Comments on: Creepy

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 30 May 2006 12:20:18 +0000

Well, I wouldn’t worry about the epithets that tin-foil neocons hurl at you.

I think the cold war provides a guide to action. Through most of that period, the cold war appeared to be never-ending, with several proxy wars (Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan) being fought in its name. The US didn’t become a police state during that period. Indeed, the end of American apartheid was arguably hastened by the cold war and the use of anti-segregation criticism as a political tool by the Soviet Union.

Of course, US freedom during the cold war did require vigilance. For this reason, I continue to be a big supporter of the ACLU.

By: GoldenAppleCorp

GoldenAppleCorp — Tue, 30 May 2006 12:26:23 +0000

Ok, if you’re comparing our War on Terror with the Cold war, then would the period we’re going through right now be similar to the determined patriotic air of the early 1940s? Or are we not as blindly optimistic as Americans seemed to be then? Would this period be more in tune with beginning of the Vietnam war, when people realized that their government didn’t always know what it was doing and didn’t always do what was in its people’s best interest?

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:05:39 +0000

Nah, more in line with the Korean war, before everybody started getting really pissed off and stuff. But if political cyclical history follows social cyclical history, you’ll see the duration of these trends shorten (hopefully).
I agree with whatshisname in the article, tho, in that this is more akin to the war on drugs. The cold war had, if not a face, then at least border lines, where this war on Terrar is everywhere. It also had evenly matched opponents, where this is like a bird vs. an anthill.

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:25:39 +0000

Analogies are tricky things. The analogy between the “WoT” and the Cold War is its global scale and lack of any defined endpoint (terrorism has always been practiced by humans, and it will never be eliminated). The analogy breaks down on closer inspection in part for the reason AT alludes to: the USSR and its allies were states, and al Qaeda is not an instrument of any state. Indeed, the idea of a “war” on terrorism is kinda silly, since terrorism is not a state but a methodology. As such, it cannot be defeated by military tactics but it can be contained by good international police work. That’s why the Bush Administration’s insistence on alienating our allies is self-defeating. We depend on France and Germany (as well as the other nations of “Old Europe”) to do the necessary police work to ferret out and arrest the criminals that practice terrorism. Ultimately, we will require the assistance governments of the ME and asia, but many of them (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan) are currently contributing more to the problem than to the solution.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:34:09 +0000

Wired has a good article in a similar vein, but its just so much preaching to the choir.

In response to you, Joel, its evident to anybody with a brain that Bush is looking out for his terms. The policies he initiated should have kept him (and probably will keep him) out of hot water personally for the rest of his political career, and to hell with everybody else. That was evident in the nuclear arms treaty, the kyoto treaty, the idiotic tax refunds and runaway spending, and this silly war.