<nettime> Interesting Absence

[Phil Duncan <PDuncan {AT} AggregateStudio.com>]

As we close in on the anniversary of the 9-11 tragedies, my mind wanders to 
a glaring absence.  Where in the recent squawking of world-wide corporate 
news has Osama bin Laden been?  The United States senior leadership and its 
Department of War have been speaking so much flap about invading Iraq that 
our old Enemy Number One has been posited as passe, old news.  The only 
recent media attention to our much hated nemesis has received was on the 
BBC and even then it was just a re-run.  It seems that the cultural 
pathology of propagandizing to attention spans with similar durations to a 
middle eastern cease-fire must invoke fresh new demons to keep their war 
fires burning.

So what's the deal?  If Presidential Appointee Bush is going to invade Iraq 
to oust Saddam Hussien, then why not at least be honest about it?  All the 
media hype I have seen says that the U.S. is sabre rattling against 
Iraq.  Isn't it closer to the truth to say that Presidential Appointee Bush 
is waging war against Saddam Hussein?  When P.A. Bush decides to 
unilaterally execute a preemptive strike, after the UN scrutinizes the 
fraud called evidence and wether or not the UN sanctions the action, what 
will be accomplished?

Well, if the US is as effective in Iraq as it was at achieving their goal 
of invading Afghanistan, eliminating Osama bin Laden and the al Queda 
network, then Saddam Hussein has nothing to fear.  Again, the civilian 
population will be at the highest risk.

So what is the real motivation of P.A. Bush to invade a sovereign nation 
without provocation or due process?

So what if P.A. Bush effectively destabilizes the worlds most prolific oil 
producing region?  At least then he will have a reason to declare the 
Arctic region open for his oil industry cronies to exploit.  Especially 
since he has stated that the domestic reserve will not be tapped during a 
time of middle eastern shortage.

So what if P.A. Bush spends millions of tax dollars waging war?  At least 
companies making up the War Industry are assured to retain their stock 
value.  But how much of the profiteering from this private war funded by 
public money will benefit the people who are footing the bill?

So what if the people footing the bill, represented by the actions of P.A. 
Bush and his Department of War, become recipients of the global Muslim 
community's justifiable outrage?

How about a reality check:  The U.S. has refused to participate in the 
allowing the same kind of inspections it is demanding from Iraq.  The U.S. 
possesses biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and the ability to send 
them over great distances.  The U.S. has backed away from International 
initiatives such as the world court, global warming reduction initiatives, 
human rights abuse limitations, and arms limitations. Whose voting record 
does the voting record of the U.S. resemble?

To paraphrase former president Carter's recent statement:  Do we want to be 
leaders within the emergent world order, or in control of the world order?

If P.A. Bush's record thus far is any indication, he is out for control, 
and will continue to act with or without consideration for the consensus of 
others, until resentment against him and the culture he represents reaches 
a critical point.  To imagine control over, rather than leadership in the 
world is an illusion with dire consequences.  It seems that the U.S.'s 
senior leadership is striving for a "pax romana", but remains ignorant to 
the eventual outcome of Rome's empire (the only global superpower of its age).

And lastly...why does the news media have to go about reporting polling 
results as "So-and-so percent of Americans support..." rather than, 
"So-and-so percent of Americans POLLED support..."  sheesh.

<end rant>

#  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 {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net