Rick Bradley on Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:50:50 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> incoming! digest [valentine (x2), cantsin] |
* david garcia (davidg@xs4all.nl) [030326 16:20]: > > My suggestion: Donate blood, not rhetoric. > > Brandon D. Valentine > > Brandon's final suggestion treats us to yet another Bush like binary, > another false dichotomy like theory vs practice. For us or against us! > Blood or rhetoric. humanitarian relief or fury. Ironically, those who jump up quickly to point out the exclusivity of "binary logic" are in the typical case simply sitting on the 0 end of binary. Pointing out the excluded middle is a poor device for justifying the hypocrisy of excluding it oneself. Perhaps the reason declarative (as opposed to meaningless or evasive) judgments like those of Bush and his kind rub the Left so wrong is that they force recognition that PostModernism, moral equivalence, victim culture, and cultural relativism do nothing to address social problems. There has been a conservative backlash in the U.S. against the worthless "logic" of postmodernism (and it's farce writ large, transnational progressivism). It is widely believed (especially among the voting populace) that the net effect of PoMo/Tranzi thinking is some smoldering buildings and the irony of Chirac pounding the podium to protect his oil and arms contracts with a dictator condemned 16 (now 17) times by the UNSC. Bush, for all his "simplisme" (remind me who it was that was able to stifle "sophisticated" Old Europe diplomatically while building up sufficient forces in the Gulf to depose Hussein, while stringing Hussein along into believing that diplomacy might cow us -- thereby dissuading Saddam from a pre-emptive strike during our buildup?), is guilty of calling a spade a spade. He's also holding the deck, which gives his words that added "oomph". > Well lets donate both! they are not mutually exclusive. Sounds like a plan to me. Methinks media (from mass- to Indy-) are documenting coalition progress on both fronts, though somewhat begrudgingly in the more liberal press. > Maybe we millions of fools who flooded the streets failed to stop the > "juggernaut" of mayhem you call "liberation" but if this horror were to > last much longer then just maybe history might repeat itself and as with > Vietnam the accumulation of resistance might eventually weaken the resolve > of what must (in all its God fearing conviction) be trully one of the most > shameful US administrations in living memory. Feh. When this campaign in Iraq endures over multiple administrations (much less multiple months, or should I dare mention multiple _weeks_) like the Vietnam debacle then perhaps reasonable people will come around to this way of thinking. For the time-being, however, I, and a multitude of others are inclined to believe our administration is waging the most effective and efficient military operation the world has ever seen, and we will truly liberate a violently oppressed nation which has suffered under a regime politically and economically supported by the very nations protesting the loudest that we're unjustly violating the "peace". The military phase of this conflict may well continue for some number of months (judging by the reports regarding the mobilization of the 4ID from Texas), though hopes are that we're looking at some number of weeks. Should the conflict continue for some number of years, the American people would be surprised, but such a conflict could only result if Saddam's regime is even more dangerous than we contended at the UNSC. The will is present to see this situation through. Will this conflict be bloodless (on either side)? Hardly. Will we succeed in minimizing civilian casualties to a degree unheard of in the history of warfare? I truly believe so. Is the price of the means worth the value of the ends? This country, as represented at the polling place, by the polls, over the phone, and by email and fax, believes so. When all is done I believe it will be clear that we were justified in moving now. It will also be clear why our "allies" on the UNSC were so shrill in expressing their fears that we would actually turn over stones in Iraq. Had there been a viable alternative to this campaign proposed from any quarter perhaps demonstrations from "millions of fools" would have been persuasive. Instead of making sense, however, people made slogans and signs. Instead of taking the opportunity to express their opinions at the ballot box (this is giving the benefit of presuming they didn't show and turn over the Legislative Branch anyway) a tiny fraction of the populace took to the streets and proclaimed themselves a majority. Instead of becoming a part of the debate, the so-called "peace movement" became marginalized as incoherent. I hope you'll forgive me for not rushing to grant them credibility. Rick -- http://www.rickbradley.com MUPRN: 850 | ifferences. We random email haiku | used that for grouping set | of rows in table. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net