I read on my paper today that George Bush says: "It has come to my knowledge
that Saddam tried to murder my father in Kuwait 1993, and its make the attack
against Irak an unic American affaire".
The whole issue is more and more a "Wag the Dog" syndrom...
Please, you american subscribers, Saddam was the one who almost killed the Pope,
Saddam himself nailed Jesus in the cross, put in prison the whale Billy,
kidnapped Elvis Presley from earth, triggered the bullet who killed Kennedy and
Lincoln, since Saddam has been around a long time...
Gosh, why can we not got rid of George Bush and his idiotics allies, inclusive
the political oportunist Tony Blair?
Max Herman wrote:
> Madeline Albright said attacking Iraq was a bad idea today; Henry Kissinger
> could barely answer the Senator D-Maryland, who asked, "Is there a peaceful
> Attacking Iraq is a good way to escalate war in general. US hawks want to
> finish the job, Rambo-style, that they couldn't do in Vietnam etc.
> Conservatives are big on war and cheating--whatever it takes to get the job
> done. They don't like rules being enforced on what the military and
> corporations can and can't do, the don't like civil rights. They lean
> toward fewer rights for citizens against the state. Fascism is when there
> are no rights of citizens against the state.
> NN said there is a way to avoid the fate of the Roman Empire, and I think it
> has to do with medial-axis imaging, as does G2K. Attacking Iraq without
> Senate oversight, a huge open permission to do anything at all and have it
> paid for, might be more effective--i.e. temporary fascism or constitutional
> dictatorship might be the most humane way of going about it, the short sharp
> shock, all the stuff hippies hate. There's no way to know what will work
> best in advance.
> Maybe it is a moot point, a quibble, because like it or not we'll all be
> living under Empire of one kind or another. We'll have to become free even
> from fighting against Empire; we'll have to become new kinds of beings, able
> to gestate and survive the clampdown, and when we get strong enough to
> evolve, we can make the step "beyond Empire" that Negri and Hardt talk
> about. In this sense we might be better off not caring AT ALL about what
> the US or any other gov't does--not expending our energy on it that is, even
> though we find its behavior completely abhorrent.
> One problem is that as long as the hope of a pan-Arab Islamic Bloc remains,
> terrorists and fundamentalists will have every reason to continue what
> they're doing. Kissinger said that not attacking Iraq would give
> "psychological" fuel to terrorists. Terrorists like Al-Quaeda want mainly
> to take over all the oil, by overthrowing all Arab governments that agree to
> any level of rapprochement with the WEST, like G2K for example.
> So just like War and Peace, it's a crap shoot, the same old one. Kandinskij
> is saying we are idiots to be concerned with the outcome; our egos tell us
> "hey make the world better kid--with art!", falsely believing we can
> influence historical events that were written into the script long ago.
> Certainly I saw a folk singer once at Oberlin College, Fred Smart or
> something, who sang a song called "I Want A Hug", and wanted
> everyone--ordered us, 19-year-olds!--to sing along, stand up, and hug each
> other. No one even stood up, and he became livid. Quite amusing. He was
> idiotic to think I wanted to hear a song called "I Want A Hug."
> Personally I think that G2K can defuse the terrorist situation pretty well.
> It can be a peaceful way. If we behave like Satan, us USA, how can we blame
> anyone for treating us like Satan? It's the clever ones that will realize
> we are full o' shit, and join the terrorists. But if we have a non-bullshit
> culture, one that can tax and reward the faculties of even the cleverest and
> most righteous of the oppressed, we can be OK.
> So that would be a way of "humanizing" people, here in the Empire as well as
> in barbarian lands (same diff), which is what I think NN is. Good books
> are, good deeds, love, benificence, life-genius expressing itself against
> the quagmire of the rotted flesh.
> Imagine two people, in a conflict, who cease relation and pull out guns for
> blastin. It's not always the best idea.
> Or put another way, if the USA would face up to G2K, we won't have to be as
> evil. Easy, but it means controlling our amygdalas, the
> controlling/hazard-focused part of the brain j u s t long enough to see the
> better way.
> So that's where I disagree with Kandinskij and Bush. Also, I don't believe
> Freud at all, he was a crude guesser/salesman, so the "ego" is really a
> chemical/hormonal state and nothing more. No big deal, we can whip it.
> Or not? Armageddon is also about how ego goes totally over the top, takes
> everything over, destroys itself in a huge planet-killing war, and then the
> non-ego-diseased rebuild. Metaphorically or literally, culturally, who
> knows. It's all mixed up. But the thing about Armageddon is its globality,
> a crunchdown. I think Kissinger didn't want to entertain the idea of a
> peaceful way, i.e. say whether he thought there is one, because he sees no
> reasonable chances of reducing ego enough to do any good, and is part of a
> tradition of so-doing, which has essentially driven action-energies that
> dissent to the margins to avoid avoiding the crunchdown and hence entering
> it from a position of weakness.
> I'm curious how the UN inspections will work out, if they'll be given a real
> chance or not.
> John Klima, don't you think this is reasonable? Mark Napier?
> All the crap-slinging that goes on would totally be worth it if we can get
> together for a big peace-initiative. Plus where's Packer's Department of
> Art and Technology, Mark Amerika? Who's still on Rhizome anyway?
> Plus I think Eryk can be a huge help to the project and coalition-building
> among the youth. Maybe Mark Tribe can help with the old people. I can take
> care of Generation X; any more volunteers, like a Catholic?
> Max Herman
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> + death sucks
> -> post: email@example.com
> -> questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php