Sweet Barbara

[The Great Quail]

Just exactly why I feel compelled to respond to Barbara, I don't know. But
here it goes.

> I think the reasons for war against Iraq are to get another "world
> domination" notch in the US's belt.  Oil, Empire,WMD--Fuck, it's about
> Power! And we have power-hungry motherfuckers in Washington right now who
> I'll
> venture to say are the "criminally insane" and "human elite with no right at
> all to be where  they are" that Pynchon and we folks on this list have been
> talking about.

Of course you would see it like this. You hold America in utter contempt,
and everything you see will be refracted by the warped lens of that virulent
hatred. It's a toxin that will poison anything you say. And don't give me
any of the old "I just hate the government the people are ok." It's obvious
that you hold an unwavering, unassailable suspicion for anything America
says or does. The frustrating thing is that it also undermines any real
criticism you might have, reducing you to a shrill, hysterical caricature. I
mean, why reason when you can rant? Why use intellect when emotions feel so
good? 

> Quail, after all the Pynchon you've read! When do men of power ever care
> squat about "people" and their "freedom"?  They make that shit up for you.
> I'm sorry to see you lapping it up so.

So you are basically calling me stupid.

Your patronizing tone is ridiculous and out of place. The world is more
complex than you think it is, and not everyone agrees with you, and some of
those people are actually fairly intelligent. Your absolutist approach to
politics is deplorable, and so is your stance that anyone reading Pynchon
should automatically share your perspectives.

And Pynchon is a phenomenal novelist, and a very sharp social critic, but
that doesn't mean I have to guide my political beliefs on his work. It's
fiction and satire, not religion.

> 1. To disarm Iraq.
> That was never an issue. They're a weak and powerless country

Never an issue? Tell that to Iran and Kuwait.

>and that's
> the only reason we're taking them over at all. That and its enormous wealth
> and
> stronghold in the region. It's regime change and you know it.

I've already addressed this point; and besides, I think regime change is a
good thing in the case of Baathist Iraq. But anyway, I have a strong feeling
history will prove you wrong. While I won't suggest that Western and US oil
companies won't stand to profit from the new regime, I also have a strong
feeling that the average Iraqi will, too. I may be wrong -- the US may sell
them down the river -- but I think they have invested too much in their
public rhetoric at this point not to foster a democratic Iraq.

> If we were so worried about nuclear capabilities, why isn't our attention
> focused on the more immediate threat, North Korea?

There's something called "being pre-emptive." This is a threat we can
destroy before it becomes another North Korea. Your question reflects a
liberal fallacy and nothing more. There are more penetrating arguments
against the war than, "Why not North Korea?"

And a reminder -- 

> 3. Remove a regime that actively fosters terrorism.
> Actively fosters terrorism? What are you referring to? I thought that Powel
> address to
> the UN was prettymuch refuted the following week.

May I suggest you read up on your subjects before you post? That Saddam has
harbored and sponsored terrorism of all kind is not even open to question.
His links to al-Qaeda, however, are.

> 4. Liberate the Iraqi people.
> Yeah right.

Obviously your television only gets Syrian news stations....

> 5. Foster an Arab democracy.
> Our government doesn't like democracy at home, why should we think they'd
> like it in Arab countries?

That's such an outrageous statement, Barbara, and a good example of why
virtually no one on this List takes anything you say seriously. Is American
democracy perfect? Of course not. But your holding the exception up as
something that invalidates the rule is just a smoke screen to hide your
unwillingness to think through your positions.

The real argument is whether or not the US can help Iraq actually form a
functioning democracy. I suggest you at least join the real debate if you
want to be heard. 

--Quail