In a message dated 2/13/03 1:04:43 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
> Are we willing to give up our way of life?
>
Which aspect of our way of life is it that you want to save? Unlimited access
to products that make our 'life-style' more convenient (SUVs, etc.)?. Not at
the cost of the blowback that likely will ensue from this war. No, thank
you, ma'am.
Our 'liberties'? Putting aside the fact that in the age of happy news and
advertising these liberties are largely illusory despite the best wishes of
the framers of the B. of Rights, Ashcroft is willing to abridge/incinerate
them in order to get what he and his ilk have wanted all along: a racist,
totalitarian power. As lunatic left as that sounds, you're not too
open-eyed-observant if you can't see that it's true.
Of course Saddam's a dangerous nut. Bravo for recognizing that. Hell, his
best friends and closest advisors think that. Are there other methods
besides what Uncle Rummy has in mind? Certainly there are, and if you think
they are unlikely (ie expanded surveillance, a real alliance, international
intelligence cooperation, some sabre rattling, real negotiation, and other
civilized measures), at least admit that Bush has zero interest in exploring
them, for the simple reason that the cost of the war goes directly into the
pockets of the defense contractors (wonder who they are? Carlisle Corp. etc).
They want this moolah, so they want this war. To say nothing of the oil
interests. They get obscene defense spending and oil, and abridged civil
liberties, and the impression to the rest of the world that if you look at us
cross-eyed we'll pay a visit (Wolfowitz-wet-dream).
No, it wasn't a military coup that put this fool in office, it was a judicial
coup. Please try to deny that the Supreme Court had no justifiable
jurisdiction in the Fla. case.
And DPearlman: Liberals, whatever the hell that means anymore, have no need
for this lesson. It's the same lame mindless dither that pretends to be
felt argument. It's nonsense, and now it's dangerous.
Jay Anania
|
