When Bush first announced his "war on terror," I remember thinking that it was strange to declare war on a noun. But as time wore on and Bush started letting it slip that this "war" would very likely never end... I couldn't help but think back to 1984.
In case you haven't read it, the pertinent part is that the world is divided up into three areas, and they're kept in a constant state of war, to keep support for their government high. The media are merely trumpets for the government, parroting exactly what they're told to say. And as long as the war goes on, people will do exactly as they're told. Sound familiar?
Osama bin Laden may or may not be crazy, depending on who you ask. I personally think it's a lot nicer to sit down and talk to people with whom you have a disagreement, rather than ram planes into prominent buildings.
(Or, for that matter, bomb an already war-torn country farther back into the Stone Age to chase out a government you once supported against the Soviets, only to have them retake control of most of the country within a couple of years, and then move onto another country that had nothing to do with the original conflict, but had a lot of delicious oil underneath their ground. But that's just me.)
NO, Bin Laden is NOT crazy: he is a sociopath. Crazy means you don't think rationally. A sociopath reasons that using murder will accomplish his goals. A charismatic sociopath can talk other people into suicide missions for his cause.
Just make sure he is bound up like Hannibal Lechter before you sit down to talk to him.
It is refreshing to know that you at least realize that Bin Laden is more likely to blow something up than talk.
Unfortunately most leftists want to think that if they just brown nose the terrorists that everything will be fuzzy bunnies and cute deer singing in the forrest.
1984: well, wouldn't it be nice if the media would play ball with this administration?
Previously supported: Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We also supported the USSR when we were both fighting Germany. Things change.
Oil? Who controls the Iraqi oil today? If you say USA you are sadly mistaken.
Well... bin Laden may or may not be a sociopath, again, based on who you ask. The West is pretty convinced he is, on the whole, and I'll support that diagnosis.
The sticking-point -- or at least what I've seen from mainstream media -- is when people ask, "Why would someone want to do this to us?", it's construed as, "We're at fault, blame America first."
Democracy is all about questioning, examining, and debating. But as soon as one floats the "why us" question -- at least after about September 14th-ish, 2001, when the talking-points were drafted and vigorously stuck-to, to this day -- it very often degrades into a curt "You're with the terrorists" retort.
Because I question the Bush administration's choices in dealing with the aftermath of 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, and its general Middle East policy, that certainly does not make me "side with the terrorists."
Does that make me an enemy? And does that make my other enemies -- ostensibly bin Laden and his ilk -- your friend? Obviously not.
This is not black and white; shades of grey rule the world. Dubya, on the other hand, seems to espouse a very simplistic view of the world. Whether he actually sees things this way, or is merely acting that way such that the average politics-ADD-addled American can understand, I don't know. (It sure played well in 2004, though.)
And about 1984... I think you may have missed the point. The key thing there is that, in a state of war, peoples' civil liberties -- the foundation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- can be taken away, and people can be coerced into thinking it's alright, it's for the greater good.
But if the state of war never ends, when do people get their rights back? You wouldn't want to "give in to the terrorists," right? Because if taking rights away is a weapon in fighting the so-called "war on terror," then giving those rights back would be kneecapping yourself, letting the terrorists win, right?
The opposite of a fact is falsehood. But the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.
- Niels Bohr, physicist
Commenting by HaloScan
