Subject:
|
Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:23:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
796 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > > If true, I would view that as a rather apathetic outlook. ;)
> > >
> > > Not at all! I'm quite upset about it, but I still recognize the futility.
> > > I suspect that many of My Fellow Americans feel the same. "Apathy" suggests
> > > that we don't care, when in fact we do (some, very strongly). I know you're
> > > semi-kidding (hence the wink), but I wanted to underscore the point.
> >
> > apathetic (adjective): lacking interest or energy; unwilling to take action
> > esp. over a matter of importance
> >
> > Perhaps (the collective) you just does not care enough? 32% of my countrymen
> > support an attack on Iraq. I’d bet half of them could not find it on a map.
>
> "Care enough" is hard to quantify, but I really don't know what the
> average citizen can do. Even organizing a rally or a letter-writing
> campaign seems unworkable in the timeframe available, and we've already seen
> that Bush is happy to detain protesters who don't wholeheartedly support
> him. In addition, since the "will of the people" was flatly ignored in
> 2000, it's hard to imagine that the chief beneficiary of that stolen
> election will respond now to the will of the people who didn't elect him.
> Your point about the 32% is quite valid, alas. I live in Pennsylvania and
> once asked a 22-year-old woman where New York is, and she said "about three
> hours away." So then I asked her what the capital of Harrisburg is, and she
> said "come on--you know I don't know that stuff."
... and it appears Bush's geography is little better. The other night he said:
==+==
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or
biological weapons across broad areas.
We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions
targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems
aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required
are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to
deliver it.
==+==
These "UAVS" are based on Polish 1950's jet trainers which have a basic range
of less than 400 miles [1]!!!!!!!! However, all is not lost. The 'opinion'
column in my paper today would have me believe the American public is not so
easily duped:
==+==
Mr Bush's attempt to liken Iraq to the Cuban missile crisis, and his
transparently fatuous claim that it might send unmanned aircraft to attack US
cities with biological and chemical weapons, will only add to this public
unease, to a burgeoning wariness about the president's motives and judgment.
Such hyperbole simply scares the children. It is not leadership in the
Churchillian style so admired by Mr Bush. It is mere demagoguery. As Americans
bring their innate common sense to bear, Mr Bush would do well to talk less and
listen more.
==+==
See the whole thing here:
Out of step on Iraq - Bush should heed the US public's worries
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,807168,00.html
As an aside, us Brits don't like Bush comparing himself to Churchill.
Especially when one remembers that it was Republicans who were most against
getting involved in WW2.
>
> > > If non-conformity results
> > > in the loss of one's job or respect or well-being, or if non-conformity
> > > causes one's family to lose such things, then it's a bigger issue than
> > > simply running with the crowd. The Bush administration is desperate to make
> > > this a polarizing litmus test while simultaneously pretending that they're
> > > doing no such thing.
> >
> > Are you saying being "anti-war" can cause you to directly loose your job, or
> > are you talking about the longer-term economic case?
>
> My bad. I was actually referring to members of congress who have urged
> caution and/or restraint during this whole thing. They've been roundly
> condemned in the (so-called liberal) media, and I'm confident that the issue
> will be used against them during the forthcoming elections. That's why it's
> so funny to me that Bush et al accuse the Democrats of politicizing the issue.
> At the level of private citizens, I have no problem at all in voicing my
> objections to unilateral military action against Iraq and have written "my"
> rep about it.
*respect*
Scott A
[1] The UK "dossier" claims this is the L-29 Delfin:
http://www.warbirdalley.com/l29.htm
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
