On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 10:10 PM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:
And did you just "happen" to miss the other facts in his statement:
Saddam Hussein "was putting more money into his nuclear program, he
was pushing ahead his long-range missile program as hard as he could."
And what's that a reference to? Remember what he said in his report to
Congress:
"Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a
confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed
but have been removed?"
Damn right Mr Crifasi, why indeed? That's the critical question here if
you want to buy into the argument that Iraq was a part of the war
against terrorists. And the answer is either one of ...
A) perhaps Iraq was not an imminent threat after all, perhaps it was
obviously not involved in the 911 attack, had no contact with its
implacable enemy Al Qaeda, and was so crushed by the first gulf war and
the ensuing sanctions and regular Allied bombing that it had no
military capability to threaten even its nearest neighbours.
But then, if the Iraq invasion is a supreme crime of aggression, and
your administration pipelined its intelligence in order to construct a
propaganda lie to justify that aggression, then technically speaking
we're back at the moment that Hitler decided to risk a second world war
in order to invade Poland. It's a good thing for us that old bastard
Churchill actually stood up to this aggression and declared a second
world war don't you think? This time around though what's left of the
British empire is standing behind the aggressor. And the only strategic
justification for the aggression seems to be to gain control of world
energy resources in the face of an apparently impending terminal oil
crisis.
Or on the contrary ...
B) whatever your argument is for Bush and the neocon agenda, I forget.
I think Bush should just be honest with his people and tell them, or at
least the middle and lower economic classes, that they're all going to
hell (
http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv ) unless they
endorse the war on terror as a pretext for a strategic energy policy. I
think that for the average punter maintaining some sort of half decent
lifestyle would probably outweigh any moral concerns as regards a war
for oil don't you agree? Us moderns are all more or less pragmatists
after all.
Existential anxiety is not anxiety over some event, entity, or fact,
such as some crime.
I agree, it's the anxiety of death. In terms of death then I take it
you can't see any possible relation between this ontological concept
and the ongoing deaths in Iraq, or to the constant threat of more
annihilating terrorist attacks (
http://www.geekandproud.net/terror/ ).
And although I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories this constant
terror could get a whole lot more terrifying for both of us if those
Pakistani nuclear scientists armed Al Qaeda with some sort of nuclear
weapon (
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-26-pakistan_x.htm
). Or is this just propaganda do you think? (
http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20031020-115059-8319r )
But anyways Anthony, for you what then is existential angst in the face
of the possibility of one's own imminent demise, possible at any
moment, at the hands of a suicidal Arab dwarf? That's a serious
question by the way, I'd be interested to see your analysis.
At the very least I'd say our current alert status is certainly a mode
of being towards death, as it is a mode of everyday living. I'd also
say there are authentic elements to this ongoing state of terror in
that it brings the threat of death to the fore of everyday concern,
although I'd guess our interpretation of those authentic elements would
depend on how one personally reacts to terror in all its varied forms.
Authentically speaking, fear in the sense of fleeing in the face of the
angst of death is an inauthentic mode of being towards death. Have you
authentically and steadfastly come face to face with your own terror of
Arab dwarves Anthony? What does it actually mean for you?
Again, this is a serious question coming from a fellow citizen of the
Coalition of the Willing. Australia has had the trauma of its own
people dying in the Bali blast, many of them came from this city of
Perth, although to date only one of our brave soldiers has died. Ever
since the twin towers came down in the middle of our last federal
election campaign the entire country has been bombarded with the
government's justifications for joining the US war on terror, not a day
goes by without some reference to it being made on tv and in the
newspapers or in relation to our illegal aliens problem most of whom
are Iraqis and Afghans. The government even spent $15 million mailing a
'terrorism response pack' to every Australian household (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2731793.stm ) including
an excellent fridge magnet. We're very committed to the war on terror.
So these notions of fear and death, of government propaganda and war,
and most especially of what is 'true' and 'just' from various
perspectives are all valid philosophical concerns don't you think?
Obviously you do since you constantly bring them up here in a Heidegger
forum. Would you like to discuss them in reasonable terms yet or are
you still rabidly trying to hold your conservatism together in the face
of the neocon assault on Republicanism? Have you let go of your
self-certainty yet Anthony?
Regards,
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
