[Peace-discuss] I Meant Geraniums

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>This is an excellent point.  It's easier to see now that the whole
>imminent threat scenario that the administration presented was a conscious
>lie, and that Bush, Blair & Co. (including our congressional
>representatives) have the blood of thousands on their hands.
>

     You know - they really do, no matter how you slice it.  And one 
other point, instructive even for people who can magically discount 
Iraqi deaths, is that in another couple months American casualties from 
operation "mission accomplished" will outnumber casualties from 
operation "Iraqi freedom".

  To me, this not only speaks to our politically expedient lack of 
preparedness for the various 'peace' scenarios; it also reflects on our 
distillation (via technology and denial) of human conflict into a sort 
of "robot wars".  It's like those old 40's Buck Rogers movies with the 
freakin' galvanized robotic cowboys, only worse.  Like we're supposed to 
not mind war because - though they'd never say this out loud, oh no - an 
Iraqi life is worth 213/6000ths of an American's.  Pretty twisted math, 
even for the subconscious mind.

>  
>
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Ken Urban wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I hear the discourse changing from _having_ WMDs to _programs_ for WMDs.
>>>Soon it'll switch to _would like to have_ WMDs or _dreamt about_ WMDs.
>>>
>>>I thought I heard some silly gov't offical (or news lacky) say that
>>>Iraq hid/destroyed their WMDs right before the attack. 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    Actually, that might have happened, even *during* the attack, to
>>whatever remnants they might still have had.  Of course, if true, it
>>wouldn't support BushCo's lies, but squander-the-troopsers all across
>>the country would crow like roosters that it did just that.
>>
>>    This is one of the PR 'nightmare scenarios' that could result from
>>acting like Iraq had absolutely no WMDs.  They had to have had
>>something or other sitting around from the Reaganauts, unless they are
>>more efficient than our government is, which seems unlikely.  
>>Eventually - however small - it will turn up, which is why 'imminent
>>threat' needs to be made the test against which finds are measured in
>>the public eye, instead of 'no WMDs'.
>>
>>    Cries of "Iraq had no WMDs" need to sooner or later be changed to
>>"Iraq couldn't use WMDs" if this is a PR battle we want to stay won.  
>>Bad drives out good, especially in the realm of public opinion.
>>
>>    Just my 1 cent, back to lurker mode...
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>