> > So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling. > > This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor > does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.
All men have the equipment for rape. Does it give all the women to shot dead any man they happen to dislike at the moment, as "preemptive strike"? Where is the line between the necessary defense and an unruly aggression today? > > George W. Bush is a raving lunatic, barking at the moon, lying through his > > teeth, and dragging the nation into another Bush family war. > > Ad hominem attacks against the President are irrelevant to the current > discussion. Is it an ad-hominem attack, or a disclosure of a sensitive secret information of national security nature? > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people > are behind him. Howmany of them rely exclusively on domestic news? How many of them don't have time or will to get informations from non-US-controlled sources? How reliable their opinion can be? Who controls the media controls the masses. What influence this rule has on the mentioned 70%? Who does the polls? What are rules for the polls? Is there a compensation for Republicans being generally more likely to respond on poll questions? What exactly was the poll question? The number is suspiciously high in comparison with what I hear from my friends. > By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government. Let's disband the > police and military and see how long the US lasts. Just wait until the society as we know it collapses or degenerates. Alternative security forces will spring up; some militia-based, assembled from survivalist-kind of people, some corporate, resembling current private security forces, but with licence to kill. US will last, at least as its name, just transformed. > The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid. Whether the US is > a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective. The aid is administered or withheld as it suits to current foreign politics goals. > Damn those free elections! Why can't we just agree to let you pick the world's > leaders? Problem solved. Supply only the candidates that will not go against the Current Foreign Policy and appropriately pro-US slanted Free Market. Domestically, offer only the candidates of the Corporate Party, better known under the names of its factions as Republicans and Democrats. Make sure the barriers of entry to the game are so high that nobody who isn't member of this Party or at least isn't deeply enough entangled has any real chance. > > Justice in the Middle East would be Sharon, Netanyahu, and two generations > > of the Bush family hanging in downtown Baghdad. After a fair trial and > > due process at the hands of the International Community, of course. > > This kind of statement works a lot better for Tim than it does for you. Israel occupies large areas it acquired by hostile means in direct contradiction to international law. Military actions in these areas suspiciously resemble state-organized terrorism. It owns large stockpile of nuclear weapons, there are rumours of biological research aimed to find genetical traits specific for Arabs, suitable to develop racially-specific biological weapons. Why there are no US missiles and bombs raining on Tel Aviv? Seems Moses was smart. Those forty years spent cruising Middle East, searching for the only real estate there without oil underneath, surely weren't wasted.
