[lit-ideas] Re: History
- From: David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:07:12 -0800
A brief elaboration.
When the U.S. president declared war on terror, I thought it was
hyperbole. Now I see it as an enabling act. In a contemporary war,
all that is not proscribed by law and some of that which is, is
permitted. War gives limited permission to break rules. George Bush
wants to be seen as a "can-do," decisive kind of guy. Either you're
"with" him, or you're "from another planet." So what will George,
whose poll numbers are low but who is more likely to be motivated by a
sense that he wants to achieve what is "right for America," likely do?
Something decisive. Something strong. Something that is very close to
being within the rules. Something that stops short of invading a
country as big as Iran, but which interrupts the development of Iranian
nuclear weapons. Something like an escalation of rhetoric followed by
an air strike on an air defence system, followed by an strike on that
which the defence what set up to protect.
Who knows?
David Ritchie
Portland, Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
