www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> incoming! digest [valentine (x2), cantsin] (was Re: nettim
J-D marston on Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:02:43 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> incoming! digest [valentine (x2), cantsin] (was Re: nettime-l-digest V1 #1109)


On 27 Mar 2003, nettime-l-digest wrote:
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:23:38 -0600
> From: Rick Bradley <roundeye {AT} roundeye.net>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> incoming! digest [valentine (x2), cantsin]
> 
> * david garcia (davidg {AT} 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.

I'm confused as to how exclusion of the subject is implied in the rejection
of binary? The very act is a moving towards inclusion. Sorry, but there is
more than on/off, perhaps programmers have a hard time understanding that. 

> 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, at least I can say I am glad to see nettime attracts a neo-con here
and there. Whoa.

> > 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.

The only stones we'll turn over will be the ones we gave our CIA trained
dictator to hide the weapons we sold him for the Iran/Iraq war. We're so
damn sure he has them cause we have the receipts for them. The problem with
this hero's narrative is how damned reductionist it is. Your doltish little
one liners boil it all down into digestable nuggets of guardian logic.
Imperial Lust has never sounded to good, or been so easy. 

Meanwhile New York looks more and more like Hebron. But hey, This is an
'effective and efficient military operation'? Yea, argue that in 10 years
and I bet you're accounting techniques will look more like A. Anderson. 

> 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)

Well, unless your black of course, no matter how much you would like to
persuade us that the machinery of democracy is well oiled and well
mannered...history pales your claim.

The problem is I don't disagree with your protest logic, the 'tiny
fraction' is entirely disposed to holding a placard or chanting like some
festival of light, but many many more are opposed to unilateral oil
grabbing by some plutocrat from texas, its just expressing it w/ outmoded
and historically loaded symbols is not a viable mode of dissent to this
much larger cross section.. have some conversations, rather than muzzling
those who point out that its much more complex than your neo-conservative
reductionism.

> I hope you'll forgive me for not rushing to grant them credibility.

I won't if you won't. Na - Na - a poo-poo. 

Ack,
Jd.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
http://www.usemenow.com

#  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