"Of course the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country"
This quote by Herman Goering more or less says that the public can always be brought in line by saying there is a major threat that we are facing, and anyone who doesn’t jump on board a policy is either ignorantly optimistic or putting people in danger.
I’m not denying that terrorism is real, but it has only been 1 1/2 years and terrorism is already being used to justify the war on drugs and the war with Iraq, neither of which has anything to do with terrorism. I say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism because Bush & Rice’s opinion on Iraq were the same in 1998 as it is in 2003. Regime change. And because the CIA says there is no link between Iraq and al quaeda.
Besides, if the gov. was purely concerned about government sponsorship of terrorism we would be worried about Syria, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan etc as much as Iraq. But we aren’t we are singling out Iraq. Sudan, which has clearer ties to Al-Qaeda terrorism, also has a chemical weapons program according to the Center for Non-proliferation Studies. Yet they aren’t even considered an issue when it comes to state sponsorship of terrorism.
My point is, will the war on terror debase itself and become nothing more than a scare tactic used by democrats & republicans to scare the public into supporting their political agendas which have nothing to do with terrorism? The Goering quote above seems to show that all you have to do is claim a threat is near and say the only way to neutralize the threat is to join side X. Support for your position will be very strong after that. Its only been 1 1/2 years and the administration is already using terrorism to justify 2 government policies that aren’t really terrorism related. How many policies will pass off ‘fighting terrorism’ as a motivation in 10 years?
Will this be a good thing or a bad thing? i’ve watched Bill O’Reilly compare people he doesn’t like to being a terrorist (stalkers, child molesters, drug dealers) and i feel it cheapens the meaning of the word terrorist. It makes it into a buzz word so people can add emotional leverage to their agendas.
I guess i feel it cheapens the meaning of the war on terrorism, and makes intelligent debate harder as anyone who disagrees may be passed off as putting everyone at danger.