BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Dead if you do, dead if you don't

 
 
T
10:43 / 12.12.02

this comes out of a NY Times editorial at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/opinion/12ASH.html :

"Saddam Hussein's stubborn claim that he has no more weapons of mass destruction is a blow to those who had hoped for a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis and a gift to those who think toppling him by force is the only path to effective disarmament."

i'm not sure in how many ways this sentence is confused, but there's a an implicit arguement here that if hussein was "less stubborn" and just plain admitted to having wmd a "peaceful solution' to the iraq crisis could be reached. this is corporate media spin at its most base; such an admission will as everyone knows trigger the "serious consequences" the recent UN resolution mandated. the second part is as non-sensical. toppling hussein has for the past 10 years been the only policy objective of the US and its allies. there have been no moderate voices on this topic, not credible ones' anyway. so this talk of voices more moderate than the hawk view of "the only path" is spin, trying to sell us the idea that Hussein has agency in his own fate, even if mediated by moderates with whom he may form alliances to resist more hardline positions. its ridiculous to think that hussein holds the key to his predicament. he doesn't.

i'm reminded of bill hick's gaf , the one where he plays two characters in a dawn shoot out. the one tells the other to pick up his gun, the second refuses, "no, you'll shoot me." the first insists, the second hesitates. he realises he's dead either way and therefore might as well take his chances. He goes for the gun, and predictably is shot dead.
 
 
grant
14:49 / 12.12.02
Bill Hicks was using the scene with Jack Palance in "Shane."

The idea behind the NYTimes editorial is that Hussein shoulda said, "Aw heck, those old nukyoular thangs back in the barn? I done forgot about 'em. Here, you can take 'em if you gotta."

Instead of saying, "Shucks! There ain't nothing out in that ol' barn! Ain't never been! You go look if you want."
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
16:32 / 12.12.02
It's beautiful the way the media is manipulating the situation.

It now seems there really isn't nuclear bombs in Iraq, and so Bush is not happy because that makes him look either a liar, which he surely is, or an idiot, which has been proved wherever he goes and whenever he speaks ('I didn't know you also had blacks in Brazil,' he said once during a trip to South America), but he's actually both.

And if he has evidence, as he claims having, then, in not sharing them with UN, he is actually being an accomplice to a crime, for Saddam shouldn't have bombs, and is thus delaying investigations.

And i'm getting really sick of all the american bravado on how the might USA is going to stand up for democracy and the american way and free Iraq of Saddam - it's just not going to happen, they'll never have all the oil wells in the world, because that's what's it all about, and getting even for the can of whop-ass Saddam opened Bush's dad ten years ago.

Right now, i'm more concerned with what Israel is doing to Palestine, that's where crimes against humanity are being committed.
 
 
Slim
17:33 / 12.12.02
Are you saying that Sadaam was the one who opened the can whoop-ass?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:45 / 12.12.02
Yup, but don't ol' Dubya jes' LOVE Israel? I think logic left the building a long time ago. There WILL be a war against Iraq. there shouldn't be, but there will. I think we're now down to the final stages of deciding WHY.

Irony of ironies- N. Korea has reactivated its nuclear power programme because it's the only way it can get power, the US having just slapped another embargo on it for admitting to having nuclear weapons.

Much as I don't want this war, sometimes I find myself thinking they'd just do it and get it over with, and quit with the bullshit. (I don't REALLY mean that, you understand, but sometimes you just get so frustrated with the whole fucking thing...)
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
15:40 / 13.12.02
Another embargo on N. Korea because it admitted it has nuclear power? Shouldn't this be UN's job doing something about it? I mean, it's Cuba, it's Iraq, now Korea. Why does Bush believe only America can possess nuclear bombs? And why is everyone so blind about this guy? The man's a sociopath wanting to kill an entire country, and is going to do the same to N. Korea, just when the relationship with South Korea was getting better. He's destroying everything Clinton achieved.
 
  
Add Your Reply