I seem to have posted this in the wrong area as a comment rather than a blog...
Baudrillard discusses deterrence in a manner that parallels the Iraq war and would support Moore's acquisitions on Bush. For Bush to justify a war which, according to "Fahrenheit 9/11", is unjustifiable, Bush would have to idealize the American war effort to some degree. Here, the claim of weapons of mass destruction elevates Iraq to a more "even" playing field with the United States as the dissemination of said WMD's subsequently makes Iraq a threat and distances our attack on them as the big bully on the playground threatening the small kid with allergies for lunch money. Deterrence is a great way to gain power from fear--and after all, Baudrillard does state ‘the ultimate end of politics… is to maintain control of one’s own people by any
means’ (71).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Be sure to adhere to the length requirements, Brendan -- this falls short.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your thoughts, why do you think it is -- if it is indeed true -- that this stuff works so well on us? We live in the information age, we are more educated than ever (by some measures), and yet we succumb to fear and to allowing our government to embark on an unjust war? Aren't we as responsible as Bush? Could he conduct a war if no one would fight, or if even a third of US citizens hit the streets to protest?