|
Jewish World Review Feb. 10, 2003 / 8 Adar I, 5763
James Lileks
Found: League for International Justice and Peace talking points
Topic: Negative repercussions of positive outcome in Iraq
Friends, it is obvious that our placards and giant mocking
puppets
were for naught, and the unelected fascist oil clique will invade the
sovereign nation of Iraq. We must not only consider the possibility
that the war will occur, but face the chance that it might go well.
Since we've predicted nothing but disaster, the corporate media
might
interview our members and ask them to revisit their predictions.
Frankly, we advise leaving the phone off the hook and changing your
group's name - just change the order of "peace" or "justice",
for
example. But if you must talk to the media, use the following talking
points. and you'll be able to turn any good news into depressing
predictions that spell doom for the US, death for the planet, and
increased contributions for your organization.
Corporate Media Accusation #1: "the coalition forces liberated
special
jails for children in Iraq; does this change your mind about opposing
the war?"
Your response: "That's good news if indeed it's true, but
meanwhile we
are not only tolerating chid labor in other countries, we're
encouraging it through globalization, and if a Nike shoe factory
isn't
a prison it's rather close. But back to Baghdad - the issue isn't
the
children's prisons, but the hospitals full of children born with
gross
defects caused by depleted uranium shells fired by the US in the
previous Gulf War. These are the issues we'll have to address in the
future."
That last point is tricky, since depleted uranium is,
unfortunately,
as radioactive as a tree stump. And it turns out the US didn't fire
those shells into schools as we thought, but on the battlefield in
Kuwait. Your interviewer probably won't know this, however, and
won't
feel qualified to challenge you if you're using Facial Posture #84,
Righteous Compassion. (Check the handbook if you need a brush up, and
practice; it's perilously close to #21, Passionate Concern.) We
continue:
Corporate Media Accusation #2: "Take a look at this film of
people
celebrating Saddam's death - doesn't it make you rethink your
opposition?"
Your response: "Not really, Dan / Peter / Tom - they're
celebrating
the downfall of a tyrant we created, installed in power, armed,
supported in a war with Iran - few people remember how we loaned him
the use of the USS Enterprise for an entire month. I don't think
they're thanking the US as much as the fact that the sanctions will
now
be lifted and US blockades will no longer kill 75,000 people a day."
Again, we're fudging a little here, since Saddam's military
was
overwhelmingly made up of Russian, Chinese and European equipment - but
we've had great success convincing people that the US grew Saddam in
a
petri dish and put him in power, so you're not likely to face a
challenge here. And feel free to inflate that sanction-casualty figure
up - no one ever challenges that.
If the corporate media stooge points out that US troops found
tons of
chemical weapons:
"Well, it's an argument for continued inspections, not
military
action, and it doesn't change the fact that the US won't destroy
its
chemical weapons until 2004, which puts us in no position to lecture
anyone."
If Saddam attacks Israel with Scuds, killing thousands:
"And who supplied those missiles? North Korea - a nation
provoked into
resuming is nuclear-weapons production by Bush's relentless
bellicosity."
Final note: if the interviewer asks you to comment on footage of
people toppling a statue of Saddam, or an interview with a legless
journalist held in jail while his children were tortured and his wife
raped, or scenes of American technicians attempting to cap oil-well
fires, or scenes from an Israeli hospital, don't lose focus. Remember
your key issues: Palestine. Mumia. Kyoto. SUV mileage. This could be
our worst-case scenario - a war that not only kills few and liberates
a nation, but distracts people from our goals.
Let's hope it doesn't turn out to be that bad.
01/30/03: The US can go to war whenever it likes for its own reasons, and all the UN can do is pass more worthless paper
|