-----Original Message-----
From: Mark DuCharme [mailto:xxxx@x.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:14 PM
To: lester@proximate.org

Hey Lester, if I were you I'd be pissed off about this guy Christopher


He gives sock puppets a bad name.


Mark DuCharme


Hello Mark my old friend...

While I agree with Hitchens that an invasion of Iraq will not cause a general Middle Eastern uprising, and that it is a poor argument against invasion, I do think 1) there are no good arguments for or against invasion, since the entire topic has been proposed by a low-life criminal who happens to sit in a very large chair held up by yahoos, bloodsuckers, and moterfuckers and 2)an invasion of Iraq will only further the terrorization of the middle east--the invasion will make the middle east even more submissive and their governments more oppressive (a symbiotic relationship). I do agree with Hitchens that Saddam is a threat, but only in the future tense: "if left alone, Saddam will be a threat." Given the French and Russian exploration of new supergiant oil fields in eastern Iraq, the wealth created will likely surpass that created by Saudi Arabian oil fields. Since the 1991 Gulf War, oil fields have been discovered in Iraq that put Iraq's oil capacity at or above Saudi Arabia's. And it's MUCH higher quality oil than what the Saudis possess. If someone doesn't like you, is very violent, and has SHITLOADS of money, enough to buy nations (and Saddam has already bought France with the mere PROMISE of that oil production), then he is a threat. Saddam is on his way to being rich...but IF. IF. If is a short but strong word.

The real threat is only future tense...for example, what if Saddam dies of a stroke next week? What if one of his closest allies kills him? The threat of future vast wealth for Saddam evaporates in the mist of an exploding brain, or fades with the growing vagiaries of old age and dwindling power; he could, after all, become just some babbling King. Who knows. He's not doing anything to us right now, despite 11 years of daily bombing of his country & starving his country.

Pre-emptive strikes have a very dark history. Pre-emptive strinkes are aggressive and justified by unverifiable hypotheses about the future. Nazi propaganda created stories of German minorities being abused in Danzig, and faking covert attacks by Polish troops on the German-Polish border. The people of Germany rallied behind an invasion of Poland.

The WMD argument presented by the US is UNDOUBTEDLY a con, a lie to the world public and an insult to democratic people everywhere. Powell didn't present solid evidence because the US does not posess much; well it certainly has some, but the Bushies don't really want to share the real evidence: names like Bush and Rumsfeld are all over the bills of lading for nerve gas and biologicals shipped to Saddam throughout the 80s. The invasion will be a con just like the evidence, used to justify massive national debts designed to pad the pockets of friends with hard-earned tax dollars while opening up the opportunity for US bonds sales well on its long-term way to fail to fulfill those bonds. The invasion of Iraq will gut long-standing ties with France with the first bomb falling. It will gut our relationship with Europe as a whole. It will slaughter hundreds or even millions of Iraqis who have nothing to do with anything. It will send millions more cringing in terror from the presence of the US and encourage the US to terrorize even more countries in the Caspian basin region. It will destroy a young generation of Americans who, in trying deperately in child-like ways to do the right thing with military service, will come home psychologically eviscerated from the experience of slaughtering women and children and being rewarded for it. It will also further decimate the American economy, as new oil businesses and contracts in Iraq will be started by Iraqi companies (financed of course by US and British companies), and those companies will buy US bonds en masse. Because bonds will be used to finance the invasion, and what better investment for the new oil companies? "Buying War Bonds is Patriotic."

"But the problem of toppling Saddam Hussein next year is not fiscal. The United States would have no difficulty selling bonds to pay for it. On the contrary, with our domestic economy in the dumps, with private business disinterested in investment, government bonds would sell easily. And even if they did not, the Federal Reserve itself could buy them. So, too, could the successor government in Iraq, which will have the oil with which to purchase, after the fact, its own assumption of power. Either way, interest rates need not rise, and Bush's Iraq war will be timed to help, not hurt, the short-term performance of American growth and employment."
- economist James K. Galbraith (http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/21/galbraith-j.html)

But forget all of this: Bush is a criminal. We should not even have to hear someone like Hitchens babble ignorantly about things beyond his hacksaw. Bush stole an election, THE election. Dumya willfully protects his criminal pal at Enron. He's engaged in criminal economic activities on multiple occasions. Dumya is a criminal a barbarian and a spoiled Yale preppie dimwit born with a platinum coke spoon up his nose. Decsended from wombats letchers molesters rapists pirates and drug smugglers. Georbe Bush is, in short, a zombie.

Not to mention that the war on terror is a sham, instigated by some Hitlers wanting to burn down the Reichstag, American style. Bush never fit in on Wall Street anyway, so what does he care if a couple thousand brokers have to die? The fact that Hitchens continues to ignore the very painful truth that Osama bin Laden is a long-standing American intelligence asset (which does not necessarily mean he's an ally but a tool), that the American people are being manipulated, makes me want to vomit. Though it shouldn't surprise me. Fortunately I'm a dummy (specifically, a ventriloquist doll, not a sock puppet, by the way) and can't vomit. Even if Osama is not an asset and needs to be directly removed form being a threat as a legitimate terrorist cell organizer, he is an individual with flexible organizations supporting him and cannot be removed by mobilizing an entire national economy and thousands of troops. Everyone knows that trying to kill a fly with a Mack truck might lead you to kill a lot of flies while not enhancing one bit the possibility of killing the one fly you set out to swat. Osama's orgs need to be penetrated further and he needs to be excised, if he really is a serious threat. The fact that the US is using Osama as a justification for invading the entirety of central Asia underscores the farcical nature of anyone who tries however desperately to defend such a dangerous, murderous, terrible action. The farcical nature of Hitchens, in this case. He's OK with the US Military Mack-trucking its way across central Asia, treating civilians like flies to be smashed on its front bumper, in the desperate aim to kill one man.

Hitchens is also wrong in calling Chomsky a peacenik. Chomsky is not a pacifist; Chomsky's Middle Eastern domino-rebellion theory comes straight from declassified CIA documents. Chomsky, however, doesn't realize that it is very likely that such quickly declassified documents are fly-tape documents designed to get people like himself creating weird allegiances with CIA thought. Chomsky's linguistic AND political work was for years regularly published by Paragon House, which is nothing more than a CIA front operation started by the Reverend Moon himself. At best, Chomsky is a dupe of his own device, someone who had some revolutionary ideas for a brief period many years ago. (And apparently I've been told he's an academic plagiarist as well.) At worst, Chomsky is the fly tape of the American left, a person who provides the coordinates for the place where vital domestic anti-American organizational information gets stuck. The CIA just comes by and picks the flies right off the tape, whether Chomsky is a willing participant or not. The fact that Chomsky uses CIA analyses as support for his own, as corroborative arguments, says it all. Chomsky is an integral element of the marginalization of the American left.

Hitchens is a two-bit apologist greaseball, a limey drunk with a penchant for getting a dirty sanchez from rich guys in the pub bathroom now and then. He has bills to pay, and if being fisted by some guy named Colin wearing a large Rolex works for him, well, I guess that's his problem. I just hope he would drink more and write less, even if it is in such defiled rolls of toilet paper as Slate and Vanity Fair.

Perhaps the problem of why people listen to Hitchens is that Americans with a little money and a little education think everyone with a British accent is intelligent. Christopher Hitchens is intelligent, but only in the counterfactual sense.

Your friend,

No comments: