P 00000

[barbara100 at jps.net]

From: "The Great Quail" <quail at libyrinth.com>
> Well, I'm not sure that the Navy had any naked young sailors strapped to
the
> missile,

No, they're not naked, but they're being sacrificed just the same, to power
hungry men. Do we really have to dress them in bridal lace before we'll
notice?

>but the Tomahawk is nowhere nearly as accurate as the Navy claims.

You know I suspected they were pulling my leg as I was watching. I thought,
"Yeah sure, just wait for KPFA  in the morning and hear how 'accurate' those
missiles really are. Remember Chomsky, Barbara. And Pynchon. It's
propaganda, propaganda."
But they were so convincing. I desperately wanted to believe him when he
said "Which window would you like it to come in through?"  I wanted to
believe the image  that war is clean and precise, and no one gets hurt
except for the bad guys.

> > You all watching CNN? See how sexy that Tomahawk missile is? So swift
and
> > smooth and ACCURATE. I'm even starting to get sucked in. Or I was until
I
> > remembered the 00000 launch and was reminded how fucking perverse it
really
> > is.
>
> In fact, the other branches of the service have reservations about it
which
> run deeper than traditional inter-service rivalry. Of course, they've had
> twelve years to improve on it, but hearing the one CNN Navy correspondent
> claim a TLAM can navigate into a particular window was simply propaganda.
>
> Still, uh, they're a bit more accurate than the V-2.
>
> --Quail
>
> PS: For more fun information about the weapons the U.S. forces will be
> using, I recommend Rick Atkinson's "Crusade: The Untold Story of the
Persian
> Gulf War." It's fair, balanced and thorough. (Though computer advancements
> have linked up out troops in ways unknown in the Gulf War, and "blue on
> blue" fratricide will hopefully be diminished through new thermal and
> electromagnetic flash emitters.)
>