bump

 

[Somme]

Public Duty Bump?

 

[Guest]

bumping

Cut it out, please. Some of us are ignoring this. Perdita

 

[Pure]

feelings run high, and should. it's understandable when someone you know could 'disappear' Argentine style, and though not necessarily killed (though accidents happen), never charged and held indefinitely.

at the same time, it's best to be factual, in postings, as you, sher, generally are.

as several of us on the non-right have observed, the 'true believers' in Ashcroft are not going to change. but some reading these thread do think and learn. and except for a few that merely like spatter (flamewar), more are turned off, or skip sequences of postings that are pure exchanges of insult or outrage.

having just seen again, a good documentary on Eichmann's capture, and previous ones about the trial, I appreciate the role of documents and facts. if anyone deserved insult, excoriation, denunciation, it was he. but those capturing and trying him remained pretty cool and factual; and the best witnesses, besides showing real grief and anger, simply told the facts, who was killed, how, etc. *Hence the court's indictment has tremendous solidity and 'staying power.'

 

[shereads]

Re: bumping

Cut it out, please. Some of us are ignoring this. Perdita

Thank you for the bump.

 

[KarenAM]

You might never understand those of us who won't or can't accept the distinction that makes dying in the rubble of the World Trade Center more horrific than dying in the rubble of your bedroom in Iraq. But what we feel is real, and it sometimes horrifies us to see that not everyone shares it. That's not a criticism of your own hearts, which I know are touched by other things. It's just a fact.

This isn't a political divide. It's an unbridgeable divide between two halves of society that can't quite click at the center: those whose hearts hurt for every unnecessary death, and even more when we know ourselves to be complicit; and those who use "bleeding heart" to connote a weakness of character.

I think they're right about that. Empathy that isn't contained within appropriate borders makes us weaker than those who have the luxury of experiencing the world as "America" and "Other." It's a weakness that will probably assure that there is never a long-lasting liberal power in the U.S.

It's also a weakness when we try to debate rationally, without revealing the part of our anger that's directed at you for not sharing our grief and rage at what we, together, have allowed to be done in our name.

On the other hand, when I picture the world you would make without us to hold you back, I know our bleeding hearts are of benefit to you whether you appreciate it or not.

I can only speak for myself here, but I see a tragedy in addition to this one, this ease with which our nation and ourselves have slipped into barbarism and savagery.

This is the assumption that others do not feel.

It's easy enough to fall into; clearly some do not. Clearly Paul Wolfowitz doesn't care one bit about that dead child, or about the dead from 9-11. His words may say he does, but his actions speak louder, speak of a worship of pain and death and blood, a twisted joy he derives from reading the reports of the dead. And we should be angry at him for this.

But Paul Wolfowitz's actions are not the only actions we see. His are not the only words we hear. There are others. How do we judge them?

The tragedy is rage, of course. Rage, like fear, diminishes thought, introspection, compassion. And so it consumes, first us, and then those around us. It creates a terrifying simplicity, allows us to think that there are only two types of people in the world: those with us and those against us.

Those who suffer for that dead child and the needless horror in which we are complicit, against those who simply do not care, who regard sympathy as a "weakness of character".

Black or white. One or the other. There is no gray allowed in our judgments of each other.

And the rage builds. In time, unchecked, it becomes not a question of whether or not you suffered because that child is dead, but because you didn't suffer the right way. You didn't applaud at the right time, for the right thing. You dared to suffer in a way not approved. We do not ask if you suffer, ask only if you did so properly, in a way which is sanctioned by our own rage.

Now the rage is beyond the dead child. He is no longer a person destroyed by wicked men like Paul Wolfowitz, but a symbol of an orthodoxy of pain. My pain, only. Mine is the only suffering, the only way to suffer, the only way it is permissible to suffer. All who do not follow my pain are the enemy now.

Your pain, you who are nameless, who see that dead child and do not suffer as I demand you do, who perhaps nurse pain of your own that I cannot understand, you are the enemy. I proclaim that you are the neocons, the flag-wavers, the lovers of war. In my mind you are now no different than Paul Wolfowitz. I cannot accommodate that you might disagree with how I say you should suffer, and so you are forever excluded from my compassion, my sympathy. When you say you suffer because of that dead child I call you a liar and a monster.

This is rage, the fruits of rage.

I understand it, you see. I have felt it and been victim of it. I wear this on my conscience and always will.

It is a very lonely place, rage. Just as it is a very lonely place to grieve for that dead child and be told that you are not permitted to. Just as it is to be told that there are only two kinds of people in the world, in the nation, and that you, by virtue of feeling and grieving the way you do, are forever excluded from both.

I understand this too.

And I wonder what that child would say if he saw what we have all become.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Irreconcilable Differences. Some thoughts about grief, malice and public disc

I can only speak for myself here, but I see a tragedy in addition to this one, this ease with which our nation and ourselves have slipped into barbarism and savagery.

This is the assumption that others do not feel.]

I imagine it seems like an assumption, but it isn't in this case. I didn't say that there are people here who don't feel. I referred to something that's been discussed here before, and generally admitted to: some people simply draw the line of "community" - the people to whom we extend empathy - very close to home. We were in a discussion specifically about the deaths in Iraq and the deaths in west Africa, and it was not a battle but an open, honest discussion. No one claimed not to care about the genocide in Africa, and none of us claimed to be doing more about it than any of the others. People whose culture is alien to us are too easily thought of as "other," and it's easy to dismiss their suffering when we turn off the nightly news. When those people look like, act like, sound like, the ones who were responsible for 9/11, it's easier for some of us than others to dismiss their deaths as an unfortunate necessity. Some people were quite honest in admitting that they don't waste any grief over the Iraqi dead.

This isn't posted to criticize that view, although it seems that it should have been altered as evidence came to light that there was no credible link between Iraq and 9/11. My point here is to remind those who don't grieve over the deaths in Iraq that some of us do, and that calling them "collateral damage" and expressing the idea that their numbers aren't important, causes an emotional response not unlike what people felt in this forum when someone once carelessly tossed out a comment about America having gotten what it deserved on 9/11. It may have been a thoughtless comment, but it caused the reaction it had to cause.

So did the repeated assertion that a film made by someone who feels what I feel, and did more than I could do about it, is somehow tainted by the fact of the filmmaker's anger. As if the anger itself were more worthy of scorn than the monstrous thing it's directed against.

We were already divided, by repeated accusations that anyone who protests an American war, under any circumstances, is unpatriotic and unconcerned about American lives.

The Moore thread opened old wounds. The divisions it exposed were already there. It's sad, but it isn't on my conscience. Not this time. There isn't room for it.

 

[Pure]

Karen,

That was an eloquent and sometimes moving piece of writing. Lots of thought and feeling behind and in it. Many truths.
(I reproduce a chunk below.)

I will try for a summary of what i read.

I don't think it's too controversial, the claim that there's lots of rage, hostility, and anger around the US and world (Islamic, e.g.). It's been noted on Capitol Hill, and in Congress for a few decades, now. Take no prisoners. Osama doesn't.

So there's lots of rage, and its effect, black/white thinking, us/them etc.

There's a dying out of compassion.

-----
Then where does the analysis go?

"a very lonely place, rage"

It seems this is headed in one of two directions (or a mixture)--according to my personal impression: individual therapy, or individual religious enlightenment.

It seems you've moved beyond, and you 'understand.'

I sense a cultivation of compassion for all, which seems admirable.

I'm not sure why it's limited to you or 'your kind' (those like you) 'your group.' (i.e., those NOT in rage-filled confrontation).
how did y'all get there?

You never address the issue of action, beyond this hint at therapy or religion. I sense you distrust the action of most all political groupings. They'd be too consumed with rage. Beside your position, all are relatively impure (blindered in soulview).

Who provides your models? Medicins sans frontieres? the 'human shields'? the non violent activists like Berrigan? Gandhi?

So you're in a kind of Buddhist detachment, wondering at all the craziness that goes on in political and social movements, events in the mass media etc.

You're on all sides, and none. The media critics like Moore are too shrill. The media defenders are blinded. All need, apparently, to calm down on some kind of therapeutic or religious path. That's a proposal not without merit, but I'm not convinced it's one that deals with the core social issues.


J.

----


The tragedy is rage, of course. Rage, like fear, diminishes thought, introspection, compassion. And so it consumes, first us, and then those around us. It creates a terrifying simplicity, allows us to think that there are only two types of people in the world: those with us and those against us.

Those who suffer for that dead child and the needless horror in which we are complicit, against those who simply do not care, who regard sympathy as a "weakness of character".

Black or white. One or the other. There is no gray allowed in our judgments of each other.

And the rage builds. In time, unchecked, it becomes not a question of whether or not you suffered because that child is dead, but because you didn't suffer the right way. You didn't applaud at the right time, for the right thing. You dared to suffer in a way not approved. We do not ask if you suffer, ask only if you did so properly, in a way which is sanctioned by our own rage.

Now the rage is beyond the dead child. He is no longer a person destroyed by wicked men like Paul Wolfowitz, but a symbol of an orthodoxy of pain. My pain, only. Mine is the only suffering, the only way to suffer, the only way it is permissible to suffer. All who do not follow my pain are the enemy now.

Your pain, you who are nameless, who see that dead child and do not suffer as I demand you do, who perhaps nurse pain of your own that I cannot understand, you are the enemy. I proclaim that you are the neocons, the flag-wavers, the lovers of war. In my mind you are now no different than Paul Wolfowitz. I cannot accommodate that you might disagree with how I say you should suffer, and so you are forever excluded from my compassion, my sympathy. When you say you suffer because of that dead child I call you a liar and a monster.

This is rage, the fruits of rage.

I understand it, you see. I have felt it and been victim of it. I wear this on my conscience and always will.

It is a very lonely place, rage. Just as it is a very lonely place to grieve for that dead child and be told that you are not permitted to. Just as it is to be told that there are only two kinds of people in the world, in the nation, and that you, by virtue of feeling and grieving the way you do, are forever excluded from both.

I understand this too.

And I wonder what that child would say if he saw what we have all become.

 

[Couture]

In Germany, while Hitler was busy exterminating the Jew, there were Germans who did what they could in their capacity. It's not as if they could go into the concentration camps and free everyone as I'm sure they would have liked to have done. They helped who they could. Their contribution might have been small, but it was enormous for those who were saved.

In the US, while many white people engaged in another holocaust against black people, there were others who did what they could in their capacity to help some of them escape.

And when they were getting ready to release the dogs of war against Iraq there have been those of us who have raised our voices to protest and have countered lies with truth. The protest around the world was much greater than in the United States. However, I can feel things changing. More and more, whenever I argue against this ill-conceived war, I hear more people in agreement.

I am a realist and I understand that there are times to go to war. However, this war was ill-thought out, poorly planned, and a clusterfuck from the beginning. It was carried out by someone more boy than man. Someone who can be determined to the very end...as long as its not his ass on the line. Someone who would rather look after his own close circle, than the welfare of our country.

Well, I'm going to vote this guy out of office and I'm actually doing what I can to campaign for an alternative. Hey George, I'm bringing it on!

 

[KarenAM]

Pure,

Read it again. Don't analyze. It's there.

 

[Somme]

.

 

[Pure]

Read it again. Don't analyze. It's there.

Please don't patronize me. Consider that areas of unclarity are not entirely the fault of the reader; that disagreements don't always show incomprehension of the depth of your thought.

 

[shereads]

.

Eloquent, Somme. I'm not sure I agree with it in its entirety, but your central theme is unquestionably sound.

However, this war was ill-thought out, poorly planned, and a clusterfuck from the beginning.

Couture, I had a feeling I'd find you here. Welcome to our clusterfuck. Help yourself to Hawaiian Punch and Everclear Grain Alcohol from the buffet.

An alert pornster forwarded this to my PM box, which is currently being dusted for prints by the feds. Be careful, scofflaws.

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/pla...e/bee_9002.html

 

[KarenAM]

Pure,

This is not a college essay to be turned into a debate or examined through a microscope. The title of this thread is "thoughts", not "analysis".

If you want to understand what I wrote, you need to read it without trying to take it apart. Don't analyze. Read. There's nothing I can add to it. It is what it is.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Irreconcilable Differences. Some thoughts about grief, malice and public disc

And I wonder what that child would say if he saw what we have all become.

I've thought about this since you said it, Karen. I think he'd be too bewildered to comprehend what the debate is about, being only a little kid. He'd understand futility and powerlessness, for the same reason. I think he'd want the people who sent the missile to be sorry. Really sorry, for the gruesome nature of his death and the pointless waste. I'm so sorry I don't know what to do.

 

[KarenAM]

Re: Re: Re: Irreconcilable Differences. Some thoughts about grief, malice and public

I've thought about this since you said it, Karen. I think he'd be too bewildered to comprehend what the debate is about, being only a little kid. He'd understand futility and powerlessness, for the same reason. I think he'd want the people who sent the missile to be sorry. Really sorry, for the gruesome nature of his death and the pointless waste. I'm so sorry I don't know what to do.

You can grieve, Sher. Healthy grief. Don't hide it behind anger; go through it and emerge as you are meant to. Take each day and make the world around you a little better. There are many close by who you can reach out to with compassion, even if you can only do it in small ways. Spare a smile, a helping hand. If the pain becomes overwhelming, reach out yourself to someone close. Get help if it becomes too much to bear. You do not need to shoulder this burden alone.

I think that as well that little boy would be sad indeed if he saw you suffer so. But if he saw you giving love and mercy and compassion to those around you, I suspect he'd be very proud of you. You have so much more to offer the world than your guilt.

And you are stronger than your pain.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The case for apathy

Why do I strive for laughter? Why do I not fight the masses with beret on head? Why do I often state my loathing for politics? Why do others do the same?

The reason for many is an attempt to hold on to the illusion of happiness, to stave off the twin demons of nihilism and despair. Sure, it's just being a pleasure-seeker and all that crap, but it is also keeping myself sane. Death and pain and angst pervade our personal lives enough without having to add the guilt of what some psychotic men on a hill do.

I refuse to feel guilty for their actions for three reasons. 1) I am shit to them. I could strap a bomb to my temple, hijack all channels with a list of my grievances, and blow up Capitol Hill and after a few weeks things would be even worse. The same psychotic decisions would be passed with glea for "security" and "the good of the nation". There is no protest, no remark, no action I can take to stop Congress from doing what it wants to do. 2) My vote is meaningless. Gerrymandering has made all votes not made in swing states and districts meaningless. If you live in a guaranteed sector, you could vote for Adolph Hitler and no one would give a shit. The chosen hath won and always will win. All hail status quo. 3) Politicians are the shit of the Earth. They will lie to get elected. They will embezzle when they get there. They will sacrifice their constituency for the allure of power. They will sell out America for their personal gain. Politicians, excluding such a tiny minority that it's big news when they don't (Gavin Newsom anyone?), will fuck you and expect you to thank them for it. They're popularity whores and they don't like you.

The Iraq War was supported by an overwhelming amount of fucking Democrats who didn't want to seem anti-American when the next election came around. They did not stand up for the left. The right has realized that through control of the media and a firm stream of lies and vitriol they can get whatever they want whenever they want and no one will stop them. And the few who care about that are extremists, dangerous polarizers, traitors to America, and of course Commie Pinkos and fags. So, what can we do about it? Nothing. At best we can get more Democrats into the government where they will sell out the left to the right in order to avoid the vitriol of the right wing media. We're fucked, we will always be fucked, and political discourse will not change anything ever. It's cynical I know but I don't have enough romanticism to waste on something as futile as politics.

So I strive for apathy in politics. So I try not to fill every moment of my life with righteous anger at what has been done in my name. I do this, because it doesn't matter. I do this because I realize that me and my kind are like the long-term prison bitch dropping their pants for the next painful thrust. Welcome to Hell lefties, it only gets worse from here.

 

[shereads]

Thank you, Karen.

The little kids you know must be a lot more mature than the ones in my experience. I can think of nothing more satisfying to a typical 7-year-old boy than to know that the bully who beat him up is catching hell for it.

 

[shereads]

Re: The case for apathy

I do this because I realize that me and my kind are like the long-term prison bitch dropping their pants for the next painful thrust. Welcome to Hell lefties, it only gets worse from here.

Also a valid point of view, and useful if it lulls them to sleep and keeps them away from the polls...Luc, there are two reasons why you should vote:

1. The fact that they think your vote is meaningless will lull a certain number of them into complacency, which evens the playing field a little. A long shot, I know, but it happens.

2. There could be a clearance sale at Neiman Marcus, coupled with a traffic jam outside the gates of Oaktree River Enclave Golf Estates, and a personal appearance at your nearest Morton's Steakhouse by Jack Nicklaus, all on Election Day 2004. You, a black guy, a lesbian and Al Gore's second cousin would then be all alone at the polls...Yes! Victory.

3. So far, nobody's figured out a way to use gerrymandering to fix a presidential election. Congress, yes. You're screwed there, but it's still necessary to make the gesture. As long as you keep voting, writing your Congressmen and e-mailing them and generally being an annoyance, they'll be vaguely but uncomfortably aware that you crazy folk are out there, watching, in the shadowy hedgerows outside the gates of Oaktree River Enclave Golf Estates.

Edited to add: Help yourself to the fruit punch and Everclear.
Also edited to add: My "two reasons to vote" may look like three reasons, but I was exposed to a lot of Dan Quayle moments at an impressionable time.

 

[shereads]

Shock & Awe

Now here's a smart business plan: make money before and after, with and without Saddam.

Halliburton's Work in Iran Stirs Democrats

By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 21, 2004; Page E01


Democrats who have been hammering away at Halliburton Co. and its former chief executive Dick Cheney about the company's work in Iraq yesterday added Iran to their list of complaints.

In a telephone press conference, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said he found it "unconscionable" that a Halliburton subsidiary appeared to be doing business with a country tied to terrorist activities at a time Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive.

The press conference, organized by the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), came one day after Halliburton disclosed that a federal prosecutor had subpoenaed documents as part of an investigation of whether a Halliburton subsidiary violated anti-terror sanctions on Iran. "This is such an outrageous bit of news," Lautenberg said.

In a filing with federal regulators Monday, Halliburton disclosed that the three-year-old investigation had escalated from an inquiry by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control to a criminal investigation by the Justice Department.

Such cases are referred to Justice only when there is evidence "intentional or willful" violations have occurred, government officials said.

The Justice Department investigation relates to a subsidiary called Halliburton Products & Services Ltd., an oil field services company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. In a 2003 report, the company said the subsidiary "performs between $30 [million] and $40 million annually in oilfield service work in Iran."

According to financial disclosures filed with federal regulators, the company received an inquiry in 2001 about possible violations of national security sanctions that prohibit U.S. companies from doing business in Iran. Under federal sanctions law, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies can do business in a sanctioned country only if its operates independently of the parent company.