August 24, 2006

Speaking of "Non-Democratic" Alternatives...

The problem is that the Bush-Blair-Howard camp have never clearly explained a plan for “winning” their self-professed “war” on terrorism. They warn that this “war” could go on for another 50 years or more - they even call it “the Long War” - but they never explain how it will eventually be “won”.

In fact, there is really only one way to achieve such a “victory” and that is to create a global Police State. Even then, terrorists would flourish between the cracks of CCTV surveillance and dob-in-a-neighbour fearmongering. Still, I do not think it unreasonable to ask the Bush Fascist Consortium if such total government control of all areas is their ultimate goal. If not, what?

Bush has already broken numerous laws in the USA, including the NSA wiretapping (which continues today BTW). His Attorney General, who is more intent on breaking the law than enforcing it, says the Geneva Convention is a “quaint” anachronism. Bush explains that loss of civil liberties is inevitable because “9/11 changed everything”. Blair and Howard nod dumb agreement.

Now even the neo-con mouthpieces at IRAQ THE MODEL are calling for their own Democratic rights to be put on the shelf for a while in Iraq:
It is true that the constitution of Iraq guarantees the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of practicing religion but when practicing these rights means putting people's life in danger and worse as it may escalate already exiting tensions then these rights need to be put on the shelf for a while.
Logically, where is all this heading?


Blog Archive