May 05, 2003
She was the only woman at the table in all those Saddam videos. She's the only chick in the deck of 55 Most Wanted members of the regime. (She's the 5 of Hearts.) Now Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash is in U.S. custody. As one of the top biochemists in Iraq, she's going to be an interesting factor in the non-event of WMD investigations. And maybe it's a gender bias I have, but I just can't see women running chemical attack strategies on innocents. I really *do* think if women were running the show, there'd be less war, better healthcare, and birthday cards sent from the I.R.S.
Posted by phrisky at May 05, 2003 12:24 PM
Also: loved this quote from Rummy: "I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country," Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday." Will there ever come a moment when they just have to say they were wrong?
That Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, the Rwandan government "minister of rape" reported in a NYT magazine cover story a few months ago, she was a bad egg. So to speak. Also, mustaches, which seem to be an early warning might-be-a-genocidal-autocrat system, cannot be grown by most women. Which gives them a certain amount of stealth in that arena.
I loved the Hitler/Stalin/Saddam mustache profile in the Week In Review. Who was the last US President with facial hair? TR?
I wonder if women are no more or less cruel/heartless/genocidal than men, but due to the glass ceiling, they just aren't represented in the same proportions in the tyrannical despotic field.
Livia, Augustus' scheming wife, wielded vicious power in ancient Rome veiled behind a veneer of demure femininity. I'm sure there are others...
Nice recall on "Pauline Nyiramasuhuko," Hirmes.
I find depressing that you both think that women -- put into positions of power -- would basically create the same cruel and sinister regimes as men. one of the reasons Pauline Nyrialksktrshdjmsd was on the cover of the NYTM was because it's incredibly rare (and therefore counterintuitive) for women to be at the helm of violence. i just have to believe women, as the caretakers and cradles of the race, are less inclined to kill -- except in self-defense. i have no "facts" to support this, but invert your glass ceiling argument and you find one just as plausible: women don't want to climb the ranks of the tyrannies because the work of violence doesn't interest them.
moustaches are not the root of evil -- only the root of naughtiness.
the last president with any good* facial hair was TR. Gore grew *something last year that looked horrendous.
Oh my god I feel like I'm in the 19th Century with this gender/evildoing conversation! Of course I (somewhat smugly) think that if women ran the world it wouldn't be this violent...but I also believe that women and men are not so wildly different in their fundamental human nature.
Or maybe you're all just joshing.
And I like that we're pretending that Gore was a president.
I have so little to contribute these days, because I am in Berlin, or Bohemia to be more precise. My online minutes are still precious, as opposed to the rest of my time.
So all I want to know is, who´s phrisky? There´s a high lob of a joke there, but I´ll settle for facts.
Gore looked totally cute with that beard.
Phrisky looks good with his beard, too.
Here's someone who's convinced that women have simply been denied the opportunities to "exhibit the type of evil and cruelty that men have had the opportunity to exhibit in genocide and mass killings." I know I jump at every opportunity to exhibit my psycopathic tendencies. After all, I have a penis.
Or perhaps it's that women are simply more successful killers -- inconspicuous, avoiding suspicion and capture, for the obvious, 19th century reasons.
you have to be kidding about gore. his beard looked like the stuff that sticks to the bottom of a pier.
and i'm for beards.