Peace is Not the Absence of War

The NY Times editorial on 12/24/06 nailed it when, after stating the obvious that you can't declare war on a tactic (such as terrorism), they summarized why George W. and his cronies don't get it. It's not a "state of war" - it's the new face of peace, with eruptions in different parts of the world, over specific local concerns. This has been the state of the world 'at peace' for at least the last 20 - 25 years. People are fighting for ideas, and you can't win a guerrila war by throwing arms and armies at the guerrilas.

It's also nice, while on the subject of George W. and cronies, to thank them for 'inventing' the concept of 'global terrorism'. Where was George when Carlos and the Red Brigade where working their magic in Europe ? Hmm... was that when he was a managing a baseball team, or what he in a stupor duing those years ? Or maybe, he hadn't yet learned how Team Bush could make a buck or two from terrorism.

It's also about time the British took some responsibility for the whole situation in the "Middle East". Starting with their colonial empire, through their reign between the two World Wars, the British have shown colonialism at its worst (is there a 'best of colonialsim' ?). Put up a puppet government, don't be suprised at what happens...