I would bet that if you only had that title, given recent events, you would think this post was about the capture of Hussein.
Nope. This is in response to the reactions -- as in mixing baking soda and vinegar, or lye and sulphuric acid -- by the Angry Left (Democrat(ic) Underground).
Some reactions are so unbelievable. DU has to sometimes go in and edit or erase some of them before they become too widespread, like being quoted verbatim by Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh. I did manage to get some from Right Wing News, and here are just a few:
· To me, it's obvious that Bush is far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, especially if he has another four years to destroy my country by trying to transform the republic into an empire.
· The benefits of capturing Saddam seem vastly outweighed by the increased danger posed by Bush insofar as Bush's reelection chances are enhanced by the capture.
· In my view, what is good for GW Bush politically is almost necessarily bad for America and the world.
I also think that it is absurd to allow one's feelings for the troops -- who voluntarily chose to join America's hyper-aggressive war-machine -- to determine one's analysis of policy.
· The timing of this thing just seems way too convenient. Bush, down in the polls - having to face questions not just about the war but also about the economy and our international standing. Dean, riding high, starting to attract the NASCAR dads the media thinks are the key to this election. Even Bush's media events are torn to pieces as the shams they are.
· Then suddenly, we *find* Sadaam Hussein. Trot him out as a spectacle for the Roman masses, throw his generals to the lions and look into the corner to see if Emperor Georgie gives him a thumbs up or thumbs down....
· If you have any respect for international law, you'd be against Saddam's capture. He may be an evil man but he should be allowed to run his country the way he wishes to run it.
· If you're happy about his capture...you are pretty much happy that we had the war (we wouldn't have captured him otherwise).
· There is NO good from this war...only suffering.
· Bush could cure cancer and I'd still hate him.
· The Iraqi people had to live under Husseine and now they are worse off with Bush. I'm sorry for the American people who have to live under Bush. I'm pissed.
But one particular reason the left likes to throw out there really stirs something in me. It isn't just that Bush is a Cowboy. I take that as a compliment. It's that they view him as a vigilante. An outlaw.
How dare he not get permission from the UN!
This is what is so confusing about the Angry Left. This is what leads to conspiracy theories. Maybe you've heard of the "loyal opposition." It's the "good-cop-bad-cop" scenario, only multiplied. It works even better, because everything the establishment democrats do is anathema to the Right Wing, and everything the establishment Republicans do is anathema to the Left Wing.
The useful idiots of the left wing, the ultra left, protest everything that is capitalistic, and they throw around terms they don't understand and can't define (e.g. facist, racist, Nazi, conservative, democratic, etc.) In fact, to use logic in debating a subject makes you a racist or a conservative or a Nazi, in their eyes. To the left, when the government is in the hands of their opposition, it is Hitler's Germany. To many on the Right, when Democrats are in charge, they are working hard to make us a socialist nanny state. Which is correct.
And don't bother pointing out any hypocrisy. I am biased. I was raised in a family of "progressive" democrats. I'm like David Horowitz.
But there's more to it than that. I know for many of you everything in this post up to this point is old, old news. I needed to do an intro into my main point. That being; the move toward One World Government is really a serious problem.
When I was a kid, there was still a lot of anxiety about the Cold War (WWIII), and the possibility of nuclear holocaust on a global scale. This caused a lot of people to think seriously about their mortality and eschatology (the study of end of the world prophecy). When I was a teenager and heard Christians talk about one man rising up to control the whole world, and that no one would be able to trade without special permission, it just seemed so ludicrous.
But we didn't have the internet, or microtechnology, wireless phones, satellites that can count the dimples on a golf ball from space. Computers that process trillions of calculations per second. Nanotechnology in which circuits can be built not from etching on silicon wafers, but by placing individual atoms onto "circuit boards" hundreds of times smaller than we have now.
Ted Kazcinski was an insane genius. I think he knew where this was heading. Like in the movie, "Enemy of the State." (Interesting side note: If you watch the movie, pay close attention to the scene where Gene Hackman's character pulls up the computer identity of the evil NSA director, played by Jon Voight. Note the date of birth)
I've been watching this "frog-in-the-pot" syndrome for some time now. It really scares me how people love all their new gadgets and technology and completely disregard the danger that it represents. I recall the time I saw a commercial where a shady looking young guy walks into a grocery store and blatantly walks down the aisle stuffing items under his trench coat, then walks right past the "detectors" and just outside the door the security guard stops him; "You forgot your receipt."
The purpose of the commercial? To get us ready for the day when some chip is going to on our person that will allow us to enter a store, be immediately identified, scan and track everything we buy, deduct the amount automatically from our personal bank account, and we should just be soooooo happy about the convenience.
Think about it. If it is a chip, a piece of hardware, the only way to make it nearly impossible to steal would be implanting it in your body. However that's not foolproof because