early morning thought.

Bush and company want me to believe that because of the threat of terrorism, because "everything has changed" that the patriot act is necessary. You see, in these dangerous times we need to take some drastic measures. We have to give up some freedoms and be a little totalitarian in the face of this dangerous threat....

Then I started to think about how the US has just taken down one of the only non-islamic states in the Mid East.

That got me to thinking. If the patriot act is acceptable because of the threat we face from islamic fundamentalism, what the hell would we have to do to sustain a non-islamic government if we were Iraq.

What sort of Draconian tactics would bush and co decide were necessary if we lived the reality of having massive numbers of pro-fundamendalist population (ok, for the sake of this arguement ignore the fact that Bush actually represents the right wing religious fundamentalist faction). How closely would we resemble the oppressive regime of Sadam?

Does running a non-islamic govt in a society that is moving towards fundamentalism require a certain level of brutality? Did we really fuck up that badly, taking out the only thing standing between Iraq and yet another right wing fundamentalist regime? One that partly used brutal tactics to defend the idea of a secular society...

I mean think about it... what would we have to do, how brutal would we need to be to remove the religious fundamentalists out of political power in the US...

just a thought...

now for some coffee.