Activism and Politics > Politics

Well said.

<< < (2/7) > >>

Alexandra:

--- Quote from: Leigh on March 18, 2006, 01:14:56 am ---I am more terrified of our present admin than any threat of external terrorism, our elected terrorists are scarey enough.

--- End quote ---

Exactly!  If terrorists want to invade the country, let them! We're a country of gun-toting Americans, they're not gonna get far -- we've a decent chance to survive with our freedoms intact. But for us willfully letting our leaders terrorize us, I'm embarassed.

Teri Anne:
Alexandra, you said, "But for us willfully letting our leaders terrorize us, I'm embarassed."

Michael Moore has said that is exactly the M.O. of this administration.  Scare us and we'll agree to anything.  Just make us safe!"  It kind of backfired on Mr. Bush, of course, in regards to the ports deal.  He'd taught us to be scared and now doesn't understand why we are being soooo paranoid.

A decade ago, I was a libertarian who prized independence and freedoms.  I wanted government OUT of my life.  Then, as I transitioned, I came to realize that government was helpful in discrimination issues and keeping cigarette smoke out of my face.  The Bush administration is pushing the envelope, making war within independent countries while, at the same time, urging that Christian beliefs be part of our government laws.  I get wanded and frisked by airport security screeners while, at the same time, the huge cargo areas of the planes get filled with uninspected boxes.  I thought there was a rule that if a ticketed passenger isn't on the flight, his luggage gets removed.  What about the shipped boxes?  A bomb is a bomb.

Every explanation I've heard about our system of safeguarding our ports seems unbelievably prone to danger.  This is what they tell us:  The port security and coast guard inspect MANIFESTS before the ship arrives.  If the ship is coming from a questionable country or company, the containers get inspected.  Are they kidding?  Is a terrorist going to put "bomb" on the manifest?  Is a terrorist going to ship his bomb from a country that he knows will draw suspicion?  No and no.

From the same group who helped bring us the GREAT FLOOD of New Orleans, we have more homeland insecurity.

Next:  The wars.  I've always been anti-war but, if there's to be one, is this really the right way?  Has it occured to anyone that this guerilla war in Iraq and the world is not a war that can be won by standing armies?  It's the same thing as what happened to the British during our Revolutionary War.  The redcoats marched in nice straight lines and the Americans shot at them from behind trees and big boulders.  If we must have armies to fight in a country that ACTUALLY asks for our help, we should convert part of our armies to covert plain clothes operatives (yeah, I know -- that can be troublesome, too.  Remember Chile?  And, of course our skins don't blend in too well in some parts of the world).  Driving an unprotected huge Humvee up a street is like waving a bright red flag in front of a bull.  Only, in this case, the bull is smart enough to lay bombs in the road rather than risk his neck.  If we HAVE to fight (which is up to debate, of course), why do we do it in such a fashion that poor kids come back missing arms and legs.  It's so sad.  My best answer to the war thing is to take the high road -- The U.S. shouldn't kill people.  If I was a villager in Iraq, I'd be angry, too, if my wife and kids were killed by an American bomb.  It's not like the old days where we could blame a certain country.  I know many will disagree but I think we should use war only as a defensive posture.  Imagine what $200 billion could have done in terms of protecting our ports and national security.  Instead of rebuilding war-torn countries, we could strengthen and beautify our own.  Instead of the world looking at us as an ogre, maybe they would fight with themselves.  It'd be nice if they stopped but people have tried for centuries without success.   

Is it the same country that brave soldiers died for?  In certain respects, yes, but those tenets are fleeting.  The chief thing we have, thanks to genius thinkers like Jefferson and Franklin, is a wonderful contract with citizens, the Constitution. 

While Mr. Bush and his administration try to renegotiate that contract, his approval ratings go down and down.  See -- there is some good news.  People are coming to realize that a country that gives up its freedoms for safety has neither.

Teri Anne

rana:
Terrorists have no desire to invade, - they just want to terrorise - for all sorts of reasons - as the only way to reply to an invunerable enemy, to distabilise and cause fear to the extent that their perceived enemies back off, to spread an unpalatable ideology.  Innocents will die and the cure is more or less what the US is doing now, we just have to wonder if the cure may be worse than the disease.

It always used to bug me as a child to read about the American revolutionary war (yes I am Australian, but as Australians we always considered ourselves evolved children of the British Empire Commonwealth (watching the Commonwealth Games now, they are excellent :)  ).  Always thought it unfair/cowardly how the American revolutionaries would run away from the British and then when out of reach of bayonets and musket fire, would snipe away with their long rifles.  If it was not for stupidity of the British high command, you would still be part of the Empire I mean Commonwealth :) - geez imagine what sort of a world it would be instead.

As for the middle east, Iraq, Afghanistan - its a pity Mr Bush and the US joint Chiefs of Staff did not read and ponder on Rudyard Kipling's poem "Frontier Arithmetic"  the British were over in those places a generation or so earlier & could have told anyone that there is no quick fix  :(

Teri, what you are suggesting about converting part of the army - sounds awfully like creating a Secret Police. - they would be very effective but not necessarily a good idea at all.

George Orwell was a genius his books Animal Farm & 1984, are extraordinarily powerful - but always make me very depressed & sick to the pit of my stomach.

Now this post did not set out to prove anything ,  I hope I am not ranting here :(

rana


Kimberly:

--- Quote from: Susan on March 17, 2006, 05:01:27 pm ---Anyone wanna answer my question on this post? Come on I know someone is out there just itching. What is your personal threshhold before your patriotism is triggered and you finally speak out and say no more!


--- End quote ---
All right.

When I am ready to take up arms and fight and die for what I believe in.

Susan:
From the same people who brought us warrantless electronic surveillance US News and World Report has evidence that the Bush administration argued that the same justification for warrantless electrionic searches could be used to allow warrantless physical searches. One lawyer who is defending a terrorism suspect has reported that both their home and office were broken into and searched without a warrant. attorney client privilege anyone? This is an innocent American; a defense lawyer who these warrantless searches were used against, not a terrorist or suspected terrorist. Basically that's the last remaining blow against what used to be the 4th amendement to the US Constitution.

We will hopefully find out more in the next day or two. Once again I ask you all, exactly how much is enough to get you all to say no more.

More info can be found at the links below. I will try to add a link to the US News report when it's published.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/17/23535/7214
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/17.html#a7564

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version