"But the world isn't like that"

[barbara100 at jps.net]

I still have a few more ideas that might be worth mentioning. I really have
to wonder, though, Jbor, before I go on, if we're really not on the same
side of the argument, but we just can't see the forest through the trees.  I
know you said in an earlier post that you were for inspections to resume in
Iraq and not for an all out war, so really I think we're in agreement. It's
funny that we should be arguing so. Do you suppose it's just a
misunderstanding?  Or is it that sheer animosity?

You seem to be laboring the point that we Stop the War protesters are
getting our panties all in a bunch over nothing because War hasn't even been
declared yet.   (What war?)   It's a good point, but I wonder if you realize
it's the same argument the Stop the War protesters are using when we say,
What's America getting her panties all in a bunch before there's even been a
Threat made by Iraq?

Let's say Saddam is "fully loaded." All his WMD are ready and waiting. All
pointed at Israel, no doubt, because everyone knows they'd never reach
American shores, and because (who was it? Tom DeLay? Dick Armey?) said
hurting Israel was like hurting America. (I didn't especially like his
comment because as a nation we're usually so ambivalent about the loss of
life in other countries, and why we should feel any special sympathy to a
nation that treats half its citizenry like sand niggers-of all the other
nice countries in the world-is just unsettling to me.  I'd have much rather
have seen Tom or Dick declare special allegiance to Australia. But I
digress.)

So since the arguement works well either way, I see now that it comes down
to a matter of trust, trust about who poses the graver and more immediate
threat-The US or Iraq?  My knee jerk reaction is Iraq of course.  I'd ride
alone in an elevator alone with Bush before I would Saddam Hussein.  But in
this political climate, with a blessing and blank check from Congress, with
the will of most of the people, with all those friends and family members to
make richer--I'm afraid Bush is more likely to make the first move in this
instance.

And seeing what Pynchon's taught us about the nature of power, I just can't
see Saddam giving his away so foolishly.  I know Terrance's book review post
said he was foolish and reckless, but I wonder if that's true. He didn't
even invade Kuwait before
asking the US's permission.  (I heard it the other day on the radio from a
new
documentary out called _The Hidden Wars of Desert Storm_.)  I don't think
Saddam would really use his power if he thought he'd lose it immediately
afterward.   I'm guessing power means a lot to him. You know those torture
videos he's notorious for watching? How much you wanna bet he doesn't
masturbate when he watches them? Or better yet, bugger one of his little
harem girls (all named Ayesha, no doubt).  He's not about to throw THAT
away.  Not unless he thought he had nothing more to lose.  If he thought he
had nothing more to lose, I'm sure he'd try to take down everyone and
everything he could .  And that's why I want to Stop the War.

I can see you'd like to think I'm feeling insensitive towards the countries
in that 600-mile radius, but I'm hoping to avoid setting off a horrible
chain of events in Israel and Palestine and Lebanon and Syria and Jordan and
Turkey and Egypt and Saudi Arabia my own ex-in-laws in Iran.  Six hundred
miles is an awful lot of countries and people.  Imagine the bombs of Israel
and Pakistan and India on top of decrepit Iraq's.  That shit rides the wind
you know.

Richard Butler is worried, as I'm worried, that a pre-emptive strike
by the United States would be a catastrophe. It's truly frightening.  Far
more frightening than the scud missile filled with Anthrax that our
President is trying to pass off as a dire threat to the "Freedom" and
personal safety of each and every American.

More from the Richard Butler interview:

What then would be the chances of Israel responding with it's own weapons of
mass destruction?

They'd be very high and I have to tell you Stephen this is my deepest
anxiety about a uni-lateral action by the United States, as against a UN
enforcement (collective enforcement action/enforcement of international law)
it is that Saddam would attack Israel and, as Prime Minister Sharon said 10
days ago, Israel would this time respond, where they didn't during the Gulf
war and I believe what that means is that Israel could very likely use
nuclear weapons and I think that would be a catastrophe.


----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: "But the world isn't like that"


> on 19/10/02 4:17 AM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:
>
> >>> It's not very logical for you to deduce, Jbor, that the Stop the War
crowd
> >>> thinks it's "totally OK" that Saddam launch an attack first. How did
you
> >>> figure that?
> >>
> >> It's actually pretty obvious.
> >
> > It's not obvious.  It's not even true, how could it be obvious?
>
> Many of the stop the war! protesters (what war?) like yourself seemed to
be
> totally OK with the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction,
as
> I said. You proved that when you stated unequivocally that "Saddam's got
> nothin'". Your viewpoint was probably more ill-informed and ignorant than
> some of the others, who were using the cause just to try and keep their
> anti-Bush and anti-America flags and flak flying.
>
> > Okay, I'm sorry.  He's got "something."
>
> Yes, "of course" he's got weapons of mass destruction, according to
Richard
> Butler:
>
>     ... the case against Saddam Hussein is utterly proven. All the
permanent
>     members of the Security Council have known for years that he retains
>     weapons of mass destruction and they signed off on a report to that
>     effect 4 years ago.
>
> And:
>
>     Richard Butler, what did you think of the Blair Dossier?
>
>     It added a little bit to what was already known. I'd seen earlier
>     versions of it. Sure - Iraq is back in the business of making weapons
of
>     mass destructions, seeking to acquire uranium in Africa - that was a
new
>     element, in order to advance a nuclear weapons programme, extending
its
>     network of front companies to get equipment and materials it needs for
>     its weapons. It didn't change the picture that I knew - it extended it
a
>     bit. I think it's credible and it did a reasonable job.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s695405.htm
>
> 31 July 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped
> up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections
> ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2167933.stm
>
> > But the range is 600 miles at most
>
> And you're still OK with that, are you?
>
> best
>