On 15 Jan 2003 at 19:59, Robert Seeberger wrote:

>             John le Carr�
> 
> 
> 
>             America has entered one of its periods of historical
>             madness,
> but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse
> than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous
> than the Vietnam War.

I'd compare it, actually, to the era of prohibition. America...is 
looking inwards. I felt that it would happen under Bush, but 9/11 has 
caused it to to be more extreme and sudden than I was expecting.

The idea...of an iron wall in cyberspace between America and most of 
the rest of the world is no longer so laughable a notion. Quite a few 
sites now have pages which you have to clickthrough "I am not 
American" to get to, to cover them against American laws and the 
American courts.

> have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the
> freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being
> systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and

*snorts* I never quite saw the "freedoms", but I agree civil 
liberties are being erroded.

>             The religious cant that will send American troops into
>             battle is
> perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has
> an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions.

It's because - IMO - you have a supposedly clean split between 
government and religion. The topic *CAN'T* become a mainstream issue 
"because there's a split". It's admitedly not so much an issue in the 
UK, but in Israel's it is perhaps *the* issue. Perhaps moreso than 
the Palestians, but that's another story.

>             In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the
> ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating
> them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that "somebody" was
> Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: "That man tried to kill my Daddy." But
> it's still not personal, this war. It's still necessary. It's still
> God's work. It's still about bringing freedom and democracy to
> oppressed Iraqi people.

Yes, and Yonnie Netenyaho (sp) was killed at Entebee, and world 
opinion is currently casting Benjamin Netenyaho - his brother - as a 
potential peacemaker in the current political enviroment if he 
becomes Prime Minister of Israel again. The press are like that.
 
>             Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its
> neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass

I'm not even gonna TOUCH this. With a bargepole.

>             The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in
>             all
> this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it.
> He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice.
> Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't
> get out.

He's a weasel. Allways has been.
 
>             It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has
>             talked
> himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can
> lay a glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's:

Actually, the lib dems ARE knocking chunks out the Labout vote. The 
conversatives showing is, admitedly, pathetic.

>             Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he
>             will
> drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had
> ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more
> democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN.
> By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and
> the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke
> unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos
> in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign
> policy.

Welcome to "cleaning up the mess which America created in the first 
place when they backed Saddam versus Iran". Deal with it.
 
>             There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in
> without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the
> special relationship.

I'd be PERFECTLY happy with that, frankly.
 
>             I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head
>             prefect's
> sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties
> about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how
> he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault
> on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf

Yes, we'd be better off hitting Syria to hurt terrorism. I agree.

*shrugs*

You can't give a madman a gun and expect him not to use it. We should 
NEVER have stopped before Bagdad in the Gulf War.

Andy
Dawn Falcon

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to