(Note to literalists: the Watched column presently contains only a smattering of 'warblogs' because the facilitator of the template-change--Dr. Menlo--is not very familiar with them, and will be adding more as they are sent to him. Also, this blog may contain areas of allusion, satire, subtext, context and possibly even a dash of the surreal: wannabe lit-crits beware.)
Control
[Watch this space for: Pentagon and Petroleum, The Media is only as Liberal as the Corporations Who Own Them, Wash Down With, and Recalcify]
WARBLOGGER WATCH
Sunday, December 14, 2003
TARIQ ALI: In fact, if Saddam Hussein died a natural death or was captured and killed or whatever, the resistance far from dying down would actually increase, because many who are not coming out at the moment fearful that Saddam might come back, would then join the resistance. I have absolutely no doubt of that. So the notion if we just captured the headman, classic colonial talk, capture the head man, get rid of him and the natives will be on side.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: But nobody is saying that.
TARIQ ALI: No, no. Lots of people have been saying it. The key problem is to capture Saddam and destroy him. That's not going to work. I do think it's without importance that Saddam Hussein be brought to justice. I very much hope that you, like me, wish to see him on trial. In fact, it's one of the vices of the coalition policy, one that I have pointed out myself several times that no indictment of Saddam Hussein was ever issued. Though, the ingredients for the indictment
could be wheeled right off the shelf in Cambridge.
SADDAM HUSSEIN CAPTURED. First, good riddance. I have nothing but contempt for corrupt American puppets. I hope he gets a trial where he can talk at length about his relationship with the United States. He'll probably get a trip to Gitmo. Remember: The Bush admininstration only rarely doesn't do the most evilest worstest thing imaginable. Like Tariq, I also think that his capture actually helps the resistance. Now, you can't say it's some insidious Baathist plot hatched by Saddam in his underground lair. I would hope that now your usual crew of jingoist, objectively pro imperialism, pro communist (a big faction of the coalition government's coalition) Sullys and Instapundits could define the resistance as being home grown. Subsequently, we should address their valid concerns. Give them a vote if they ask for a vote. Give them control of their oil revenues. That's what decent people and countries do. Don't fantasize and call people with legitimate concerns evil doers or "terrorists". We're a country that used force to get what we want. The "terrorists" have the same right. There is no high ground here.
By the way, if you're playing the Imperialism 2003 Home Game, here's how you decide whether you should or should not take up arms against the occupation government. Do you have a right to vote? Do you have any say over the mechanisms of the vote, such as census taking and the writing of the constitution, which will determine what kind of "democracy" you will end up with? Does the occupying country have a long bloody history of supporting dictators and killers and thugs at the expense of democratic institutions and to the favor of the United Fruits and Halliburtons of this world? Are Iraqi companies allowed in the bidding process? Is it clear that the occupier is resorting to death squads, a tactic that was very successful in El Salvador at wiping out all meaningful democratic opposition? Does the occupation use nonlethals or do they shoot anything that moves? Has the occupation set up its exit strategy as part of its reelection strategy or are they clearly concerned about "democracy"? Does the occupation respect any aspect of international law or the rule of law period?
Now, if you find that the US is on the wrong side of most of those questions, you should have an understanding as to why the resistance fights. Let's see what happens in the next several weeks. As always, we'll be watching. posted by Philip Shropshire10:50 AM
• • • • •
Friday, December 12, 2003
A few weeks ago, I asked some of our brave anonymous fellows in the comments section to give their names so that I could submit them to these new fangled neoconned birthed draft boards. I would think they would just be wildly enthusiastic to have their number called, even though I often suspect they're not of draft age yet, which I guess would explain the immaturity and childishness of their posts.
So, consider this post a second chance for you allegedly pro war types. There's an excellent chance that if Bush is reelected there will be a draft. The current army is perfectly swell if you don't plan on invading everybody throughout the world. It's not so good if you have plans for North Korea and Syria, and possibly Pakistan.
I simply ask that you post your name, phone number (have to verify these things) and your physical address (email address as well) in the comments section and I will forward your name to as many selective service reps that I can find and email. I will make an effort, in fact, to contact your local draft board! Go Bush as they say. How's that for service. Here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. I shall wait patiently for your heroic declarations of patriotic love. I fully expect a record setting number of comments in the next few days or so. I really really do.
I might note, as I pointed out to my favorite neo-eugenicist godless capitalist, that giddily joining the draft would be consistent behavior for your average frothy-mouthed pro-imperialism warblogger. For example, just to use myself as an illustration, I recently spent a year working for Americorps, where I taught poor kids and senior citizens basic elementary computer skills. I took home a whopping $200 bucks a week. But that's the kind of thing we bleeding heart liberals do. I'm being consistent. Likewise, if you truly believe in the war effort and that Iraq is a bastion of terrorism (that we've probably created but that's another post) I would think that even if you're not enthused enough to enlist, then you would certainly accept being drafted with playful glee. I smiled too when I introduced a kid to the joys of Opera and the realization that our blocking software didn't affect it. Needless to say, I'm going to work hard for President Dean and thereby avoid a draft and your subsequent needless death for Halliburton no bid contracts and general graft. But that's just me.
PRESIDENT DUMBASS STRIKES AGAIN: It looks like our feckless president, through the dark bloody hand of his infamous advisor Paul Wolfowitz, ticked off potential allies and friends yet for another time. You know, and this is a wild thought, perhaps those countries like Russia, France and Canada (a stalwart ally in Afghanistan by the way that just didn' think this Iraq thing made sense...see Canadian right winger Flit's sarcastic post) didn't join our efforts because there were no promises of joint leadership and control. They would've been idiots to have joined our silly little imperialistic adventure without those assurances upfront. As per usual, Juan Cole has the best perspective on this subject:
"Since Iraq owes on the order of $40 bn. to Russia, France and other European countries, and since the reconstruction budget so far is under $20 bn., it is obvious that vastly more was to be gained by letting the NATO countries and Europe have a few contracts and then getting them to forgive or refinance the loans.
Instead, Wolfowitz was intent on scoring petty points. He had promised to "punish" France for defying him. The move was so gratuitous and immature that one can only guess something else lay behind it. There are lots of reasons for which the Likudniks would like to make bad blood between the US and France and Russia in particular. France is no longer a knee-jerk supporter of Israeli militarism and expansionism. In part this is because of the growth of the Muslim electorate in France. About 7% of French residents are Muslim, nearly 5 million persons, whereas French Jews amount to only 600,000 or perhaps a bit more. France has been alarmed at Israeli PM Ariel Sharon's combination Iron Fist and Land Rustling, since it makes French Muslims upset. Likewise, Russia has a more balanced view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. So, it may be that the powerful Likudniks inside the US government are deliberately engineering a diplomatic rift in NATO, so as to ensure that Paris and Moscow cannot position themselves to influence Washington's position (usually supine) toward Sharon's excesses.
I have concluded that the Bush team lacks Emotional Intelligence as defined by psychologists such as Daniel Goleman. Emotional Intelligence consists of the following.."
So following a link today from the blogdex, I checked out the 2003 Warblogger Awards, and was a little amused to see that Misha's brethren have named him the 'Most-Annoying-Right-Of-Center-Blogger' by a landslide 37 votes! (The next closest had 20 votes.) Go, Misha!
. . . and don't come whining to us if you find a nail-studded ClueBat™ crammed up a very sensitive part of your anatomy if you should be skullcrushingly stupid enough to display your Biblical good-naturedness within whacking distance of yours truly.
Hm, perhaps he is a literary genius honoring the metaphor ala Hunter S. Thompson? Ha! No, but I jest. Seriously, folks--what's with this cat? Inciting violence against protesters? Class act.
. . . And what a tough guy, sitting behind your computer, telling everyone how you intend to beat them up. Man, what courage! It takes real balls to threaten behind a keyboard, doesn't it? How'd your balls get so big, Misha? You eat at McLard's?
Hm, tell you what my twisted, testosterone-overdosed friend, let me propose an idea for you: are you ready? Let's find a legitimate boxing or kickboxing promoter, and see if we can't put together a wholly legitimate Warblogger Versus Peaceblogger Grudge Match--whadday say? I'm completely serious, but it has to be legit. Why not float this idea into the blogosphere, see if it floats? See if anyone salutes it? . . .
Misha has his own dittoheads---awww, isn't that cute? One of them even attempts his own 'fisking' of my post, Misha-style, i.e.:
[original text:] So where are those WMDs, anyway?
[Misha-style 'fisking':] UP your butt you PC FemiNAZI!
But still Misha doesn't seem to like my idea, so I added this:
Yea, yea, typical dittohead insult-fest. But seriously Misha, I think it's a great idea: the Warblogger vs. Peaceblogger Grudge Match.
Now, about fights being legitimate--of course, real fights are never hampered by rules. People can pull your shirt up over your head, get out the brass knuckles, etc. A fight in the ring has a number of advantages: 1) you know there won't be anything dirty. Ref will check our gloves for blades, weights, etc. But 2) and this is important--it's just more civilized this way. And 3) the MOST important--all proceeds can go to charity. You can choose the Beat on a Protester fund, and I can choose Doctors Without Borders or whathaveyou . . . and it wouldn't just be me and you, I'm sure other warbloggers and peacebloggers would be interested, don't you think?
So if you're not interested in getting a promoter and pursuing this idea, Misha, what if I got a promoter interested--would you do it?
I really think this is a great idea--in a civilized venue--let's go a few rounds? I mean, you threaten violence against those who disagree with you almost what? Daily? So why not step into a ring, and have a fair fight with someone who disagrees with you? Surely Misha must have the balls for that.
And what an extra dimension it would add to the so-called 'blogosphere'!
So maybe I will scout around for a promoter--what do you think, audience? Does anyone out there think this is a good idea? A bad one? Know any promoters? Are there any warbloggers and peacebloggers out there who would like to take part? And remember: all proceeds go to charity!
