"But the world isn't like that"

[Paul Mackin]

Dear Barbara

Your natural born online journalist style of expression is sufficiently 
annoying without adding on the Mrs. Malaprop imitation..

p.

barbara100 at jps.net wrote:

>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>