Two days in a row I’ve woken to Republican rhetoric on the the radio. Two days in a row it’s filled me with the need to contribute in whatever small way I can. Yesterday I didn’t manage to get a coherent idea together to make it worth posting. I can’t promise today is any different.

Apparently one should support Bush because Kerry wants to “outsource national security” , letting Paris tell America when her homeland needs defending. The speaker would prefer that Bush decided when America needed defending.

1) Once again, the implication that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11. In what sense was attacking Iraq a defence of the US Homeland? From the outside world, it looks like the USA is swarming, like someone hit a bees’ nest with a stick and the bees are out stinging the bejeezus out of whatever they can find.

2) Part of what makes a nation civilized is respecting the concerns of others. When Americans wax lyrical about terrorists threatening the free world, they miss the point. In the CIVILIZED FREE WORLD people are not held without charge, trial, or representation, especially not citizens of other free world countries. In the CIVILIZED FREE WORLD countries don’t just march on other countries. In the CIVILIZED FREE WORLD, it is considered BY FAR preferable for another country to tell you what to do, than for your own leaders to tell you what to THINK. Guantanamo Bay and the incidents at Abu Ghraib show that the humanity America seeks to be defending is already being eroded.

3) “Freedom” is such a powerful word in America. Why is this? Brits don’t have the same passion for freedom as Americans, but, apart from the overcrowding on this small island and the consequent need to constantly accommodate one another, we are amongst the free-est thinkers in the world - the most tolerant of different views. I have a terrible feeling that American “Freedom” really derives from the war of independence - freedom from the former colonial masters. Metaphorically, America is still a rebellious teenager who is still enjoying the novelty of being able to do just what the older, “grown-up” nations forbid.

Finally, the speaker made the point that “Kerry would rather appease and control terrorism, rather than hunt it down and destroy it utterly”. This was of course met with war-like whoops and yells.

Let’s examine this one for a moment. It’s easy to figure out how to hunt down and destroy tanks, countries, armies… All you need is bigger or more tanks and armies and a bigger country. How to you destroy terrorism? Same way you bomb discontent? If you are REALLY REALLY smart and have better technology and more power than even the USA can currently muster, you could probe everybody’s thoughts, home into the ones who are having feelings of anger and resentment, and blow them up. That could quickly go exponential though, as the friends and families of these … er … subjects … would no doubt feel somewhat resentful and angry.

Ok. I don’t know how to destroy terrorism. But we’ve seen a great way to create some. Method: Find a culture that is different enough to your own to make communication a challenge. Bomb the crap out of it, remove its leader then expect the population to want all the same things your own culture holds dear. When you build up enough resentment you will have one of the following: a world war, a guerrilla war, or a resistance. What you get depends on how utterly you outgun the … er … subject … and its allies. When you have millions of people without tanks all blaming some foreigners with tanks (rightly or wrongly; what’s relevant is only that they blame them) then they do not have many options. Ask the foreigners to leave and get ignored… riot, an get shot… or sneak a few bombs in here and some poison in there and make it difficult for the foreigners. What do you have? Some would call it a terrorist.