Well, will Bush declare a war on "nature" or God? It makes about as much

[bribri16]

sense as the war on terrorism.

[getmeouttahere]

1. And remember, at one point...

BushCo has even said they want to rid the world of evil, as if that is even remotely possible. BushCo's very existence is case number one in that argument.

[dethl]

2. He can't declare war on God...

He's gonna keep the Fundies on his side. He'll just declare war on nature with something like a "Leave no tree behind" kind of bill.

[Kashka-Kat]

3. WORDS & manipulation

even stranger is when they drop the "ism" and just use the phrase "war on terror."

If terrorism is the instilling of fear and terror on people in order to manipulate and control them-- then who all is guilty of THAT???

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. Yeah, but why should that surprise you?

Didn't his father, the biggest heroin smuggler of the 20th century, bring us the "War on Drugs"?

[WilliamCash]

6. really?

I never heard that Bush's dad was a heroin smuggler. Really? Tell me more!

[klyon]

9. shock and awe you mean?

Is it terrorism or is terrorism only a tactic of the powerless.

KL

[Kashka-Kat]

11. actually I was thinking of us

right after 911 the world was sympathetic and on the verge of totally marginalizing and discrediting the so called "terrorist." There was talk of using vast network of international resources & personnel to track down these criminals and prosecute them.

but the bushies took care of that, they militarized and inflamed the situation and drove in wedges and elevated the "terrorist" from international criminal to be persued and prosecuted, to iconic "enemy". The resulting "terror" I believe is meant to manipulate and control us here in the US as much as anyone else...

Let's call it "terrorism by proxy."

re "terrorism" the dictionary simply says
"1. the use of terrorizing methods 2. state of fear and submission so produced 3. a method of resisting a government or of governing

I don't know if statelessness is necessarily a part of the definition but the Bushies certainly want us to make that distinction-- one's violence is somehow legitimate and the other's is not...

[Booster]

5. I don't understand why the true believers in Christianity can't

connect the dots and see that God is declaring war on Bush. Since they think Bush was chosen by God, then I think God has decided he made a mistake and wants him outta there. If this isn't God's wrath, then what do they believe is?

[wli]

7. and the "war on drugs" too n/t

[Drum]

8. I think he'll declare war on Nature

After all, he's nothing if not unnatural, why not anti-natural? Besides, there's the scripture parts that man will dominate Nature &tc.... For bush and his: more snowmobiling and drilling in the nat'l parks, and we're gonna hafta do something about those skies. The sky is too damn clear, that's why we can't see the storms and such that threaten the security and liberty of this blessed nation. Riiiight?

[Viking12]

10. Nature...

He's already sent up some trial baloons...

The Bush administration, whose pro-business policies on climate change have long rankled environmentalists and U.N. delegates, has done it again. The United States is pressing to scrap a proposal to have world leaders gathering in New York next month express "respect for nature."

That phrase was included in a draft statement of principles to be agreed to by 175 heads of state and government attending a Sept. 14 United Nations summit on poverty and U.N. reform. The statement invited leaders to embrace a set of "core values" that unite the international community, including respect for human rights, freedom, equality, tolerance, multilateralism and respect for nature.

The offending phrase would place no fresh legal or financial burdens on U.S. taxpayers, but the Bush administration voiced concern that it would distract attention from the main goal: reforming the United Nations.

Ric Grenell of the U.S. mission to the United Nations said the phrase "is too broad a subject, and if we had to define the multiple ways the U.S. government respects nature, the document would be too long and way off its original intent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501662.html