Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ohioman
Go to hell, I mean Berkeley. This is war bud. If you wanna sing Kumbayah join the Girl Scouts.

And the demeanor you exhibit helps the war *how* exactly?

National unity and confidence is not enhanced by intimidation of those who have issues others refuse to address.

A calculated, effective and porportially appropriate response to the terror threat is the proper one, it is in our nations interest that an overzealous, unfocused response is not conjured up by blind-rage and special interests.

It is like we are being convinced that the proper thing to do is go pound on the ant-hill because we have been bitten by a couple of the ants. It is appropriate to ask ourselves 'who wants the dent in the sand of the ant-hill' and does that desire in those persons minds influence the rhetoric and decision-making process. Does it distort thier personal rationality and assessment?

99.999% of the people in the US as well as the world detest terrorism. It is patently absurd to assume that a dissenters concerns are driven by a traitorous hidden agenda.

People on the left deserve as much credit for putting aside party ideology as the people on the right. It is a hard thing to do, things like that largely are beyond our true concious control.

And that is the very issue when I talk about special-interests. There are those whose interests are furthered by a big war response, and those whose are furthered by a lessened response. The point is to understand that thier minds are naturally going to seek out justifications for decisions and stances that support thier interests, even when they conciously try not to.

It is a potentially fatal mistake to simply ignore that reality. If we do not attempt to assess it and factor it out of our decision making process we will not be able to reach the best decision.

This is a difficult task, beyond doubt, but if we permit and even advocate its suppression with intimidation, ridicule and hate the backlash will only further muddy the waters and foment distrust, confusion and disunity.

You can ignore reality, but reality will still inflict the consequences of that decision.

In a murder case we do not let emotions undermine the process that determines justice, nor in war should we allow our own fever to inspire an execution that is not the very best we can formulate.

I don't want to sing Kumbayah nor should you want to condemn a fellow American to hell for raising issues that they believe deserve consideration in determining the best path for the WOT.

As best I can accomplish it, my heart is pure and my mind clean -- I am not engaging in self-inflicted frenzy or blind commitment.

I am doing my best, and I understand your reaction though it is uncivil and exaggerates my position. But I cannot endorse it -- I have to condemn it NOT because it is uncivil or overblown, but simply because it is counter-productive to what should be our mutual aim: Protecting America.

83 posted on 08/09/2002 9:39:24 AM PDT by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: mindprism.com
There was an article posted here last week wherein it was shown that the patriot act laws enacted in concert with ashcrofts requests, ostensibly ONLY for the war on terror, were then used to take para military types of action against NOT related drug users (to the islamic jihad types) after hours of testimony by state leos that these "patriot act" types of laws would specifically NOT be used in drug war policies.

The "special powers" that the feds be requested to be made for terrorist only operations have apparently been redirected to drug abuse and support enforcement issues...

Not that those are not important, just that in general Governments always lie about WHY they need more power and then LIE about how it will be used... until they have it, THEN they say "hey, we should have had this power all along, LOOK how it helps in these other areas too!!!" (gasping and fawning in awe of the now indispensible new powers over citizens).

Gattica isn't coming. It's here.

and it is apparently okay if governments lie to us about the powers they want to use or misuse, as long as 51 percent perceive that they are benefitted somehow by the abuse at a later point in time...

Of course raising that as an issue, is often just cause for being painted as one of those dreaded libertarian, druggie, pervert or homosexual, drug dealing, gun owning, long haired, bead wearing, aging hippie types.

What ever happened to the concept of LIMITED government being a conservative ideaology?
131 posted on 08/09/2002 3:22:00 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson