We are safer but there will be more attacks. You guys seem to forgot that 911 happened. Do you think if we did nothing after 911, then they would never attack us again? Do you think if the entire world actually went into Iraq with us then we would not longer be attacked? You guys are not living in the real world. Not only are we killing them, we are going after the money. They will recrute more players, but probably the money won't be there as much as it was in the past. So, we are safer then.

Paul,

i hate to ask this but how can the world be safer when there HAVE BEEN more attacks and how can America be safer if there WILL be more attacks? How is it possible to square that circle?

We are in a war in case you have forgotten. It is happening over there not over here. Hopefully we are at the swamp and are draining it. It may or may not happen over here. We cannot put our heads in the sand.

Paul,

Put down the talking points and answer the question.

WHow can we be bothe safer, both the US and the World, when terrorist actions have dramatically increased and Bush is saying "we are in danger"? Please square the circle.

Paul,
Are you going to circle the fucking square or not?
Fucking neo-con Bushovite

Paul,

Are you going to answer?
Fucking Bushkovite asshole

Paul,

just wanted to assure you; the above posts are not mine. They are the ravings of a weak mind to cowardly to post his usual identity. Were able to actually answer the post he would not need to cower behind such tactics.

Well fuckhead, what's it going to be?

i see that some illiterate jackoff is trying to disclaim my challenge to you, fuck him.

TO- TOO- TWO

I hate it when stupid assholes fuck with my blog.

John,

To anyone who's had half a conversation with you, it's obvious those aren't your posts.

Paul --

I have to ask, do you think that the only way to "fight" terror is with more terror?

Also, you say that "you guys seem to forget that 9/11 ever happened."

So then, can you tell me if you believe that invading Iraq is to prevent future terrorism in the States?

johanna,

you are too kind.

Johnhp and Johanna - Yeah, those posts are not you John because you would not use that kind of profanity. Invading Iraq, to answer Johanna's question, is part of the War on Terror. We are not figthing terror with terror. Do you believe that all wars are terrorists fighting terrorists? The terrorists seem to have come to Iraq - I say - bring 'em on - let's kill all of them. Or, we could have them over for tea and talk about our differences. "Johanna - I love you."

I wish you guys could see past your hate of Bush, his religion, his protecting the unborn, his supposedly destroying the environment (what a crock), the 2000 election, and understand that what we are doing is right. War can be good. War has stopped slavery, fascism, communism, and the Crusades kept Muslims from taking over all of Europe in the 1000 ADs. Hopefully we will make the terrorists more afraid of us then we of them. They only respect strength, not weakness. Liberals bring only weakness. I miss the old Democratic party, the party of the little guy, instead of the rich Hollywood elites.

Today's headlines at newsmax.com -

Gen. Franks: Iraq Had WMD in 2003

Retired Gen. Tommy Franks tells Sean Hannity that Jordan's King Abdullah and Egyptian President Mubarak told the U.S. Saddam had WMD. "A number of other leaders in the Mideast told us he had them, too," Franks says. "If you were president of the United States, could you avoid paying attention to that?"

Paul,

i really appreciate the fact that you understand that i would not be abusive even while i do hold conservative feet to the fire.

You still haven't answered the questions. What's the deal? How is it possible to be at once safer and in danger?

As for fighting terror with terror, perhaps you should become more familiar with the facts. Look at the people we have been holding at Aby Ghraib. many of the women had done nothing wrong but were wives or children of wanted men. They were/are being held until those men turn themselves in. That is a terrorist act. The military command admitted that between 70-90% of those in our custody in Iraq were guilty of nothing. We needn't even bring up the torture at BIF or the deaths at Abu Ghraib. What about the use of cluster bombs? All of these activities are used to do one thing instill terror. Two words: shock; awe.

Regarding Tommy Franks claims. They are based onm statements allegedly made by Mubarak and Abdullah not on the state of intelligence at the time. According to the UN Iraq was within six months of compliance (at most); this was confirmed by Kay who made two remarks. First there were NO stockpiles of WMD in Iraq after 1998. These were destroyed in Gulf 1 or the 1998 bombings or by the regime. Second, no WMD had been moved out of Iraq.

Tommy Franks can make any claim he chooses; the question is whether or not the claim has substance. Our best evidence, the Kay report, says no.

Paul fit so many GOP/Rush Talking Points into a single post, it's difficult to know where to start (and stop), so I'll choose just a few:

"Hopefully we will make the terrorists more afraid of us then we of them."

But obviously we aren't, because Worldwide Terrorism is up, not down, since we began our "War on Terror". The facts simply don't back up your "hope".

"They only respect strength, not weakness."

Again, that would be belied by the numbers. But of greater note here, where do you get that idea? Because Rush Limbaugh told you so? Or are you an expert in Middle Eastern Philosophy/Social Sciences?

You're, clearly, relying on the "conventional wisdom" that your radio idols have instructed you. The same ones who said "they" would be joining the US in this effort once they saw that we were serious this time. Of course, we're still waiting for all of those Arab Nations to join the US' efforts.

"Liberals bring only weakness."

More talking points. Dull and short-sighted, and of course, wholly untrue. But whatever.

"I miss the old Democratic party, the party of the little guy, instead of the rich Hollywood elites."

Heheh...Rush/Sean/Savage/O'Reilly in full swing! They say it, Paul believes/types it!

By the way, what does "elite" mean, Paul?

I wish you could get past your idea that we don't like Bush's policies because they are bad, wreckless and dangerous policies. Has nothing to do with "hatred for Bush" or whatever else you parrotted by way of insulating yourself from the very real problems and failures of the Bush "Presidency".

Brad
(Writing via someone's wireless connection that happens to reach up to our 10th Floor hotel room at the Sands in Reno! Keep up the great work Guest Blogger Boyz!)

Paul,

I believe that invading Iraq is DEFINITELY fighting terror with terror. As John pointed out, there are many innocent people who died in Iraq. I don't believe all wars are terrorists fighting terrorists, but this one definitely is (and MANY of them are/were).

"Or, we could have them over for tea and talk about our differences. "Johanna - I love you.""

Sorry, I don't understand how the love part ties into the whole thing.

Why do you believe it's either kill or be killed? Why couldn't the States spend all their energy making SURE to

1) Capture the actual perpetrator (aka Bin Laden) bring him to trial and watch him rot in prison.
2) Ensure that another terrorist attack does NOT occur on their soil.

Why isn't that enough? Why is going after some random country and killing random innocent civilians (and thousands of their own patriots to boot) a better solution? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

I just can't help think that if I were in MY home, living MY life (I only have ONE of those by the way), and some soldier marched in and killed me and MY family because *HE* believed I was evil (cause God told him) I'd be pretty pissed!!!!!!!

Can't you put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute?

"I wish you guys could see past your hate of Bush, his religion, his protecting the unborn, his supposedly destroying the environment (what a crock), the 2000 election, and understand that what we are doing is right."

This has nothing to do with my hate of Bush. Yes. The man is not in my good books, but I was NEVER a supporter of war. Not before Bush and CERTAINLY not after.

"War can be good. War has stopped slavery, fascism, communism, and the Crusades kept Muslims from taking over all of Europe in the 1000 ADs."

War stopped slavery because there were racist people. If people weren't racist to begin with, if people didn't think they were superior to other human beings, there wouldn't have to be slavery and there wouldn't have to be war. THAT is my point. John, I'm curious. Do you agree with me?

"They only respect strength, not weakness. "

There are other ways of showing strength than going and killing people Paul.

"Johanna - I love you" are lyrics from a song, that's all. You are just anti-war, no matter what! Just light some incense, smoke some weed, and "give peace a chance."

Oh, but now that I think about it..I like Brad's comments even better....

I'm curious to know what your response will be Paul.

Paul..I'm confused. Are you trying to insult me?

Of course I'm anti-war! I didn't realize this was a bad thing...

I guess where you come from being Pro-War is "cool", huh? Machine guns, death, blood, gore, suffering...all cool?

Johanna,

"Why do you believe it's either kill or be killed? Why couldn't the States spend all their energy making SURE to

1) Capture the actual perpetrator (aka Bin Laden) bring him to trial and watch him rot in prison.
2) Ensure that another terrorist attack does NOT occur on their soil."

The chief reason is that acheiving both of these goals isn't enough.

Capturing bin Laden, while a big step, wouldn't be enough. As it has been well documented, global terrorism is not Al-Qaeda Inc., but a loose affiliation of regional groups. And when (if) we capture him, I can assure you he'll be rotting six feet under, not in prison.

And ensuring another terrorist attack doesn't occur will include, unfortunately, fighting battles from time to time. Unless we are willing to simply sit back and let these organizations hit us first.

A hypothetical: Iran has unsealed their centrifuges (this is real). We find out sometime in 2007 that they have created a crude nuclear device. Iran has sponsored terrorist organizations for over 25 years. They supplied the 9/11 bombers with clean passports. Do we wait to see what Iran does with that bomb? Or do we hit the nuclear facility where the bomb is and level it?

And I don't think anyone is "Pro-war." Just that some people recognize that, dependent on the situation, you do have to go to war.

That said, I don't this this war needed to be fought at this time.

Teddy,

isnt the more realistic scenario something involving Pakistan? i mean they have nukes and the ISI created the Taliban and MMP is poised to win the next election. It doesnt look good.

I think both are realistic. But I think Iran is more immediate. Iran did indeed just break those seals, and their antipathy to us is obvious.

I think Pakistan, even with the Taliban/ISI connection, is still more oriented towards India.

But do both bear watching? Oh yes.

Targetted strikes on a nuclear facility in Iran are one thing. Not unlike Israel's strike on Iraq's facilities back in the 80's (70's?) Or Clinton's strikes on Iraq in '98.

Going to war, occupying a country, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians and Americans is quite another thing all together.

Yes, war is sometimes necessary. But as should be this year's campaign slogan: It's the judgement, stupid!

So Teddy, it is DEFINITELY kill or be killed for you.

Thanks for your post, but I passionately disagree.

With the Iranian example you give, it is obvious that to survive, you're completely willing to kill others.

What if the roles were reversed? I really urge you to put yourself in someone else's shoes for 30 seconds. What if China (hypothetical) decided to be "pro-active" & invade the States because they suspected you were hiding WMD too? How would you (as an individual) feel if you were tortured and killed over somethig that has nothing to do with you? It could very well happen. If the States keep butting their nose in other people's property , eventually a few of them are going to get pissed and start killing again.

Or even better. Think of it this way. You find out one of your neighbours has a gun. So do you go and shoot him in the middle of the night, just in case he was ever planning to use the gun?

Do you get what I'm saying or should I elaborate? It's exactly what you just said about Iran.

What if your neighbour just wanted the gun ? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's right to have the gun, but I can equate your point of view with this example. Do you think it's fair that you invaded your neighbours' property and killed him for something you never really knew for sure?

WHat if you have a gun too? A lot of people in the States have them . Should we go around and kill them all because we're afraid they might use them someday? No.

I'm sorry but I'll never understand how you can so nonchalantly talk about invading countries without realizing that REAL people's lives are at stake. This isn't a video game. Just because YOU aren't affected by it , doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I hope you will understand someday that the attacks of 9/11 and what the US is doing in Iraq at the moment are really the exact same thing. Both are killing innocent people for reasons we will never truly know.

Teddy,

i mentioned Pakistan for several reasons. The leaders of Iran will most likely not to repeat the mistakes of the Pahistanis, Americans and would probably take a note from the USSR's playbook. Russians. By that i mean, the leadership of Pakistan nurtured al Qaeda and the Taliban in much the same way that Iran supports the Party of God and the Saud regime supports Hamas. We supported the holy warriors, including bin Laden. Just like the allies of the Taliban and al Qaeda are a cancer growing in Pakistani politics, both legally and extralegally, and just like nurturing the vipers of the holy warriors has turned against us and the Saud regime, iran is aware that this may happen and i think would not give these type of weapons to the party of God. In this they are very much like the USSR who gave Hussein tanks and planes but refused to give him nuclear, biological and chemical infrastructures. We know, in fact, it was the Reagan Administration that did the latter.

The point is that long term politics matter and the Iranians have a long term vision, even when thinking of their terrorist allies.

John,

I agree that the Iranians wouldn't turn over the weapons to Hezbollah. Rather, I was talking about the government itself, and mentioning their support of terrorists as a point to their destabilizing influence. Just like I don't think Hussein, had he developed a bomb, would have turned over a bomb to Hamas.

However, given the actions of these respected governments, the fact is that neither can be allowed to keep an atomic arsenal. It would become too destabilizing.

It's a shame we weren't able to stop India and Pakistan, but their own mini-version of MAD seems to be holding the nukes in check. If Iran gained the bomb, who would stop them?

Teddy,

Please answer my post.

Johanna,

"So Teddy, it is DEFINITELY kill or be killed for you."

- If the situation calls for it, absolutely.

"With the Iranian example you give, it is obvious that to survive, you're completely willing to kill others."

- If (using the example) the other alternative is allowing a nuclear device to be exploded, killing hundreds of thousands of people? Or allowing Iran to use that device to destabilizing the whole of the Middle East? Then yes, I would support blasting the facility off the face of the world. But even if it was hard evidence of another 9/11 attack, or of Syria whipping up some VX gas, or what have you, and I could stop it from happening by launching an attack, I would. The onus of innocent lives lost is on the countries planning the attack, not us for preventing it.

Or should we just sit there as these nations develop WMDs? And when they are finally ready, what then? Do we still wait? Is force only justified after thousands of people die needlessly?

"What if the roles were reversed? I really urge you to put yourself in someone else's shoes for 30 seconds. What if China (hypothetical) decided to be "pro-active" & invade the States because they suspected you were hiding WMD too? How would you (as an individual) feel if you were tortured and killed over somethig that has nothing to do with you? It could very well happen. If the States keep butting their nose in other people's property , eventually a few of them are going to get pissed and start killing again."

- I assume we are talking about Iraq here. And as I said, this was not the right war to fight at this time. But I find the comparison you present flawed. Iraq is (was) a rogue state. They started two wars, occupying one country. They gassed their own people and ruthlessly suppressed any form of uprising. They pursued a nuclear program, nearly achieving a bomb twice, stopped only by the Israelis in 1983 and Gulf War I in 1999. They heavily funded terrorist organizations around the world. And this doesn't even take into account their utter lack of compliance with UN searches and restrictions.

The point of all this is that China doesn't have to worry about the US and WMD b/c we have no track record of being a rogue state. We haven't gassed anyone, let alone our own people. We haven't occupied a soverign nation and made it a part of our country. We aren't funding terrorist groups engaged in de-stabilizing other nations. That background matters when assessing threat. Heck, the French may hate us, but I don't sweat them launching any nukes our way b/c of their track record.

"Or even better. Think of it this way. You find out one of your neighbours has a gun. So do you go and shoot him in the middle of the night, just in case he was ever planning to use the gun? "

- If I find out that the neighbor in question is planning to kill me tomorrow? You're damn right I shoot him.

Here's a counter-example: My neighbor (who has prayed for my death) isn't supposed to have a gun. He has stated to me (and the neighborhood) he is building a gun. It will likely be ready in two days. I call the police to stop him. Unfortunately, the police deliberate things endlessly, and likely won't finish before he's done. Do I just sit there and wait for him to shoot me so I can say "AHA!" while I bleed to death on the floor. Or do I stop him first?

"I'm sorry but I'll never understand how you can so nonchalantly talk about invading countries without realizing that REAL people's lives are at stake. This isn't a video game. Just because YOU aren't affected by it , doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

- I understand about the cost of war and invasion, and I do not talk about it flippantly. My grandfather was shot by the Germans and held in a POW camp after he parachuted into France on D-Day. I've touched the scar. I have friends who died in Gulf War I, and others who are suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. I understand that people die and are maimed. I understand that war is horrific, and we should do everything we can within reason to prevent it.

But burying our head in the sand and pretending that these threats will go away won't work. Pre-emptive strikes are a legitimate policy stance. However, it requires a rigorous structure of intelligence and military review and analysis to work properly. Just because Bush, Wolfowitz and Feith failed in doing so doesn't discredit the policy itself, just their execution of it.

The hard truth is that the world has changed. Waiting to be attacked before repsonding is no longer a viable option. The weapons now in play can kill thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people.

Take VX gas. It's the deadliest nerve agent known to man. Although difficult to make, it can be made outside of military facilities, as the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo did. Or, it could be stolen from a Russian facility.

It takes only 10mg inhaled of VX gas to kill a person, or 6mg in liquid form. If a country, or terror group in a sympathetic country had even one kilo of VX, they could kill up to 100,000-140,000 people.

If we find evidence, HARD evidence, that a nation or terror group is planning to use VX on the US, do we wait until it happens? Or do we strike first, and take some comfort in the fact that while some innocents will likely die, more innocent lives have been saved?

"I hope you will understand someday that the attacks of 9/11 and what the US is doing in Iraq at the moment are really the exact same thing. Both are killing innocent people for reasons we will never truly know."
- They aren't the same. We don't intentionally target civilians (and I know John is going to talk about cluster bombs now...)

Teddy,

You mean Pakistan as it is presently constituted. Remember, the bin Laden allies --MMP --- are poised to take the seat of government in the next round of elections. Musharraf for better or worse has tied his political fortunes to the Bush Administration and it was that fateful decision that gave him short term respite but will give nukes to the real loons in the long run. MAD on the sub-continent is short term.

Knowing what i do about the Middle East, i can't see the Iranians actually using nukes. Like i said they are long term thinkers and they know that within the next generation Iraq will become a satellite of sorts. At the same time, there will be a transformation of power in iran for various reasons (demography, economics, etc). In fact, barring increased democratic reforms, Iran will go through a soft revolution akin to the one that broke up the USSR. That could be dangerous. But i see an Iranian form of "glasnost" on the near horizon. There are several reasons for this. Iran had a democratic tradition before we helped the British toppled their government and establish the Pahlavi Regime. There is also a democratic tradition within Iranian Islam (Ali Shari'Ati, to name one figure). The last have a special place in those seeking reform in Iran. This is why i think Iran will be stable in the short term and long term.

The real problem is Pakistan and the way the Bush Administration pursued the war in Afghanistan and that it pursued a war in Iraq. The problem with the apparatchiks at State and the neocons in the Administration is that they are not longterm thinkers.

Teddy,

you are right that i am going to talk about cluster bombs. These are bombs specifically designed to inflict collateral damage. Have you seen the pictures? Its at least as horrific as seeing a man having his head cut off.

Teddy,
Your post raises some interesting issues. I'll respond when I have more time on my hands.

Thx.

John,

I have, and they are brutal. But if you're trying to take out enemy formations, it's one of the most effective weapons around.

Teddy,

that does not excuse their use on civilian populations. Especially because these are so damned randon. i would seriously question their value when 4 times the number of civilians were killed and maimed than Iraqi military in this war.

Teddy,

Here's my response.

"So Teddy, it is DEFINITELY kill or be killed for you."
"If the situation calls for it, absolutely. "

Okay. Well, to each his own. Let's agree to disagree here.

"If (using the example) the other alternative is allowing a nuclear device to be exploded, killing hundreds of thousands of people? Or allowing Iran to use that device to destabilizing the whole of the Middle East? Then yes, I would support blasting the facility off the face of the world."

Again. I disagree completely. You can't POSSIBLY know what people are thinking. To attack first and ask questions later is irresponsible, cruel, extremely paranoid and it causes more problems in the end. You end up creating more terrorists...

"But even if it was hard evidence of another 9/11 attack, or of Syria whipping up some VX gas, or what have you, and I could stop it from happening by launching an attack, I would."

What is "hard evidence" to you?..Because there WAS hard evidence of the first 9/11.

"The onus of innocent lives lost is on the countries planning the attack, not us for preventing it."

Did you just say that??! So then. In that case, your life is in George Bush's hands. Good luck.

I'm appalled. Truly. You're saying, "Innocent or not, it's their fault for living there." ????!!! UGH!!!

" Is force only justified after thousands of people die needlessly?"

Thousands of people ARE dying needlessly. American and Iraqi.

"And as I said, this was not the right war to fight at this time."

When is it right, then? And to you, why isn't it right now?

" But I find the comparison you present flawed. Iraq is (was) a rogue state. They started two wars, occupying one country. They gassed their own people and ruthlessly suppressed any form of uprising. "

Other countries can say the same about the US. I for one, don't live in the US. So I'm a good example to use. I could say "The US still has the death penalty in some States." They kill their own people without knowing for sure if they are guilty.

But you know what Teddy? As a Canadian, it's none of my business. As an American, what happened in Iraq was none of your business. You said so yourself above -"The onus of innocent lives lost is on the countries planning the attack, not us for preventing it."

So the onus isn't on you to "save" those people. You are contradicting yourself.

"The point of all this is that China doesn't have to worry about the US and WMD b/c we have no track record of being a rogue state."

You dont' know this. Your governement could be hiding it from you. They could be distracting you with other issues.

"We haven't gassed anyone, let alone our own people. "

You're doing other thigns. The death penalty. You don't provide fair and equal health care to your citizens. You don't support gay marriage. Your president is also a religious phanatic. To outsiders, those can be good reasons.

"We haven't occupied a soverign nation and made it a part of our country. We aren't funding terrorist groups engaged in de-stabilizing other nations. "

I beg to differ.

"That background matters when assessing threat. Heck, the French may hate us, but I don't sweat them launching any nukes our way b/c of their track record."

No. You don't sweat them because you've been brainwashed to believe the Middle East is the Enemy. France is very "westernized", but the Middle East stays unique in their traditions. This is a threat to some people.

"If I find out that the neighbor in question is planning to kill me tomorrow? You're damn right I shoot him. "

In your property or his?

" Unfortunately, the police deliberate things endlessly, and likely won't finish before he's done. Do I just sit there and wait for him to shoot me so I can say "AHA!" while I bleed to death on the floor. Or do I stop him first?"

You wait patiently in YOUR home , prepared for the attack and defend yourself if necessary. If he's on your lawn with a gun, he's invading your property. If he's sitting at home looking at himself in the miror, you can't prove a thing.

" My grandfather was shot by the Germans and held in a POW camp after he parachuted into France on D-Day. I've touched the scar. I have friends who died in Gulf War I, and others who are suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. I understand that people die and are maimed. I understand that war is horrific, and we should do everything we can within reason to prevent it."

But.........?

"But burying our head in the sand and pretending that these threats will go away won't work."

No burying Teddy. Being prepared and like you said, preventing war. Period.

"The hard truth is that the world has changed. Waiting to be attacked before repsonding is no longer a viable option. The weapons now in play can kill thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people."

I see what you're saying, but I completely disagree.

"If we find evidence, HARD evidence, that a nation or terror group is planning to use VX on the US, do we wait until it happens?"

What is "hard" evidence..? Do you have a spy camera? Who are you believing/trusting to give you this information?

"Or do we strike first, and take some comfort in the fact that while some innocents will likely die, more innocent lives have been saved?"

What if you find out your hard evidence was all a hoax? Can you live with yourself knowing you just attacked accidentally?

" They aren't the same. We don't intentionally target civilians (and I know John is going to talk about cluster bombs now...) "

Intentional or non, it is done. I might not intentionally hit someone with my car, I still have to pay the price.

Looks like Teddy has his hands full, so I won't make matters too much worse

But I can't help but jumping in on two small points of his:

"We aren't funding terrorist groups engaged in de-stabilizing other nations."

Are you sure about that, Teddy? Not only have we done that historically throughout our history (and recent history), but we are clearly doing so today.

On your point about the neighbor with the gun, and not waiting for him to come and shoot you, does that opinion still exist if his house is currently being scoured by authorities who are allowed to search every nook and cranny and the property is otherwise surrounded by armed policeman on every side who are actively assuring that nobody and no "guns" leave the property?

If those things were all in place, would you still make the authorities leave so that you could firebomb the neighbors house "just in case"?

Johanna,
(man, these posts are going to get long, responding to responses of responses...)
Me: "If (using the example) the other alternative is allowing a nuclear device to be exploded, killing hundreds of thousands of people? Or allowing Iran to use that device to destabilizing the whole of the Middle East? Then yes, I would support blasting the facility off the face of the world."

You: Again. I disagree completely. You can't POSSIBLY know what people are thinking. To attack first and ask questions later is irresponsible, cruel, extremely paranoid and it causes more problems in the end. You end up creating more terrorists...
Me: A basic disagreement. I cannot see how we should just sit back and wait for something to happen. When Iran develops the bomb, or the radical Pakistani political party takes control of the government and their nukes, or Syria finishes testing those missles that can carry VX, or a terror group inside another country whips up anthrax or sarin, what then? Do we just twiddle our thumbs and hope nothing happens? And if they attack a US embassy, or a soft target in some other country, or they penetrate the lax border controls of Mexico and hundreds/thousands die? Do we tell their relatives "Sorry. But at least NOW we can respond!"? I can't agree to that. You may as well slit your own throat.
---------------
Me: "But even if it was hard evidence of another 9/11 attack, or of Syria whipping up some VX gas, or what have you, and I could stop it from happening by launching an attack, I would."

You: What is "hard evidence" to you?..Because there WAS hard evidence of the first 9/11.
Me: Yes, there was. Unfortunately, due to a lack of inter-agency co-operation and two administrations not caring enough about it, the intel wasn't ready in time. Had there been, the proper course of action would have been to stop the terrorists from executing the plot and then proceeding with removal of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. At least Bush got the second half right.
-------------
Me: "The onus of innocent lives lost is on the countries planning the attack, not us for preventing it."

You: Did you just say that??! So then. In that case, your life is in George Bush's hands. Good luck. I'm appalled. Truly. You're saying, "Innocent or not, it's their fault for living there." ????!!! UGH!!!

Me: What I am saying is that if innocent lives are lost because we are either responding to an attack upon us or preventing an imminent attack, the blame for that lies with the country engaged in the terror attack, not us. Even in the case of Iraq, I think the initial casualties lie at the feet of Hussein, who never complied 100% with UN inspectors for over 10 years.
---------
Me: "And as I said, this was not the right war to fight at this time."

You: When is it right, then? And to you, why isn't it right now?

Me: The war is against terror right now, not settling old scores. We should have spent all this money and time on finishing the job in Afghanistan, and then taking a hard look at Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. All these countries are greater contributors to global terror than Iraq was. However, eventually, I believe removing Huseein had to be done due to his de-stabilizing influence on the Middle East.
---------------------------------
Me: " But I find the comparison you present flawed. Iraq is (was) a rogue state. They started two wars, occupying one country. They gassed their own people and ruthlessly suppressed any form of uprising. "

You: Other countries can say the same about the US. I for one, don't live in the US. So I'm a good example to use. I could say "The US still has the death penalty in some States." They kill their own people without knowing for sure if they are guilty. But you know what Teddy? As a Canadian, it's none of my business. As an American, what happened in Iraq was none of your business. You said so yourself above -"The onus of innocent lives lost is on the countries planning the attack, not us for preventing it." ... So the onus isn't on you to "save" those people. You are contradicting yourself.

Me: There is a difference between gassing thousands of civilians fighting for decent human rights and executing criminals. I don't think anyone could realistically call America a "rogue state." Though some may call our President that...
As for "saving" people. The only people I am concerned about saving are Americans and our allies. I am not contradicting anything. If it comes down to 100 innocent Syrians dying to protect 10,000 innocent Americans from a Syrian VX attack (just a random hypothetical) I have no problem making that happen. As a historical counterpart: the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Horrible? Yes. But while 70,000 innocent people died in those blasts, millions were saved because it ended the war without an invasion. So was it justified?

------------
Me: "The point of all this is that China doesn't have to worry about the US and WMD b/c we have no track record of being a rogue state."

You: You dont' know this. Your governement could be hiding it from you. They could be distracting you with other issues.

Me: I'm pretty confident the government isn't hiding this from us. We're a nation of 300+ million people. Strongest military in the world, strongest economy in the world. We can't sneeze without people knowing about it. If the US was acting like a rogue state, the people would know. Not least of which b/c brad would have it on his blog.

----------------------------
Me: "We haven't gassed anyone, let alone our own people. "

You: You're doing other thigns. The death penalty. You don't provide fair and equal health care to your citizens. You don't support gay marriage. Your president is also a religious phanatic. To outsiders, those can be good reasons.

Me: Again, gassing innocent civilians and public policy decisions are not comparable. (For the record, while I think health care is not a right and certain criminals should hang, I fully support gay marriage.) Can't argue about the president, though.

---------------------

Me: "We haven't occupied a soverign nation and made it a part of our country. We aren't funding terrorist groups engaged in de-stabilizing other nations. "

You: I beg to differ.

Me: If you can identify the country we annexed recently or the terrorist group we have been funding, I would love to hear about it.
--------------------
Me: "That background matters when assessing threat. Heck, the French may hate us, but I don't sweat them launching any nukes our way b/c of their track record."

You: No. You don't sweat them because you've been brainwashed to believe the Middle East is the Enemy. France is very "westernized", but the Middle East stays unique in their traditions. This is a threat to some people.

Me: Careful, you're making a dangerous assumption. I don't believe "The Middle East" is the enemy. And I most certainly have not been brainwashed. I know there is a difference between Jordan and Syria, between the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. If Jordan had VX, I wouldn't worry because they have proven to be responsible. Like I said, track records count.

And I don't mind tradition, as long as that doesn't include threatening our security. But I am surprised you are defending a culture that, in some countries, makes women subsurvient, executes criminals for minor offenses, jails political dissidents and tortures homosexuals.
---------------

Me: "If I find out that the neighbor in question is planning to kill me tomorrow? You're damn right I shoot him. "

You: In your property or his?
Me: Depends on when I find out.
-----------------

Me: " Unfortunately, the police deliberate things endlessly, and likely won't finish before he's done. Do I just sit there and wait for him to shoot me so I can say "AHA!" while I bleed to death on the floor. Or do I stop him first?"

You: You wait patiently in YOUR home , prepared for the attack and defend yourself if necessary. If he's on your lawn with a gun, he's invading your property. If he's sitting at home looking at himself in the miror, you can't prove a thing.
me: Oh. So here I wait. And yes, he may kill my wife and child, maybe a visiting friend before I finally get him. But at least I WAITED. That'll warm my bones every time I visit their graves.
--------------------

Me: "The hard truth is that the world has changed. Waiting to be attacked before repsonding is no longer a viable option. The weapons now in play can kill thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people."

You: I see what you're saying, but I completely disagree.

Me: Then I have to be honest. I hope you're never in a position to decide on a situation like that. Because a lot of people will die needlessly before you feel comfortable enough to respond.
----------------------

Me: "If we find evidence, HARD evidence, that a nation or terror group is planning to use VX on the US, do we wait until it happens?"

You: What is "hard" evidence..? Do you have a spy camera? Who are you believing/trusting to give you this information?

Me: Hard evidence would be proof of an event about to occur. And yes it is hard to come by. Which is why I said we have a responsibility to be completely sure when we act pre-emptively.

Brad,

I'm talking about the policy of pre-emptive strike, not Iraq in particular.

As to terrorists, I assume you are talking about the Contras. All I can say is that the Sandinistas were the same thing during the Somoza regime. But currently, I would feel relatively safe in saying we aren't funding any terror groups in the way Syria funds Hamas or Iran funds Hezbollah.

Teddy,

"As to terrorists, I assume you are talking about the Contras."

More recently: Venezuela and Haiti.

Teddy said:
"the proper course of action would have been to stop the terrorists from executing the plot and then proceeding with removal of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. At least Bush got the second half right."

Come now, Teddy. I *know* you don't believe that "Bush got that last part right". The Taliban is still rockin' and rollin' in Afghanistan, Karzide is about to bring them into his government, the country is mostly anarchy, both Omar and Bin Laden run free, and our service people are still getting killed out there. If that's "right", I'd hate to see what "wrong" was!

"I believe removing Huseein had to be done due to his de-stabilizing influence on the Middle East."

Good thought, incorrect interpretation of facts. He was, in actuality, a *stabilizing* influence in the Middle East. Keep the area from tumbling into factional wars in the face of the power vacuum that his removal is causing to occur. (Doesn't mean seeing him removed at some point would have necessarily been a bad thing, but done the way it was, without a plan for what to do afterwards was --- clearly --- a horrible mistake).

"I'm talking about the policy of pre-emptive strike, not Iraq in particular."

Well, it's a fine "policy" in the abstract, I suppose. But it's the particular execution of same wherein the devil is in the details. So far, it's been waged without meeting the high standards of certitude that such a policy would require. And even then, it's a very dicey one that the current Administration, I'd think you'd agree, doesn't come close to carrying out honestly or smartly.

"As to terrorists, I assume you are talking about the Contras. All I can say is that the Sandinistas were the same thing during the Somoza regime. But currently, I would feel relatively safe in saying we aren't funding any terror groups in the way Syria funds Hamas or Iran funds Hezbollah."

They are not (by a long shot) the only place where we've funded terrorists and overthrown governments, frequently installing puppet governments that were far worse than who we overthrew, but agreed with us "politically". I'll let Johnhp handle the details on *that* particuar issue if he wishes

Teddy,

Holy mother of God, that's a long one. I admire and thank you for taking the time to write all that.
I , on the other hand, can't afford to do that all at once. I will respond as quickly as I can. But don't think I'm dodging any issues. If you feel I haven't addressed something, let me know and I'll reply in a separate post. (big breath) Here I go:

Teddy: A basic disagreement. I cannot see how we should just sit back and wait for something to happen.

Johanna: Like I said. There are other ways of preventing attacks then "attacking" and "invading a country." It's like the law in your Country. If someone owns a gun (sorry, I know the example is exhausted) and mutters something about shooting at some political figure, what do you do? Surround him with a million body guards and get bullet proof windows. You don't go killing the guy!

Teddy: When Iran develops the bomb

Johanna: This is totally MY opinion (not based on any facts), but since I've visited the country, I firmly believe that they have NO intention of harming anyone. They are just scared other countries might wanna waltz in and take their oil and are therefore preparing themselves (pre-emptive too!). But they're not invading the countries they are suspicious of. Nor will they (in my opinion). There is far too much broo-ha-ha going on Internally for them to bother about anybody else.

Teddy: What I am saying is that if innocent lives are lost because we are either responding to an attack upon us or preventing an imminent attack, the blame for that lies with the country engaged in the terror attack, not us.

Johanna: So then, too bad so sad for those people because they were unlucky enough to be born in that country, huh? Have you ever considered how lucky you are to be born in the US (or living there). If yes, have you considered what it would be like living in another country like Iraq or Afghanistan (with no way out) ?

Teddy: Even in the case of Iraq, I think the initial casualties lie at the feet of Hussein, who never complied 100% with UN inspectors for over 10 years. "

Johanna: Okay. Hold that thought for later.

Teddy: There is a difference between gassing thousands of civilians fighting for decent human rights and executing criminals.

Johanna: Just for the record, you can't be sure it's a criminal, but in any case. To you, there is a difference between the two. But to an outsider who hasn't been living your way of life, it might be considered cruel none-the-less. To a country like Canada , who doesn't execute at all, that is a bad thing to do.

Teddy: As for "saving" people. The only people I am concerned about saving are Americans and our allies.

Johanna: Remember when I said hold taht thought? I said it because you just contracted yourself. YOu're calling them a rogue state and saying they deserve to be invaded because they killed their own people , but now you're saying you only care about Americans and their Allies.

Johanna again: And by the way, I think that's horrible. I'll be honest too. To only care about those in your country or those who are your allies? That's wrong. Why not care about "humans" in general. Why not care about individuals. If the person is a good person and is innocent, then they deserve to be "cared" about, in my opinion. You can't generalize like that.

Teddy: I'm pretty confident the government isn't hiding this from us. We're a nation of 300+ million people. Strongest military in the world, strongest economy in the world. We can't sneeze without people knowing about it.

Johanna: If you're the strongest military, you probably have the strongest intelligence. People don't have to know shit.

Teddy: If the US was acting like a rogue state, the people would know.

Johanna: Please believe that if your government doesn't want you to know something, you won't know.

Teddy: Not least of which b/c brad would have it on his blog.

Johanna: Funny, but no. While Brad's blog is great (unlike some others out there- Grrr!) , he has also pointed out many times that the government is hiding things from the public.

Teddy: I think health care is not a right

Johanna: Well. That says a lot about your financial state.

Teddy: If you can identify the country we annexed recently or the terrorist group we have been funding, I would love to hear about it.

Johanna: I'll work on it.

Teddy: If Jordan had VX, I wouldn't worry because they have proven to be responsible. Like I said, track records count.

Johanna: My fingers hurt. But I have to answer this one. If track records count, then all the damage GWB is doing right now will be held against you as a country in the future. Does that feel good?

Teddy: But I am surprised you are defending a culture that, in some countries, makes women subsurvient, executes criminals for minor offenses, jails political dissidents and tortures homosexuals.

Johanna: Absolutely not. Now *you* are making a dangerous assumption. I am fighting for womens' rights in Iran on a daily basis. That's not my point. My point is, those countries have enough going on internally (like the stuff you just pointed out). They shouldn't have to worry about being invaded too. They will evolve and figure it out on their own, without having to worry about their safety being at the hands of another country.

Teddy: Then I have to be honest. I hope you're never in a position to decide on a situation like that. Because a lot of people will die needlessly before you feel comfortable enough to respond.

Johanna: That's your opinion. My opinion is, you will kill a lot of people needlessly in paranoia and end up creating more chaos for yourself. You'll anger others and in the end, more of your civilians will die.

Teddy: Hard evidence would be proof of an event about to occur. And yes it is hard to come by. Which is why I said we have a responsibility to be completely sure when we act pre-emptively.

Johanna: Well . I know you said you don't agree with the current war in Iraq, but I have to ask. What is "proof"? Give me an example.

(Two responses in one)

Brad,

I need to be more specific. I believe we were right to go into Afghanistan with the goal of ousting the Taliban and nabbing bin Laden. His failure to fulfill those goals doesn't mean they weren't right.

Hussein: depends on how you see the glass, I guess. I see the "started two wars/pursued nuclear weapons/funded Palestinian terrorists" side of it as de-stabilizing. We agree on the half-assedness of the war, however, creating a lot of problems.

I would also agree that the policy of pre-emption, thus far, has been executed without holding to the standards such a policy demands.

Oh no, I have to debate with John as well? : ) When do I get an ally?

-----------------------------------------
Johanna,
Your opinion on Iran...I have to respect that and say that you and John have a good point. The youth there are agitating for more rights, and there is a nascent democratic movement growing. My fear is that the mullahs, under pressure from within, will respond irrationally outwardly. The most frightening possibility being an attack on Israel, which would plunge the region into nuclear disaster.
I thank God every day I was born in the United States. And it's not like I WANT to kill innocent people. But you can't let that desire result in innocent lives HERE being lost needlessly. Especially since, in retaliation, those people in the other country would die anyway. Yes, it a real s**t situation to be placed in. But those are hard decisions that sometimes have to be made.
We'll leave the death penalty/health care discussions for later. Besides, I am sure Brad would want in on that. :

"Rogue Statism": I was using their wanton killing of their citizenry as one example of their "rogue" status, not as the reason for a pre-emptive strike. Though I believe my statement was a bit too harsh. But if it is an issue of allowing innocent people here to die before retaliation, or hitting first to prevent it, I would prevent it.

Intelligence: Sadly, we have been proving we don't have the strongest intelligence for many years, depsite our overwhelming military strength. I would place the UK and Israel ahead of us. And in their heyday, no one could touch the KGB.

Islamic culture: You're right. I did make an assumption and I apologize for it. But if one of these nations did pose an imminent threat, the fact they are having these issues internally isn't enough of a reason to give them a shot at killing US/Allied civilians.

Hard Intelligence Example: Evidence of a successful VX test in Syria. Then a successful test of a missile capable of carrying an A/B/C warhead. Satellite photos find out that ground-to-ground missiles are being refitted with these warheads. They intercept phone calls between military leaders and bases discussing an attack to be launched. More satellite photos find a general mobilization of troops is occuring near the Golan Heights. The latest intelligence discovers that the Hasad family and top advisors are going into bunkers.

Fanciful and hypothetical to be sure, but that chain of events pretty much spells out an attack on Israel. Do we (and Israel) allow it to be launched? Or do we drop a couple of MOAB devices on the launching areas, knowing that some innocent people will be killed?

I am not saying that Pre-emptive strike should be engaged in at the drop of a hat. But I do believe the current state of the world, and the ways in which we can be attacked, demand us reserving that option.

Teddy asked:
"When do I get an ally?"

As soon as you can find one more intellectually honest Republican, or another real Conservative. There's got to be at least one more in this country, right?

Feel free to invite him/her on by when you find one (though I'm guessing Senator McCain may be too busy at the moment

Teddy,

i am your ally. Oddly enough you and i agree on a great deal of things. We differ on a few facts. cf my remarks on the Butler report for a reply to the nukes; and as for funding terrorists the Sauds did much more than Saddam Hussein. And in at least one of the wars he started he had a solid ally in an American Administration. How solid? You know as well as i did that the "evil empire" wouldn't give him bio or chem weapons but Reagan did.

Nevertheless, i think you are an honest person and you and i could come to agreement on foreign policy. We both know the problem: neither of us would consider what is in the interest of the petrochemical industry over the rights of the peopleliving under the iron hand of the Saud regime. i day say we would think of a way to balance the rights of those people and the needs of companies. i dont mean to speak for you but i think you --- a libertarian type --- and i --- anti-globalist anarco-socialist type --- could probably meet on some common ground.In fact, i bet most decent people would. Unfortunately, as we both know, decent people aren't in power.

Okay.

I think this subject is done like dinner.

Teddy- thanks for the response. I'll have to let my fingers recover from the typing this weekend.

Brad- Your blog rocks. Unlike other blogs and bloggers (who shall remain nameless), a decent conversation CAN be had! How about that? I shutter just thinking about what his face.

John- As usual, great post. And honestly? You said it best.

John,

I get the feeling often that we agree on issues and just differ on the methodologies of how to achieve that goal.

I agree that there is a way to achieve a balance between the interests of business and the people in the Middle East. I would advocate taking out the whole Saud clan. Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing to fill that void and you'd simply have an Iraq situation all over again. So the least we could do is fund some genuine democratic organizations for Saudis to teach them about what government is supposed to be about and instill in the the belief that the people are best equipped to govern themselves, not a corrupt oil-based oligarchy.

In an ideal world, I would probably be an anarcho-capitalist. But since I can't justify to myself the idea of there being NO safety net at all, I call myself a "propertarian" or "classical liberal" So you basically got it right. And, sadly, you are also right in that decent people aren't in power. Which is why men like McCain and Lieberman will never get a fair shot at running for the presidency.

Teddy,

i think you have some serious mistaken impressions of the Middle east. There are democratic organizations there. Many of the oppressed by the Sauds. i am not sure why people believe that there is no democratic tradition in that region. Perhaps it is because the history of the region is built on the graves of reformers. In large part this is the result of Western foreign policy (both dem and rep) in the region. Think about this idea that the Bush Regime is using to now justify the war: the establishment of a democratic reforms than to have attacked Iraq? This would have been a stroke of genius and have undermined the terrorists claims against the US. It would have also reversed the historical role of our foreign policy in the region.

Just so we are clear, there is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist. Capitalism as a system forces an unequal exchange between capital and labor. i am really bothered when libertarians try to make their beliefs more attrasctive by attaching it to anarchism as if the very process of production in capitalism is not an act of alienation and expropriation.

John,

I wasn't trying to say that there were no democratic traditions in the Middle East, just that in Saudi Arabia (for example) that there are none now, and we could do better by the people there by forming organizations to teach them about democracy. Because the populace now has no clue and no education to push them in that direction. And I agree, it would have been a much more effective tactic to come as true liberators into Iraq.

Obviously you and I have major difference in the capitalist/socialist area. I think you can have an anarcho capitalist society: each person being allowed to achieve what they can w/o the constricture of government. I have a harder time accepting the socialist idea, since the very essence of socialism is taking away from some to give to others, a system which demands government control.

I can only imagine the breadth and width of those postings. I think Brad would have to open a separate blog. : )

Teddy,

it is inaccurate to suggest that no one living under the Saud regime does not understand or desire or struggle for democracy. Certainly they could use help. But they exist. The vast majority of subjects, remember the Saud regime does not have citizens, would benefit and know they would benefit from representative government. However, as their options are limited to brutal thugs propped up by our foreign policy and brutal thugs opposing our foreign policy i think it is simple to understand the present situation. The people, who are stuck between a rock and a hard place really want neither. Unfortunately by that simplefact they become collateral for both sides. i dont think people need to be educated to know when they are being screwed.

As for economics it is not a system among discrete individuals. We are here concerned with institutions and individuals who have to relate to them. What you understand by socialism is welfare capitalism. In socialism production is collective (as it is in capitalism) and consumption is collective (as it is not in capitalism). Socialism can onlyproperly take root in a representative society. Unlike our present government which is fundamentally bound to monied interests. But that is not really my goal. i have been influenced over the last few years by a movement called the new associationists and their left critique of socialism. i think the rejections of capitalism on individualist grounds is an error that undermines the real values we need as human beings; the human community.