< >  home  lacanian ink  bibliographies  symposia  messageboard  sitemap  perfume  links
© lacan.com 1997/2004

• 09/12/04 - The Iraqi Borrowed Kettle
• 05/21/04 - What Rumsfeld Doesn't Know That He Knows About Abu Ghraib
• 01/10/04 - Iraq's False Promises
• 11/04/03 - The Iraqi MacGuffin
• 04/14/03 - Columbia University - TOO MUCH DEMOCRACY?

by Slavoj Zizek

Cathy Ivory image We all remember the old joke about the borrowed kettle which Freud quotes in order to render the strange logic of dreams, namely the enumeration of mutually exclusive answers to a reproach (that I returned to a friend a broken kettle): (1) I never borrowed a kettle from you; (2) I returned it to you unbroken; (3) the kettle was already broken when I got it from you. For Freud, such an enumeration of inconsistent arguments of course confirms per negationem what it endeavors to deny - that I returned you a broken kettle... Do we not encounter the same inconsistency when high US officials try to justify the attack on Iraq? (1) There is a link between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, so Saddam should be punished as part of the revenge for 9/11; (2) even if there was no link between Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, they are united in their hatred of the US - Saddam's regime is a really bad one, a threat not only to the US, but also to its neighbors, and we should liberate the Iraqi people; (3) the change of regime in Iraq will create the conditions for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The problem is that there are TOO MANY reasons for the attack...

Furthermore, one is almost tempted to claim that, within the space of this reference to the Freudian logic of dreams, the Iraqi oil supplies function as the famous "umbilical cord" of the US justification(s) - almost tempted, since it would perhaps be more reasonable to claim that there are also three REAL reasons for the attack: (1) the control of the Iraqi oil reserves; (2) the urge to brutally assert and signal the unconditional US hegemony; (3) the "sincere" ideological belief that the US are bringing to other nations democracy and prosperity. And it seems as if these three "real" reasons are the "truth" of the three official reasons: (1) is the truth of the urge to liberate Iraqis; (2) is the truth of the claim the attack on Iraq will help to resolve the Middle East conflict; (3) is the truth of the claim that there is a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. - And, incidentally, opponents of the war seem to repeat the same inconsistent logic: (1) Saddam is really bad, we also want to see him toppled, but we should give inspectors more time, since inspectors are more efficient; (2) it is all really about the control of oil and American hegemony - the true rogue state which terrorizes others are the US themselves; (3) even if successful, the attack on Iraq will give a big boost to a new wave of the anti-American terrorism; (4) Saddam is a murderer and torturer, his regime a criminal catastrophe, but the attack on Iraq destined to overthrow Saddam will cost too much...

The one good argument for war is the one recently evoked by Christopher Hitchens: one should not forget that the majority of Iraqis effectively are Saddam's victims, and they would be really glad to get rid of them. He was such a catastrophe for his country that an American occupation in WHATEVER form may seem a much brighter prospect to them with regard to daily survival and much lower level of fear. We are not talking here of "bringing Western democracy to Iraq," but just of getting rid of the nightmare called Saddam. To this majority, the caution expressed by Western liberals cannot but appear deeply hypocritical - do they really care about how the Iraqi people feel?

One can make even a more general point here: what about pro-Castro Western Leftists who despise what Cubans themselves call "gusanos /worms/," those who emigrated - but, with all sympathy for the Cuban revolution, what right does a typical middle class Western Leftist have to despise a Cuban who decided to leave Cuba not only because of political disenchantment, but also because of poverty which goes up to simple hunger? In the same vein, I myself remember from the early 1990s dozens of Western Leftists who proudly threw in my face how for them, Yugoslavia still exists, and reproached me for betraying the unique chance of maintaining Yugoslavia - to which I always answered that I am not yet ready to lead my life so that it will not disappoint Western Leftist dreams... There are effectively few things more worthy of contempt, few attitudes more ideological (if this word has any meaning today, it should be applied here) than a tenured Western academic Leftist arrogantly dismissing (or, even worse, "understanding" in a patronizing way) an Eastern European from a Communist country who longs for Western liberal democracy and some consumerist goods... However, it is all too easy to slip from this fact to the notion that "under their skin, Iraqis are also like us, and really want the same as we do." The old story will repeat itself: America brings to the people new hope and democracy, but, instead of hailing the US army, the ungrateful people do want it, they suspect a gift in the gift, and America then reacts as a child with hurt feelings because of the ingratitude of those it selflessly helped.

The underlying presupposition is the old one: under our skin, if we scratch the surface, we are all Americans, that is our true desire - so all that is needed is just to give people a chance, liberate them from their imposed constraints, and they will join us in our ideological dream... No wonder that, in February 2003, an American representative used the word "capitalist revolution" to describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their revolution all around the world. No wonder they moved from "containing" the enemy to a more aggressive stance. It is the US which is now, as the defunct USSR was decades ago, the subversive agent of a world revolution. When Bush recently said "Freedom is not America's gift to other nations, it is god's gift to humanity," this apparent modesty nonetheless, in the best totalitarian fashion, conceals its opposite: yes, BUT it is nonetheless the US which perceives itself as the chosen instrument of distributing this gift to all the nations of the world!

The idea to "repeat Japan in 1945," to bring democracy to Iraq, which will then serve as model for the entire Arab world, enabling people to get rid of the corrupt regimes, immediately faces an insurmountable obstacle: what about Saudi Arabia where it is in the vital US interest that the country does NOT turn into democracy? The result of democracy in Saudi Arabia would have been either the repetition of Iran in 1953 (a populist regime with an anti-imperialist twist) or of Algeria a couple of years ago, when the "fundamentalists" WON the free elections.

There is nonetheless a grain of truth in Rumsfeld's ironic pun against the "old Europe." The French-German united stand against the US policy apropos Iraq should be read against the background of the French-German summit a month ago in which Chirac and Schroeder basically proposed a kind of dual Franco-German hegemony over the European Community. So no wonder that anti-Americanism is at its strongest in "big" European nations, especially France and Germany: it is part of their resistance to globalization. One often hears the complaint that the recent trend of globalization threatens the sovereignty of the Nation-States; here, however, one should qualify this statement: WHICH states are most exposed to this threat? It is not the small states, but the second-rate (ex-)world powers, countries like United Kingdom, Germany and France: what they fear is that, once fully immersed in the newly emerging global Empire, they will be reduced at the same level as, say, Austria, Belgium or even Luxembourg. The refusal of "Americanization" in France, shared by many Leftists and Rightist nationalists, is thus ultimately the refusal to accept the fact that France itself is losing its hegemonic role in Europe. The leveling of weight between larger and smaller Nation-States should thus be counted among the beneficial effects of globalization: beneath the contemptuous deriding of the new Eastern European post-Communist states, it is easy to discern the contours of the wounded Narcissism of the European "great nations." And this great-state-nationalism is not just a feature external to the (failure of) the present opposition; it affects the very way France and Germany articulated this opposition. Instead of doing, even more actively, precisely what Americans are doing - MOBILIZING the "new European" states on their own politico-military platform, ORGANIZING the common new front -, France and Germany arrogantly acted alone.

In the recent French resistance against the war on Iraq, there definitely is a clear echo of the "old decadent" Europe: escape the problem by non-acting, by new resolutions upon resolutions - all this reminiscent of the inactivity of the League of Nations against Germany in the 1930s. And the pacifist call "let the inspectors do their work" clearly IS hypocritical: they are only allowed to do the work because there is a credible threat of military intervention. Not to mention the French neocolonialism in Africa (from Congo-Brazzaville to the dark French role in the Rwanda crisis and massacres)? And about the French role in the Bosnian war? Furthermore, as it was made clear a couple of months ago, is it not clear that France and Germany worry about their own hegemony in Europe?

Is the war on Iraq not the moment of truth when the "official" political distinctions are blurred? Generally, we live in a topsy-turvy world in which Republicans freely spend money, creating record budget deficits, while Democrats practice budget balance; in which Republicans, who thunder against big government and preach devolution of power to states and local communities, are in the process of creating the strongest state mechanism of control in the entire history of humanity. And the same applies to post-Communist countries. Symptomatic is here the case of Poland: the most ardent supporter of the US politics in Poland is the ex-Communist president Kwasniewski (who is even mentioned as the future secretary of NATO, after George Robertson), while the main opposition to the participation of Poland in the anti-Iraq coalition comes from the Rightist parties. Towards the end of January 2003, the Polish bishops also demanded from the government that it should add to the contract which regulates the membership of Poland in the EU a special paragraph guaranteeing that Poland will "retain the right to keep its fundamental values as they are formulated in its constitution" - by which, of course, are meant the prohibition of abortion, of euthanasia and of the same-sex marriages.

The very ex-Communist countries which are the most ardent supporters of the US "war on terror" deeply worry that their cultural identity, their very survival as nations, is threatened by the onslaught of cultural "americanization" as the price for the immersion into global capitalism - we thus witness the paradox of pro-Bushist anti-Americanism. In Slovenia, my own country, there is a similar inconsistency: the Rightist nationalist reproach the ruling Center-Left coalition that, although it is publicly for joining NATO and supporting the US anti-terrorist campaign, it is secretly sabotaging it, participating in it for opportunist reasons, not out of conviction. At the same time, however, it is reproaching the ruling coalition that it wants to undermine Slovene national identity by advocating full Slovene integration into the Westernized global capitalism and thus drowning Slovenes into contemporary Americanized pop-culture. The idea is that the ruling coalition sustains pop culture, stupid TV amusement, mindless consumption, etc., in order to turn Slovenes into an easily manipulated crowd unable of serious reflection and firm ethical posture... In short, the underlying motif is that the ruling coalition stands for the "liberal-Communist plot" : ruthless unconstrained immersion in global capitalism is perceived as the latest dark plot of ex-Communists enabling them to retain their secret hold on power.

The almost tragic misunderstanding is that the nationalists, on the one hand, unconditionally support NATO (under the US command), reproaching the ruling coalition with secretly supporting antiglobalists and anti-American pacifists, while, on the other hand, they worry about the fate of Slovene identity in the process of globalization, claiming that the ruling coalition wants to throw Slovenia into the global whirlpool, not worrying about the Slovene national identity. Ironically, the new emerging socio-ideological order these nationalist conservatives are bemoaning reads like the old New Left description of the "repressive tolerance" and capitalist freedom as the mode of appearance of unfreedom. Here, the example of Italy is crucial, with Berlusconi as prime minister: the staunchest supporter of the US AND the agent of the TV-idiotizing of the public opinion, turning politics into a media show and running a large advertisement and media company.

Where, then, do we stand with reasons pro et contra? Abstract pacifism is intellectually stupid and morally wrong - one has to stand up against a threat. Of course the fall of Saddam would have been a relief to a large majority of the Iraqi people. Even more, of course the militant Islam is a horrifying anti-feminist etc. ideology. Of course there is something of a hypocrisy in all the reasons against: the revolt should come from Iraqi people themselves; we should not impose our values on them; war is never a solution; etc. BUT, although all this is true, the attack is wrong - it is WHO DOES IT that makes it wrong. The reproach is: WHO ARE YOU TO DO THIS? It is not war or peace, it is the correct "gut feeling" that there is something terribly wrong with THIS war, that something will irretrievably change with it.

One of Jacques Lacan's outrageous statements is that, even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, his jealousy is still pathological; along the same lines, one could say that, even of most of the Nazi claims about the Jews were true (they exploit Germans, they seduce German girls...), their anti-Semitism would still be (and was) pathological - because it represses the true reason WHY the Nazis NEEDED anti-Semitism in order to sustain their ideological position. And the same should be said today, apropos of the US claim "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!" - even if this claim is true (and it probably is, at least to some degree), it is still false with regard to the position from which it is enunciated.

Everyone fears the catastrophic outcome of the US attack on Iraq: an ecological catastrophe of gigantic proportions, high US casualties, a terrorist attack in the West... In this way, we already accept the US standpoint - and it is easy to imagine how, if the war will be over soon, in a kind of repetition of the 1990 Gulf War, if Saddam's regime will disintegrate fast, there will be a universal sigh of relief even among many present critics of the US policy. One is even tempted to consider the hypothesis that the US are on purpose fomenting this fear of an impending catastrophe, counting on the universal relief when the catastrophe will NOT occur... This, however, is arguably the greatest true danger. That is to say, one should gather the courage to proclaim the opposite: perhaps, the bad military turn for the US would be the best thing that can happen, a sobering piece of bad news which would compel all the participants to rethink their position.

On 9/11 2001, the Twin Towers were hit; twelve years earlier, on 11/9 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. 11/9 announced the "happy 90s," the Francis Fukuyama dream of the "end of history," the belief that liberal democracy has in principle won, that the search is over, that the advent of a global liberal world community lurks round the corner, that the obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are just empirical and contingent, local pockets of resistance where the leaders did not yet grasp that their time is over; in contrast to it, 9/11 is the main symbol of the end of the Clintonite happy 90s, of the forthcoming era in which new walls are emerging everywhere, between Israel and the West Bank, around the European Union, on the US-Mexican border. The prospect of a new global crisis is looming: economic collapses, military and other catastrophes, emergency states...

And when politicians start to directly justify their decisions in ethical terms, one can be sure that ethics is mobilized to cover up such dark threatening horizons. It is the very inflation of abstract ethical rhetorics in George W. Bush's recent public statements (of the "Does the world have the courage to act against the Evil or not?" type) which manifests the utter ETHICAL misery of the US position - the function of ethical reference is here purely mystifying, it merely serves to mask the true political stakes, which are not difficult to discern. In their recent The War Over Iraq, William Kristol and Lawrence F. Kaplan wrote: "The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there. /.../ We stand at the cusp of a new historical era. /.../ This is a decisive moment. /.../ It is so clearly about more than Iraq. It is about more even than the future of the Middle East and the war on terror. It is about what sort of role the United States intends to play in the twenty-first century." One cannot but agree with it: it is effectively the future of international community which is at stake now - the new rules which will regulate it, what the new world order will be. What is going on now is the next logical step of the US dismissal of the Hague court.

The first permanent global war crimes court started to work on July 1, 2002 in The Hague, with the power to tackle genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Anyone, from a head of state to an ordinary citizen, will be liable to ICC prosecution for human rights violations, including systematic murder, torture, rape and sexual slavery, or, as Kofi Annan put it: "There must be a recognition that we are all members of one human family. We have to create new institutions. This is one of them. This is another step forward in humanity's slow march toward civilization." However, while human rights groups have hailed the court's creation as the biggest milestone for international justice since top Nazis were tried by an international military tribunal in Nuremberg after World War Two, the court faces stiff opposition from the United States, Russia and China. The United States says the court would infringe on national sovereignty and could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of its officials or soldiers working outside U.S. borders, and the U.S. Congress is even weighing legislation authorizing U.S. forces to invade The Hague where the court will be based, in the event prosecutors grab a U.S. national. The noteworthy paradox here is that the US thus rejected the jurisdiction of a tribunal which was constituted with the full support (and votes) of the US themselves! Why, then, should Milosevic, who now sits in the Hague, not be given the right to claim that, since the US reject the legality of the international jurisdiction of the Hague tribunal, the same argumentation should hold also for him? And the same goes for Croatia: the US are now exerting tremendous pressure onto the Croat government to deliver to the Hague court a couple of its generals accused of war crimes during the struggles in Bosnia - the reaction is, of course, how can they ask this of US when THEY do not recognize the legitimacy of the Hague court? Or are the US citizens effectively "more equal than others"? If one simply universalizes the underlying principles of the Bush-doctrine, does India not have a full right to attack Pakistan? It does directly support and harbor anti-Indian terror in Kashmir, and it possesses (nuclear) weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention the right of China to attack Taiwan, and so on, with unpredictable consequences...

Are we aware that we are in the midst of a "silent revolution," in the course of which the unwritten rules which determine the most elementary international logic are changing? The US scold Gerhardt Schroeder, a democratically elected leader, for maintaining a stance supported by a large majority of the population, plus, according to the polls in the mid-February, around 59% of the US population itself (who oppose strike against Iraq without the UN support). In Turkey, according to opinion polls, 94% of the people are opposed to allowing the US troops' presence for the war against Iraq - where is democracy here? Every old Leftist remembers Marx's reply, in The Communist Manifesto, to the critics who reproached the Communists that they aim at undermining family, property, etc.: it is the capitalist order itself whose economic dynamics is destroying the traditional family order (incidentally, a fact more true today than in Marx's time), as well as expropriating the large majority of the population. In the same vein, is it not that precisely those who pose today as global defenders of democracy are effectively undermining it? In a perverse rhetorical twist, when the pro-war leaders are confronted with the brutal fact that their politics is out of tune with the majority of their population, they take recourse to the commonplace wisdom that "a true leader leads, he does not follow" - and this from leaders otherwise obsessed with opinion polls...

The true dangers are the long-term ones. In what resides perhaps the greatest danger of the prospect of the American occupation of Iraq? The present regime in Iraq is ultimately a secular nationalist one, out of touch with the Muslim fundamentalist populism - it is obvious that Saddam only superficially flirts with the pan-Arab Muslim sentiment. As his past clearly demonstrates, he is a pragmatic ruler striving for power, and shifting alliances when it fits his purposes - first against Iran to grab their oil fields, then against Kuwait for the same reason, bringing against himself a pan-Arab coalition allied to the US - what Saddam is not is a fundamentalist obsessed with the "big Satan," ready to blow the world apart just to get him. However, what can emerge as the result of the US occupation is precisely a truly fundamentalist Muslim anti-American movement, directly linked to such movements in other Arab countries or countries with Muslim presence.

One can surmise that the US are well aware that the era of Saddam and his non-fundamentalist regime is coming to an end in Iraq, and that the attack on Iraq is probably conceived as a much more radical preemptive strike - not against Saddam, but against the main contender for Saddam's political successor, a truly fundamentalist Islamic regime. Yes in this way, the vicious cycle of the American intervention gets only more complex: the danger is that the very American intervention will contribute to the emergence of what America most fears, a large united anti-American Muslim front. It is the first case of the direct American occupation of a large and key Arab country - how could this not generate universal hatred in reaction? One can already imagine thousands of young people dreaming of becoming suicide bombers, and how that will force the US government to impose a permanent high alert emergency state... However, at this point, one cannot resist a slightly paranoid temptation: what if the people around Bush KNOW this, what if this "collateral damage" is the true aim of the entire operation? What if the TRUE target of the "war on terror" is the American society itself, i.e., the disciplining of its emancipatory excesses?

On March 5 2003, on "Buchanan & Press" news show on NBC, they showed on the TV screen the photo of the recently captured Khalid Shakh Mohammed, the "third man of al-Qaeda" - a mean face with moustaches, in an unspecified nightgown prison-dress, half opened and with something like bruises half-discernible (hints that he was already tortured?) -, while Pat Buchanan's fast voice was asking: "Should this man who knows all the names all the detailed plans for the future terrorist attacks on the US, be tortured, so that we get all this out of him?" The horror of it was that the photo, with its details, already suggested the answer - no wonder the response of other commentators and viewers' calls was an overwhelming "Yes!" - which makes one nostalgic of the good old days of the colonial war in Algeria when the torture practiced by the French Army was a dirty secret... Effectively, was this not a pretty close realization of what Orwell imagined in 1984, in his vision of "hate sessions," where the citizens are shown photos of the traitors and supposed to boo and yell at them. And the story goes on: a day later, on another Fox TV show, a commentator claimed that one is allowed to do with this prisoner whatever, not only deprive him of sleep, but break his fingers, etc.etc., because he is "a piece of human garbage with no rights whatsoever." THIS is the true catastrophe: that such public statements are today possible.

We should therefore be very attentive not to fight false battles: the debates on how bad Saddam is, even on how much the war will cost, etc., are false debates. The focus should be on what effectively goes on in our societies, on what kind of society is emerging HERE as the result of the "war on terror." Instead of talking about hidden conspirative agendas, one should shift the focus onto what is going on, onto what kind of changes are taking place here and now. The ultimate result of the war will be a change in OUR political order.

The true danger can be best exemplified by the actual role of the populist Right in Europe: to introduce certain topics (the foreign threat, the necessity to limit immigration, etc.) which were then silently taken over not only by the conservative parties, but even by the de facto politics of the "Socialist" governments. Today, the need to "regulate" the status of immigrants, etc., is part of the mainstream consensus: as the story goes, le Pen did address and exploit real problems which bother people. One is almost tempted to say that, if there were no le Pen in France, he should have been invented: he is a perfect person whom one loves to hate, the hatred for whom guarantees the wide liberal "democratic pact," the pathetic identification with democratic values of tolerance and respect for diversity - however, after shouting "Horrible! How dark and uncivilized! Wholly unacceptable! A threat to our basic democratic values!", the outraged liberals proceed to act like "le Pen with a human face," to do the same thing in a more "civilized" way, along the lines of "But the racist populists are manipulating legitimate worries of ordinary people, so we do have to take some measures!"...

We do have here a kind of perverted Hegelian "negation of negation": in a first negation, the populist Right disturbs the aseptic liberal consensus by giving voice to passionate dissent, clearly arguing against the "foreign threat"; in a second negation, the "decent" democratic center, in the very gesture of pathetically rejecting this populist Right, integrates its message in a "civilized" way - in-between, the ENTIRE FIELD of background "unwritten rules" has already changed so much that no one even notices it and everyone is just relieved that the anti-democratic threat is over. And the true danger is that something similar will happen with the "war on terror": "extremists" like John Ashcroft will be discarded, but their legacy will remain, imperceptibly interwoven into the invisible ethical fabric of our societies. Their defeat will be their ultimate triumph: they will no longer be needed, since their message will be incorporated into the mainstream.


© Copyright Notice. Please respect the fact that this material in LACAN.COM is copyright. It is made available here without charge for personal use only. It may not be stored, displayed, published, reproduced, or used for any other purpose.


Comment On This Article





comments gif
Well we all know that people are dying in africa , no food dying of thirst and all that . no bush and all the 1st world countries decided to help iraqis from saddam wich it was better when he was there !! Petrol is the reason of entering this bullshit war , we asked ourselfes once if there is broccoli in iraq will america go to war ?? no its petrol its not lemon or orange or whatever its petrol .. what goes arround comes arround George bush member of skulls and boes i hope you shoke to death you stupid asswhole
Raed El Ayoubi <kombass@yahoo.com>
Lebanon, - Friday, November 25, 2005 at 21:29:59 (EST)
i belive strongly in this issue i think that we should act fast in this it is very om portant to stop the war and make peace
hollie tanner <tblondebimbo@msn.com>
sunbury- london, - Thursday, January 27, 2005 at 18:43:05 (EST)
War supposed never exist in this world.
If war exist, its mean that there is individual wants to be powerful, rich and famous.
'Interrupting' other country's bussiness means that they will have 'big problems' which could led their own country memorize it for their whole life.
take care of yourself.
take care of your parents.
take care of your family.
take care of your relationship.

But DON'T you ever take care of other people business...


Ursula <chuckursula@yahoo.com>
Malaysia, - Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 03:45:32 (EDT)
Reading this over one year into the war and occupation of Iraq it still strikes me as being vastly fresher than most that's being written at the moment by those with historical-informational andvantage...needless to say, Zizek is an invaluable voice of the West..he proves to be fearless in his astute analysis of both hawkish reactionaries and liberal neurotics..we need more writing like his.
Adam Goodell <adamwillgo@yahoo.com>
Brooklyn, NY, - Wednesday, August 11, 2004 at 23:25:19 (EDT)
What struck me as the fearful insight was the position taken by the pro-Bush Anti-Americans.
I can imagine a globalized class of corporate pirates that are
anti-American imperialists with whom Bush{American Republicans} begin to side with. In other words, the inside is thrown out into the decentered reality of absolute exploitation with no nationalistic restraint--no flag. Private armies can be bought and so forth. Maybe, I'm seeing what is happening and calling it imagination--hard to be sure.

jaakko <apercu2@msn.com>
montana, - Friday, June 11, 2004 at 22:32:36 (EDT)
there is 25 million dollars for osama bin laden's head.
i already have killed him
so where is the money?
there...but so there is this process of a silly mistake about who is dead and who is not.
then they guilt you so better not to say...transexuals!!!!iupi!!!
baibai and mongolic art.
the rest goes to cdbaby and it's edited.
erase my other personalities bitte...
thanks already know your transmission for loads of time slavoj,,,where you're from?

juan_camilion@yahoo.com <juan_camilion@yahoo.com>
argentina, - Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 17:42:17 (EDT)
A well-balanced article. Zizek is not afraid to criticize even those who agree with his fundamental points if he finds fault in their means of arriving there. And it's not overtly emotional.
Rizzob <SlayerRob@yahoo.com>
- Thursday, May 13, 2004 at 18:18:42 (EDT)
this war needs to be stopped or if its not than many people is going to die. this all because of bush. he is trying to be like hittler.
Joey Kinnison <joey_classof2009@yahoo.com>
nelsonville, - Saturday, April 17, 2004 at 11:40:22 (EDT)
Zizek is a king !
Kosovo, - Wednesday, March 31, 2004 at 08:22:50 (EST)
it seems that the overarching use of psychodynamic theoretical positions belies the historical mission of the imperialising and civilising nature and zeal of anglo european/ american policicies of expansionism which over the last 400 years have created the linkages which allows nations to continue policies which are so deeply embedded in the fabric and conciousness of western "civilisation" and whose current apotheoses is with the incumbent U.S. adminstration.In a totalitising sense the narritives construted by E.Said in culture and imperialism and Orientalism still have a powerfull dimension to them which poses a binary opposition against the legacies of European construtedness.
pervaze mohammed
glasgow, - Tuesday, February 03, 2004 at 06:51:57 (EST)
I think we are spread too far...too thinly across the world....minding everyone elses business but our own.......We would do better to come home.....take care of people in the U.S.A. Education....Food....Health care all deserve to have funding with the money we have so stupidly promised Iraq and other country's. If we stayed home and did not tear up other country's perhaps we could take care of our own....Look how far that money would go.....and not have to dip into ...medicare and medicade to do it..Let them take care of their own problems......Not asked stay out......GOD FORGIVE US
D. Miller <dkpml@hotmail.com>
florida, - Sunday, December 07, 2003 at 18:55:53 (EST)
The point about using war on Iraq/terror to crack down on "US emancipatory excesses" may be true, but doesn't it show Zizek as a little too subtle, too far into the "conspiracies thinking", while dismissing this very tendency throughout the article? After all, the toppling of Saddam may as well have the effect that American officials are ascribing to it - i.e. a very cautious but also quite wide-spread welcome on the part of all the muslims, threatened, manipulated, betrayed, tortured, and persectued by Saddam...that is if, of course, we still take what we hear in the news as meaningful facts and not as "broken kettles"...
Eugene <emusica@hotmail.com>
Coventry, - Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 20:27:34 (EDT)
did you know already that I've killed Osama Bin Laden together with Hitler and Eva Brown in a silent place from Buenos Aires?
That is how the war has began

juan rogelio <juan_camilion@yahoo.com>
Argentina, - Friday, October 17, 2003 at 13:10:45 (EDT)
dustin is a terrorist! lacan is terror!

why do wars happen?


patrick <mpi_ireland@msn.com>
dustin's house, OK, - Friday, October 10, 2003 at 14:37:57 (EDT)
zizek is a terrorist!

dustin <das137@cox.net>
edmond, OK, - Thursday, October 09, 2003 at 14:57:32 (EDT)
change the name get de castro out and make it on armgard.
also ernesto guevara lynch de la serna armgard is possible.
i don' kno from where he got this lynch de la serna by thought de la serna it was me but if we realise about thought then de la serna what the hell is it?
i can't stop thinking and i am in a process of thought without any action that lasts for a period of time to get released.
also i am son of the queen beatrix wihlelmina armgard and i invented this surname armgard as she hasn't got any.
i can't avoid my responsabilities to say that the situation is more clear now:I've been kidnapped by some officer from psyquiatry and made a value on what is called joy division but they follow me and they trace me you know what i mean by ian curtis?he ended dead for england and that is not the whole version of the story what is all about but this sentence of flying out of the window from a first floor from my ap?partment by saying ok,we put a bed down and when i am down there they take off that bed and fell to the ground just for a wicked mother saying that was the end for the government of ongania i never?pretended any lies inbetween as i didn't even know ongania excewpt videla and all his pavillons of death.
what i say to you is that probably the mistake not revealed in this article is that maybe osama bin laden was around and i shot him and that is probably why there is so little action in general for not accepting what is the remedy of it all in what i see as sense in a way that we don't accept any more drugs from nato from argentina nor United States in the meaning of government yonkies there must be a million out there waiting for their provider.

ernesto guevara armgard <ernestoguevaraarmgard@yahoo.com>
buenos aires argentina, - Wednesday, September 24, 2003 at 18:14:16 (EDT)
As time goes by Zizek speaks more like Zizek less like Lacan, but still don't you hear Hegel singing within Zizek's voice all along?
And why does he presume that no-ideological voice is possible?
I feel like all his discours is pure ideology, and it is true, that he knows what he does but he is still doing it.
anyway best wishes from warsaw

rafalpraszczalek <ra-val@tlen.pl>
warsaw, poland, - Tuesday, August 05, 2003 at 08:15:32 (EDT)
The imperialistic policy of the US government, led by an ignorant, mediocre president is repulsive.

The war was the way to please his supporters, so they can produce more. The media can create a state of mass paranoya, so the people consume and buy , and focus off the point. The terorist is the ideal enemy to create a feeling of unsafe enviroment. The terorist is not a woman/man in some other country, the terorist is among us, looking to attack when we least expect it..... isnt this just a great focus for people fear and frustration. So we dont think anymore about our jobs, school in which our kids go, social politics, anything....we dont judge the politicians..... ans that is just what they needed.

Croatia, - Sunday, August 03, 2003 at 16:16:07 (EDT)
today's headlines dare to suggest that the CIA (cocaine import agency) gave wrong evidence to bush... what the fuck? also, i'm still waiting for zizek to contact me.
i have live animals...

sol neely <aporia@uaa.alaska.edu>
anchorage, alaska, - Sunday, July 13, 2003 at 00:22:16 (EDT)
I am posting from a month after Bush announcded the end of hostilities (right!) and I have just read this essay.

It is amazing that of all the writers from just before the war, only Zizek holds up. Only he doesn't have to make excuses or change the subject in the light of what has happened. He identified the only valid reason for the war - get rid of Saddam - and the only valid criticism of the warmakers - who do you think you are, to undertake this task against all history? His work is consistent and enlightening. Bravo Zizek!

Dick Thompson <rthompson10@new.rr.com>
Wisconsin, USA, - Sunday, July 06, 2003 at 19:10:10 (EDT)
I found this article very inforative and I agree with it. It always amazes me how many people do not see, or do not "want" to see what is going on. Again, you said it perfectly when you spoke of the stupid television and consumption. This is devised to keep the people boondoggled and play into their weaknesses. I believe that "capitalism" could never exist with healthy minds and bodies, and Bush is a ploy for system.
Since according to latest psychology figures over 85% of America's population is dysfunctional I suppose Bush has a great following.

Thanks for the chance to read this!

M. Walsh

Marilyn A. Walsh <mdut4254@postoffice.uri.edu>
7 Grand View Ave., Johnston, RI 02919, - Thursday, June 12, 2003 at 02:02:22 (EDT)
master of the chiasmus, always manages to confound reason, but never really takes a stand.
is he for the war or against it? does he really ask why iraq, why now?
the very essay, if you want to call it an essay, doesn't really hang together. it is instead as set of mix and match insights, that zizek, like a dj reshuffles for each new lecture or publication. it's a zizek instant analysis.
well, no matter. he's right about the times changing, the rightward shift of the "polled" populations. the rightward turn. and those taxcut and spend republicans!

pere_ubu <ubu(at-nospam-)speakeasy.net>
nettime, - Tuesday, April 29, 2003 at 20:28:24 (EDT)
1. Oil is a most important commodity and fuels US actions in the Middle East.
2. This campaign effectively asserts US hegemony or at least its supremacy in the Gulf region.
3. The moral right to overthrow Saddam or the US army/marines as crusaders.
Detractors of the war miss the fact of France, Russia and China oil interests, especially ELF/Aquitaine and Sukoil. Moreover, there is Chirac's moral bankruptcy, the bribe scandals while mayor of Paris.
Now, will US consolidation in Iraq bring some sort of settlement between Israel and Syriah, and a Palestine state, one devoid of corruption and terrorists?
What scares me, but also excites me, is the fact that maybe the Bush administration is changing the course of history, confuting Fukuyama's claim.
After all, Marx is still right.

Stephen <quinquej@hotmail.com>
Boston, - Thursday, April 17, 2003 at 22:21:28 (EDT)
Don't you love this man? It's so refreshing to read Zizek, one who realizes the equality of idiocy and contradiction from both right and left, especially in these matters. As a university student, it seems the only intelligent participants in this dialogue are often the neo-Marxist academicians, who denounce this war and participate in useless, modernist protests, without seeing its (the war's) necessity and sense.

Granted, the popular justifications for this war are unfounded (we still haven't found WMD, though we reproach the "jerks' who confiscated humanitarian aid). It makes so little sense to me how though the 9/11 terrorists were primarily Saudi Arabians, we went to war with Afghanistan, though we were really after Al Qaeda (a non-government entity), which led to war with Iraq, which is raising questions about war with Syria, even though North Korea is the only nation that is gathering WMD without reasonable doubt.

Zizek makes a valid point when he writes that dislikable US military action may have a positive outcome. It may in fact be good for the US to be so obvious in its hegemonic conquests, for it to be a little more honest about them. Maybe a little honesty will help us realize our colonial reality. As much as I hate the legions of midwestern dumbasses here with their "we support our troops" signs and blissfully ignorant patriotism, I despise the liberal rhetoric which champions France and Germany for their stances while denouncing those who have spoken to the contrary.

Clearly, France and Germany are out for their own interests (which aren't benefitted through war) while the US and its anti-Iraq allies are out for their interests (which are benefitted by war). The pretense that any nation-state cares principally about human rights, justice, or benevolent ideology is quite despicable, given that all political regimes have disregarded these principals for their own benefit at some point or another.

I join the many dissenters of war here and abroad that despise the US tactics, but i'm also honest about my participation in these tactics (willingly or not) as an American citizen. I am not so naive as to believe that my standard of living and opportunities come to me through "democracy' and the benevolence that providence supposedly bestows upon it. I live in Rome. It is Rome because we kill and exploit "lesser" nations and consume their resources and work force. As heavy as this sits on my conscience and the conscience of every participant in the neo-colonial empire, I was not one who whined about 9/11 and its tragedies. i was neither surprised nor reactionary. I saw it as another realization of the continuum of history in which Romes emerge and fall. this is not of course to suggest that 9/11 victims deserved it. Nobody ever deserves to die, in this regard. Rather, I have witnessed similar atrocities in other nations, other locations. the fact that it was americans dying meant no more to me as an american than if it were Chinese or Iraqi or Palestinian peoples. Obviously, the differentiations of these national and civic identities are arbitrary.
Still, I know that if america wasn't being an international aggressor, somebody else most definitely would be. There would be another Rome. My frustration is not with america and not with iraq, but rather with the cycle of historical indecency and human atrocity that seems to have no resolution, no end in sight or imagination.

Bowman <motionphile@hotmail.com>
Ohio, US, - Thursday, April 17, 2003 at 19:30:26 (EDT)
The word terrorism is bandied around by the left and right at will. The result is two sides accusing one another of being the terrorist. Can we agree on a sufficiently precise and flexible definition? How about 'the use of terror for political/economic advantage'. If we regard the terror created by 9/11 as a kind of currency that can enter the pyschic economy & from there be appropriated & spent by those with the reach to claim it then the above definition is quite useful. Bush has gathered the riches of terror generated by 9/11 and is at the moment spending it. The risks of increasing the likelyhood of further terrorist attacks by executing this invasion can then be seen as no risk at all but as a way of sowing the seeds for another bountiful harvest of terror in the future. The main mystery is why Al Qaida are so willing to donate this wealth of fear in the first place. Some kind of deadly exchange of gifts seems to be taking place between Bin Laden & Bush. The same thing (perhaps the original model) appears to be going on between Likud and Hamas the main beneficiary of the terror created by the suicide bombers appears to be Sharon. In both cases the main victims are not the ones who's terror is being exploited the Americans and Israeli people do the fearing, the Afghans, Iraqis & Palestinians do most of the dying for them. If I lived in America or Israel I know who I would feel terrorised by.
gordon <gordon.hon@luton.ac.uk>
uk, - Friday, April 11, 2003 at 12:58:01 (EDT)
ja <perf@l.com>
Ny, - Friday, April 11, 2003 at 03:09:40 (EDT)
what I think Zizek, and most anti-war activists miss in this debate, is that in effect there were no reasons for this war, or rather, that the war was its own reason. this is demonstrated by the sheer number of (often contradictory) reasons (As Zizek and others have pointed out) and more recently, the deaply confused and and risk-adverse (particularly from the point of view of US/UK casualties) way in which it has been fought. When Bush and Blair argue that they did not want a war I'm almost prepared to believe them, but I think they NEEDED a war. This war on terrorism seems to work to its own logic totally separate from economic (oil) stratigic (re-drawing the map of the middle-east) or conventional real-politic (asserting US hegomony) although there may be spin-off benifits in all or some of these. This is a war driven largley by narcassim and fear, we are fighting a war to prove to ourselves that we will not be frightened (by third world despots running decrepit countries, destroyed by sanctions and twelve years of bombing). This in effect is 'war as therapy', this is war to boost our self-esteem. The cause of this war can be found in the collapse of confidence in Western values that emerged at the end of the cold-war and 'end of history'. With no substantial enemy to counterpose our selves against, we have spent the last 13 years scrabbling around searching for the 'new Hitler' (Saddam Husain, then Milosivich, then Osama Bin Laden, then North Korea and back to Saddam again) We're desperate to fight WWII (the last great 'moral' war of good against evil) all over again, particularly the humanitarian left who were most eager that 'something should be done' in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Ultimately this is a crusade, not against Islam or the Arab world or for neoconservatism (although the latter are increasing in influence as a consequence of the war on terror) but it is a crusade for crusading's sake. we are fighting to prove to ourselves that we can still fight for 'moral' causes (even if they are illusionary like the threat of WMDs in Iraq). Of course, this is all very decadent, but what are the options? If we don't fight, then we are cowards who back down in the face of percived threats (like France and Germany), if we do fight we are playground bullys who pick on smaller kids (and ultimately even bigger cowards) So we're decadent if we do, we're decadent if we don't. This is the corner we've fought ourselves into (or rather Bush (Snr and Jnr), Clinton, Blair and various other liberal imperialsts) have fought us into by thinking they can create a renewed sense of moral mission for the post-cold war West by inflating all manner of puny third world despots and demagogues into the next big threat to world peace.
If this seems a tad confused/condridictory/absolute crap etc, please respond, thanks.

Donald Wisely <wiselyd@hotmail.com>
Glasgow, UK, - Thursday, April 10, 2003 at 12:13:03 (EDT)
We agree with the Article ...We forget Zizac for a moment....

The discourse that created by Media as CNN, BBC, Rouitar, MSN, Yahoo, ABN & the entire USA bias media group hate us. We should avoid the fucking media Bu?shit.
Fuck U symbolic father (Jesus, Allah, Buddha U all are JOKES)
? ?? ?W?e? ?h?a?t?e? ?t?h?i?s? ?W?o?r?l?d? ?" ?F?u?c?k? ?b?l?o?o?d?y? ?s?h?i?t?"? ??? ?P?r?i?y?a?n?k?a?.? ?&?l?t?;??p?r?i?y?a?n?k?a?@?h?o?t?m?a?i?l?.?c?o?m??&?g?t?;?? ?S?r?i?l?a?n?k?a?,? ?-? ?T?h?u?r?s?d?a?y?,? ?A?p?r?i?l? ?1?0?,? ?2?0?0?3? ?a?t? ?0?6?:?2?4?:?2?7? ?(?E?D?T?)?? ? ??I? ?a?m? ?a?l?w?a?y?s? ?d?e?p?e?n?d?e?n?t? ?o?n? ?a?n?d? ?g?r?a?t?e?f?u?l? ?t?o? ?Z?i?z?e?k? ?f?o?r his insights and humor. I do feel that he has, however, left one important 'con' out of his argument; the Iraqis were a hobbled and contained country when this war began. Why did continuing and substantial disarmament and humiliation of a former 'ally' not suffice? Isn't lying the essence of identity?

Like many, I feel sickened by the unfolding horrors of war and by the US's desperate and transparent attempts to sustain a narrative to support our aggression. May it end quickly and with a minimum of casualties on both sides. Beyond personalities and ideologies it seems an illustration of the formulation that 'the letter always makes it to its destination' - the ultimately blind drive of human enterprise and the inevitability of the return of the real in the form of symptom. And whether justified or not, I think few would disagree that this is an inevitable result of, and return response to, a 'message' we received on 9/11.

The question of what will inevitably follow next of course remains. Theory has discredited repression as guaranteeing the return, while change in the subject position toward alignment of desire and objects can decrease anxiety and the necessity of acting out for the drive.

We are a country and world in need of greater alignment and not war, and I'm very disappointed in my 'boomer generation' and it's lack of insight in a world too large to 'control' (antagonism and the drive will always be there by necessity and as an effect life itself) and with dramatically decreasing sympathy world-wide for actions that are blatantly imperialistic and driven by self-serving ideologies that can be discredited for their errors of omission and presumption, not to mention the convenience and inconsistency with which they are applied.

We are faced with another error not unlike Vietnam and its aftermath - a disaster of our own making. Our action when discredited will leave us to question our ethics and the necessity for such human sacrifice to (re)institute LAW. And if a less paranoiac and more responsible and equitable worldview does emerge, we will collectively lament our blindness and the pre-emptive doctrine with its destabilizing effects on our selves and our world.

But as Zizek warned at Deitch, the opening of the American mind after Vietnam to a less colonialist worldview has perhaps closed with 9/11. And our collective acquiescence to growing state controls, an embedded/dependent media, and extreme 'rightist' ideologies would seem to suggest a future of increasing paranoiac fortification until the real appears again from within or without to disrupt our supremacist fiction.

Rhode Island, USA, - Saturday, April 05, 2003 at 12:22:24 (EST)
We need (tm)gwar" indeed,so we in the war and are wars.
Li yejian <lyj82329@yahoo.co.jp>
Japan, - Friday, April 04, 2003 at 22:08:00 (EST)
War is terrorism on a bigger budget. Fuck the spoilt rich kid Bush. Fuck his little 'yes' man puppet Blair. And fuck 'daddy's war.


Forest Watkins <Funkymonkeyfoz@hotmail.com>
Cornwall UK, - Thursday, April 03, 2003 at 15:31:48 (EST)
Your understanding of the status quo is astounding. We can overcome this profound world order because the alienation in our western societies gives us time to reject and think about this reality tv/video game war. But what's going to happen? How is this going to effect the stability of the world in decades to come? Put your neck on the line. Tell us what will be. Imagination is more important than knowledge
york england, - Tuesday, April 01, 2003 at 07:43:38 (EST)
A fine piece of philosophic journalism.
Indeed, the war on terror is the next logical progression in the US national security fetish. Nobody started when Roosevelt signed an executive order herding Japanese Americans into internment camps. The following Korematsu v. United States Supreme Court decision defered to the military, allowing xenophobic histeria to dress in the clothes of wartime necessity.

In 50 years of precedent, the decision reverberates in Asian American race relations to this day. We created a model minority, made successful through sacrifices to the country. At the same time, we fought "low-intensity conflicts" in South-East Asia to preserve said national security. Korematsu represents a foundational stone upon which US officials built IR theory.

Last week on CNN I saw government officials at college campuses interviewing Iraqi Americans.

In the words of Gil Gott, Korematsu lies like a "loaded weapon" on the table of American jurisprudence. The Court never overturned the case. It's unlikely that new precedents set by the "Bush Doctrine" will be soon overturned either. And if Korematsu is a loaded weapon, the Bush Doctrine is a loaded weapon of mass destruction.

Evan <angusvangelder2@hotmail.com>
Spokane, WA, - Tuesday, April 01, 2003 at 03:13:42 (EST)

It all ended like this:
I realised that even from being Ian Curtis and Eldritch and had been borned in Mars from my mother the Queen from Holland Beatriz Armgard and my retarded father son of Ernesto Che Guevara (in Eastern Berlin from the communists and that is a long way home amigo);and even that if my mother was Nico NOW from The Velvet Underground first and before Brian Jones from Rolling Stones and Camilion from the process;we usually had a drink at the bar from the Bears from Buenos Aires making all sorts of bondage sex together with some allies from USA actually from Argentina but into another reality of "discovering" themselves who they really were like"the way we were"since the 60's from the Beatles till then on Sgt.Peppers;into profanation of legal tendencies of usual identity transformed into real enities from Laibach's unresponsability like yours since Juan Camilion(NSK passport EA001383)dicovered what it was all about;got into psyquiatric method later what it came out from Madonna and her judgement given to all the argentinians according to her secret law telling lies to all Berlin(from the East till now the whole lotta love from Led Zeppelin)lies or affairs from the government in Argentina,finally we did it!!!!I concreted identity in the corpus crhisty but no...give juan's a break of good luck and not misfortune,he was the real NATO and even from the Pope by John Paul II.
Ernesto Guevara who pretends to be one and that is a curse of infinity of his secret revolutionnen chatotische kunst fur alles not so easy to understand for most allies from Buenos Aires mixed with trasvesties psychologist even in psiquiatric hospitals working in discotheques and so on;which manipulated all the area from Eva Peron' film from that nazi Alan Parker and even the artists from the whole lotta love?Give it a
break!What's this article?In what world are we living on probably Che's guilt of fame into psyhquiatric methods of not telling it at the right time,they use NSK citizens and if it's a lie that this is a project for the "subversive";I'm out!;In what world according to starvation from Africa are we living in? Related to what Juan says in space die in terror,more related to The Residents than terrorists;her own relationships deprave by most of its allies which consider this much more interesting than just living a normal life that has to come on earth according to the war and for God's sake;later came revenge from this Vatican Beatle's cd from...George Harrison.Wasn't he dead?Into editing Brainwashed and we were just prepared for Whitehouse Red necrogiastic of being not discovered sexually?An artist is an artist such as pretention of Che's father to be discovered back since that poison arrest from SIDE allias WAT from George Lucas pretentions from the Ministry of Defense in Argentina nobody came back to what we were living.
Now it's the same area of being in prison and indulted criminals like me and Juan not nailed to the trees but actually the opposit.
What came down was the regime from the communists in all Europe and that was the good vibration we all came from since I broke the ship back to earth in 1993 till 2001 then later came this terrorist group from allies from USA never connected really but possibly connected to the CIA and from Berlin together with this insult from Madonna gives juan's relax but not justice into an action which everyone was into sort of following from one step till the next since WTC,right?;that was Whitehouse Red intervention with Fidel Castro to Che Guevara from psyquiatry not fertile for the girls but applied justice for you for not knowing the meaning of this all;what's this;Slavoj Zizek?Tightrope walker had another phrase which is ALWAYS SAY YES;OF COURSE YES:not mine,better;the Pope into its missiles of fertil ground in space(real space with the Sisters of Mercy and Joiy Division without telling the rest like Grace Jones and this assosiation from Juan's boyfriend U.N.C.L.E,never knew what it is its end;Roger Moore was there and also Grace Jones and that is the field of music into the Bears from Buenos Aires.
And also someone else:the whole conflict began as easy as this:
arrested by psychiatric unit from trasvesties lying into the pretention that what you were believing it was true:then accidental failure in George Harrison's under arrest clinical failure(I should be dead)for a while came to life album together with John Bohnam arrested in gay agony;then later the chamaleon giving us a surprise of military strikes of opera soprano and so on then came the SAMPLER and that's the regime:criminals which often represented by thread of psyquiatry but this time in a system of death already categored in Ministry of Defense by NATO guilty of war in Yugoslavia for weapon selling in Argentina into several failures in the government for making money out of the ass from the world:the communist threads of tribal wars(same as the 70's in Argentina;but "let them be" think that way;see where it comes).
Arrested into mortal habit of conquering the snake out of a chameleon dance(trasveti,ok?) against rave and gay power,now considered for the United States as a result of a failure,right? Into darkness failure of unknown notice:that was all a lie what came out of secret power from UN:then later 26 days in nazi webs interpretations and the rest the drug tranquilizer of gestapo for not to saying who were you according to what you feel and not according to your paranoia even,operated in the skulll and given a present:Adolf Hitler's ring into my brain's coagulation(that was Eva Brown's ring from the wedding inside a brain operation given by unlucky deal by the government from Peron;Juan Domingo Peron to save your ass and if it's guilty then the rest have it for you(don't know what it means:"it's ok?"sort of managing that way from Videla and Baltazar Walter Ramos Mejia and if that is your future that's back to the future by unlucky star connection.)
Suddenly I woke up and ended in a Holocaust in which we were all supposed to become as to be participants of a war that could never exist out of our minds into the media and multimedia elements of warfare:that's internet:now it has been all shut down all the doors even Al Qaeda had its response in Christ;he was there;Slavoj,for the guilty price of not editing what was before from the Ku Kux Klan which are managing into rave psychedelia from Frank Sinatra giving us a chance to see all these UNDEAD really?At the same time all this unconcient beliefs from virtual diseases to see from where they were coming from:from Wat's album;and it was really an action from the past sentence.
But what we are managing is sort of a judgement and all the Argentinians went directly to the pit or spot,aim or blank:to fight United States and consider this judgements from Irak as relevant actually over there there was THE NEST of all terrorists from whatever it is called mankind since mother earth,later through some manuscrits given by the Pope John Paul II from Vermiis Misteriis,the Apocrific Books,Book of Eibon and Nostradamus prophecy revealing it all chaotische kunst,right?
I think that was all for us but still managing to see until where and when this will go and on and and on...death?Juan's death or victory?I don't believe in victory it's a fascist symbol of war(Al Qaeda).This Southern Will will achieve its goal;until where United States will tolerate all this and better to say until when or where this all will be over and soon otherwise...kaputt?Without being just an admirer of psyhologists; pain in the ass for not revealing as good as enough what Madonna has lied,John Foxx,and even Laibach into solidarity with unvolunteer arrests with no moral;guilt and the worse of them all:war.

ernesto guevara de la serna lynch de castro armgard <ernestoguevara000@hotmail.com>
Buenos Aires, - Saturday, March 29, 2003 at 15:27:02 (EST)
There can be no talk about victory in this war, regardless of the outcome. There will be the living, and there will be the dead. It was clear from the start that it was a collision course all along, however, this war was lost already -not in Irak- but in the UN security council. The greatest challenge that this conflict conveyed was to prove whether the world can have a hope for peace and order through the UN, which failed miserably because of the grand stupidity of the French veto. Yes, there would have been war anyway, but the message would have been: "Because of the firm resolve of the democratic UN council". The UN would have acquired a place as the world's great - regulating Other. The world would have said: "Even the US strikes after being GRANTED PERMISSION by the UN". But no. The world is as medieval as it ever was, and the US as arrogant, tyrannical and foolish.
Jai Delgadillo <jdmiranda@mail.com>
Leeds - UK, - Friday, March 28, 2003 at 13:43:35 (EST)
As ALWAYS! the irrepressible Slavoj Zizek does not fail to provide the necessary twist--the single clue--the one ingredient, as he writes in "Two Ways to Avoid the Real of Desire," that "functions as a stopgap, as a filler holding the place of what is necessarily LACKING in it"--in this case, to expose to our critical gaze the constitutive lack and the necessary "false solution" of the Bush administration's surplus of reasons justifying war (a paradoxical & simultaneous lack & surplus): that the surplus of reasons for war exposes on the exterior a fundamentally & internally flawed epistemological LACK around which we are all mobilized & coordinated--the warning being, then, not to fight false battles, not to uncritically claim ethical legitimacy while subsequently & unwittingly reproducing America's "ethical misery"--there is indeed much to learn from this article... I hope Zizek will make contact with me.
Sol Neely <aporia@uaa.alaska.edu>
Anchorage, AK, - Friday, March 28, 2003 at 12:45:42 (EST)
I was very impressed by this article to see the present conflicts and crisis of the world, especially the war between the U.S and Iraq.

Now I doubt the power of the U.N as the arrogant Empire U.S behaves like the almighty God.
Still it's complicated what to trust and what vision to have for the better world.

I live in a small island Okinwa, a key stone of the Pacific so it's called. Between the U.S and Japana,a defect protect of the U.S, Okinawa remains as it used to be, pressured by them.

Okinawa's globalization has started from the tragidy of the land battle during the World War
II. And war always comes in to our daily lives because of the huge bases. I just hate the situation.

Why can't we talk and talk to solve the problems?
The beginning of the 21st century could be the same like 20th century? It should be changed.

But how? Just all things make me depress.

Shinasaki <yonaha31@nirai.ne.jp>
Okinawa,Japan, - Friday, March 28, 2003 at 11:17:14 (EST)
I begun to like time when it sided with me, as an advantage, some edge. If I wanted to be Muslim, perhaps I could, have the joy of a wife draped, a mother at home.
Kelvin Masters
Solaris, - Friday, March 28, 2003 at 00:44:43 (EST)
We're at war. Deal.
Plano, Texas, - Thursday, March 27, 2003 at 03:20:40 (EST)
What is narcissism without the over my fence fuck you step back. Somehow the UN was invited to unravel the Klein knot etc. Yawn at the foreign threat.
Conrad Milford
Baton Rouge, LA, - Thursday, March 27, 2003 at 00:11:50 (EST)
I attended the Zizek lecture at Deitch Projects and I have to say that how he spoke and what he spoke about was more impressive than this static piece, though he did touch upon these subjects above. What impresses me about Zizek speaking, beyond his gesticulations and sweaty exuberance, is his ability to provide a subtext by mumbling, his asides, and so forth, which give a greater sense of his ideations than his somewhat constructed written works.
William Faraday
New York, NY, - Wednesday, March 26, 2003 at 17:38:56 (EST)