"But the world isn't like that"

[vze422fs at verizon.net]

on 10/16/02 9:55 PM, Terrance at lycidas2 at earthlink.net wrote:

> 
> 
> jbor wrote:
>> 
>> on 17/10/02 2:05 AM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:
>> 
>>> No need for Americans to get this worked up, is all.
>> 
>> ... Because you're safer than people in Israel? Is that your argument for
>> giving terrorism a free hand?
> 
> The USA is certainly safer than Israel. Recent acts of terror (Oklahoma
> City, NYC, Washington, etc..) prove that we are more vulnerable and more
> a target than  we once were. People in the USA are very much aware that
> we are not safe from (domestic or foreign or some combination of these)
> terrorism. However, people know that we are not Israel or Germany or
> Ireland or Colombia. This is a pretty obvious point: we are safer.
> But, since both the threat and the reality of terrorism are now greater,
> most people feel that we need to combat it more aggressively.
> 
> The USA is a world power with interests and properties and trading
> business partnerships, financial institutions, investments, military
> bases, allies, citizens working, and so on, in every corner of the
> world. How should it protect these?
> 
> 
> Has what the Bush administration, the Congress, the States and
> municipalities  done made the USA safer from terrorism?  Or has it made
> us more vulnerable?
> 
> Is the cost (constitutional liberties, financial, cultural) of what the
> Bush administration, the Congress, the States and municipalities  have
> done to make the USA safer from terrorism too high?
> 
> What role should the USA (not a nation in decline but a superpower) play
> on the world stage to combat terrorism?
> 
> What is the Bush policy/strategy? What is the philosophy or the ideology
> behind it? 
> 
> President Bush's new National Security Strategy offers a bold vision for
> protecting our Nation that captures today's new realities and new
> opportunities. 
> 
> The Iraqi regime's violation of every condition set forth by the UN
> Security Council for the 1991 cease-fire fully justifies -- legally and
> morally -- the enforcement of those conditions.
> 
> Preemption is not a new concept.
> 
> (Rice bends the language here because she is talking about something new
> and not something old. this is, I think, the most troubling assertion
> the Bush administration has made thus far)
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021001-6.html

"In real life, power and values are married completely."

This is truly frightening.

It's like listening to Anita Bryant sing "Onward Christian Soldiers"