RE: [acid-jazz] FW: TR : You lookin at me?

From: Park, James R S (jrspar_at_essex.ac.uk)
Date: 2003-02-19 14:19:53

  • Next message: BALFOURTH Winston (BMB): "[acid-jazz] Clubs in Brussels"

    That's very cute. But it amounts to nothing.
     
    All that rethoric simply covers the point that Washington has decided that they are the ultimate source of international law and that they decide who are the goodies and who are the baddies. Full Stop.
     
    True, Saddam is a murderer and deserves to die a slow and painful death in full conciousness. True, the Iraqui people are being systematically exploited. BUT, ALSO TRUE, most of the world's leaders are ruthless dictators that deserve to die a slow and painful death. ALSO TRUE, most of the world's populations are being systematically exploited. As an example, Saudi Arabia is ruled by a monarchical regime. The levels of opression on their own people would make Saddam shiver. Do the US attack Saudi Arabia (or just even condemn Saudi Arabia?) Oh no, they support them, arm them, and protect them. Call them allies. Invite them to receptions and banquets. Why? err... could it possibly be that Saudi Arabia possess the biggest oil reserve in the world? Nah, that's just conspiracy theory, isn't it? The fact that Iraq has the second biggest oil reserve in the world and that the US are addicted to the stuff are just unfortunate coincidences.
     
    $20b - $50b does indeed result in -$30b. However, if you know anything about economics, you should be aware of the OVERALL benefits for the American economy of going to war. Increase in public expenditure generate cycles of consumption that would produce benefits well over £30b. And the US treasury know this.
     
    Democracy is a beautiful thing as long as you can define what the hell it is. Which my experience as a political science student (for five years now) tells me is impossible. Using the ideal of DEMOCRACY, to justify the reality of WAR is just shameless.
     
    peace of mind,
     
    james.
     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ontix_at_aol.com [mailto:Ontix_at_aol.com]
    Sent: 19 February 2003 12:34
    To: Park, James R S; acid-jazz_at_ucsd.edu
    Subject: Re: [acid-jazz] FW: TR : You lookin at me?

    Question: Thank you, Mr. President. What do you make of the fact that millions of people across the globe have taken to the streets to protest your approach to Iraq? And if you decide to go to war, how do you wage a campaign in the face of such stiff opposition?

    THE PRESIDENT: Two points, one is that democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to express their opinion. I welcome people's right to say what they believe. Secondly, evidently some of the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace. I respectfully disagree. Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people. Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has made -- defied the United Nations. Saddam Hussein is providing links to terrorists. Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. And we will deal with him.

    You know, I -- war is my last choice. But the risk of doing nothing is even a worst option as far as I'm concerned. I owe it to the American people to secure this country. I will do so. "

    I took this piece from the Whitehouse.gov website. This question was posed on Tuesday inside the Roosevelt room where Bush was swearing in Bill Donaldson as the new SEC chariman, and it was the first question taken. This being the case, you can almost take it as a 100% certainty that the question was planted, orchestrated by Ari Fleischer and the rest of the the president's press team. This is the standard procedure that administrations use to get tidbits of information on important issues out to the public.

    That being said, I want to point out something thats really been on my mind alot since the war talk has started, and which is quite frankly, very disappointing. When asked about the fact that millions of people across the globe have taken to the streets to protest the US approach to Iraq, the president responds that democracy is a beautiful thing and that he values peoples right to expression. Well thats all quite plain and simple and don't we all know that much anyways?

    Or, do we? We seem to think so, but then we take comments like these with such an immediate and superficial respect that we don't even think about what it means. This is so much the case these days that we even wonder whether or not George Bush takes time himself to reflect on what it means.

    I have to say, to wonder whether or not George Bush thinks about and knows what democracy is strikes me as being ludicrous. I will concede that the guy is very down home and inarticulately spoken, but there is a guaranteed certainty that he has thought about and been consulted on these problems at extraordinarily great lengths.

    So why? Why doesnt George Bush explain that democracy and protest are not only beautiful things, but that they are one and the same thing? Why doesn't George Bush say, "well, it strikes me as being very ironic that these millions of people are out here protesting a war that sees its primary aim as granting a whole population of oppressed people the right to protest. you have to wonder whether or not they think about that when they're on their way home patting themselves on the back and congratulating their friends on being true participants in a democracy, and how good that makes them feel. that they can think and act freely ... you have to wonder whether or not they realize the extent to which such a free and unencumbered expression would be swiftly met with extreme and deadly consequences for all who were involved had this taken place in Iraq. think for a second what that means to you as ap erson. think about how it would feel if you didnt have the freedom to write emails to your friends or speak openly with anyone who you didnt trust with your life. think about how it would feel if i was riding down to your neighborhood with the calvary and chemical weapons, cutting off your wives hands and hanging your fathers and spraying death acorss the land. think for a second about all the luxuries you have as an American that you take as being your natural entitlements, which you easily forget, and which only exist because you live in the worlds greatest democracy. i too am a protester, i protest to you now in front of the world, in the name of freedom " And then he could wink and smile as the profundity sets in.

    And then why doesn't George Bush have a second journalist ask him, "What do you say to people who argue that this war is about oil?" and then he could respond, "Well, lets do some quick math. Iraqi oil at its best produces 20 billion dollars of profit per year. Thats at its best, presuming Saddam does not destroy his own country's facilities, as he did during the Gulf War. So say that, after we win this war, and we will, probably in less than a couple weeks mind you, which is good because war costs about 50 mil. a day. but so say that I call up all my old pals in the oil industry and say, "wooohooo, hey boys, you wont believe this!! I got me a whole country full of oil and a bunch of guns and aint nobody can stop us from taken it all and sellin it to whomever we please!! yeehaw, go rangers!" say I did that, and all my buddies grinned wide as the rio grande, and we went in and flat out stole the entire crop of saddams oil. Well, if youre a conspiracy theorist, that makes great sense because thats gonna be great for the US economy, ain it? and youre savvy and you know that those oil boys funded my presidency. and they need the economy to be in good shape, shoot, thats why they elected me, right? well i'll grant you that, i want the economy to be in the best shape its ever been in. thats good for everybody and, heres the best part, it makes me look good. But now, lets finish the arithmetic. Congress just released a budget estimate that the costs of occupying Iraq after the war is gonna run 50 billion dollars a year. Thats puts us in the red by 30 billion a year if we were flat out stealing all of saddams oil -- which, I insist, we will not do. Now hopefully, and all you savvy conspiracy theorists listen up, hopefully i dont have to explain that being in the red 30 bil a year aint no good for nobody, but mostly, it aint no good for my friends in the oil business. And by the way I just wanted to say, Nelson Mandela can kiss my white ass, hmmkay? And, also, mr. newsguy, get with the program, even my most serious critics will readily admit that this war has nothing to do with oil and that to think so is the en vogue call sign for naivete. Like, if youre thinkin its about oil and you say so in public, dont be surprised if the informed folks in the room that are, you know, up todate with current events, and readin the newspaper and that sort of thing, dont be surprised if they roll their eyes and stop talkin to you, okay guy? But you're probably a democrat arentcha? Oh? Youre from the nightly news? So then i guess you need a soundbite, yeah? How about "20billion - 50billion equals this war aint about oil."

    Then GW could smile and wink again, cause the writers really like it when GW smiles and winks. And now they finally got something real to write about. So another journalist comes along and has to ask. "well you kow, mr. president, since we're being so frank and honest today, what do you say to your critics who say that youre in this war to finish what your daddy couldnt?" And George could say " you know, i like my dad just about as much as you or anybody else likes their daddy. See, I'm an aging man, and I've known my father many years. And keep in mind that my dad was the president of the good ole usa, so from my long list of life experiences, I can say that my daddy's kinda like cake, he's cool on christmas and birthdays, but for the rest of the year (and then george would do that scoffing chuckle he does so well) yeah right, like I would eat a carbohydrate...

    and as the room bursts into laughter and cheers, that one gets a special wink and a smile to the corner of the room where the one and only dr. atkins is waiting patiently for his lunch date with the president. Dr. atkins smiles and nods in approval to the president, because afterall, and theyve said this is true behind closed doors, GW is one charming mother fucker. he's got the doctor on hand because apparently the first lady has gained a few pounds since this whole terrorist thing started and, as is the luxury of having a nation of unparralelled human resources, GW has called in the experts for their problem solving abilities.

    Then, finally, as the Q and A session wrapped up, a journalist would finally ask, "well in all sincerity then mr. president, why exactly are we going to war in Iraq?" This is when we go back to the beginning of this email. Where before we got the quick response, now we've got all this extra information made clear and evident where before it lay only between the lines to be sought out. And now we've also got a new sense for the man's true sincerity and passion, an elaborate articulation of what he means when he talks about belief in good intentions. Now, the president could look back at this daring journalist, just for a second, with an incredulous gaze that spoke volumes without words that says:

    ""youre kidding me, right? .... if you believe that we could go to war for any other reason, what does that say about you as a person? from where did you gain information to even begin to be skeptical about my intentions in the first place? and dont you see how it is democracy that allows you to live in a society that not only allows you to be a skeptic, but which provides a legal infrastructure which guarantees skepticism as an option for you? seriously, in this case, when given that the facts are all the same for all people, and some people choose to believe that we have good intentions, and you choose to be skeptical, do you not see how that would make it difficult for someone to trust you? dont you see how, just like the protesters, youre flaunting democracy back at itself, and dont you see how it wins and wins again each time you make a stab because it wrote the rules of the game in the first place? freely exercising speech against free speech only makes for more free speech. and the really, arent you projecting your own brand of intentions in your interpretation of what you think we are up to? if you think we could be up to something bad, does that not mean that given our situation, you too would be up to something less than legit?""

    and then, with this onslaught of penetrating inquiry, as the defense mechanisms of this poor skeptical newsman are all called out and laid bare before his own eyes, as sweat begins to mount on the journalists forhead because what was only a millisecond in real time, actually felt like a whole academic course in political science, the president would say quite succinctly what some of us know he has been saying all along, that "we are going to fight a war in Iraq because democracy is a beautiful thing."