[extropy-chat] Tyranny in place

[Samantha Atkins]

On Oct 15, 2006, at 6:45 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Samantha writes
>
>>> So you see (as you explain below) that any inconvenience to
>>> Al Qaeda that occurs overseas  is just a side-effect of a
>>> government grab for more power?  Would you try to make
>>> that argument apply to America in World War II, the Civil
>>> War, Korea, and Viet Nam?  Or is something different now?
>>
>> I don't believe Al Qaeda is or ever was a significant enough  
>> problem to
>> justify what has been and is being done in this idiotic war on a  
>> form of
>> asymmetric warfare.  Bush has repeadely even lowered the priority of
>> finding bin Laden.
>
> Why was the bombing of Pearl Harbor any different?

Actual country with clear war like intentions.  Clear definition of  
victory.  Formal declaration of war.  How was it all that similar?   
How is the question relevant?

>
>> Do you think Al Qaeda are the end and be-all of terrorism?  Do you  
>> think
>> it is remotely possible to ever find and "bury" all cells of any such
>> organization?
>
> No, on both counts.
>
>>  Bush and most of the administration claim this war is
>> never ending.  The people should have been up in arms and soon as  
>> this
>> was claimed.  But no, most of us bring our freedom and our money  
>> gladly
>> to Washington to protect us from the B-A-A-D and E-V-I-L endless  
>> menace.
>
> Am I to infer that you don't think Al Qaeda attacks on the West.it  
> will
> be endless?   You suppose that they'll just fade away over time?

Bush declared this is a never-ending war, not I.  I don't believe it  
is or should be a "war" at all.  I think we will have a lot less  
terrorist attacks if we refrain from some of our more asinine foreign  
entanglements and get out of Iraq.  Whether people want to hear it or  
not the US has been asking for major blowback in the Middle East for  
decades now.  We will not and cannot eliminate terrorism by turning  
the world into a complete police state.   Personally I would not want  
to inhabit that kind of world even if such measures actually could  
remotely be workable with deep enough total surveillance.


>
>>> One thing that is more dangerous now than in any point in
>>> Western history is the huge size of the bureaucracies, and
>>> their self-sustaining agendas. Far more civil rights were
>>> abrogated during the Civil War and World War II, and
>>> in effect in World War I, than now, but it was easy to pull
>>> back once the menace was contained.
>>
>> Yep.  Which is why a "war" defined as endless is hideously dangerous.
>
> You are perfectly correct.  The world is not in a good state peace- 
> wise  :-)
>
> But look on the bright side:  in terms of per capita deaths, this one
> looks to be one of the gentlest in history.

In terms of damage to fundamental rights and freedoms and the growth  
of unchecked power it is very dangerous.  I don't see much bright side  
to the near total perversion of US concerns by the terrorism trump card.


> The only long term question
> is whether the war will gradually fade away, or escalate to total
> conflict once Hispanic North America and Moslem Europe lock
> horns.

Now that image cheered me up.  :-)

- samantha