"US and Soviet Union were allied- does that make FDR a communist? (I suppose if Mcatrthy could accuse General Marshal- who knows if FDR lived he might have been hauled be committe of UnAmerican activities). " -- sorkoi2003 ----- As a point of proud American history, Senator McCarthy wasn't part of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Said committee was run by other patriotic American heroes, not Sen. McCarthy. However, they did all have in common a love of Liberty and a hatred of what was, is, and always must be the despicable anti-American concepts inherent to communism and similar forms of totalitarian collectivism (such as socialism, naziism, and facism), an irredeemable enemy of the American way of life. Displacedjim

DisplacedJim wrote: "However, they did all have in common a love of Liberty and a hatred of what was, is, and always must be the despicable anti-American concepts inherent to communism and similar forms of totalitarian collectivism (such as socialism, naziism, and facism), an irredeemable enemy of the American way of life." Jim, have I ever mentioned that I always read your posts? Often I find I don't have to reply because you said what I was thinking so well. You're not half bad for an airedale! You do know the difference between the air force and the boy scouts, right?

"It is inappropriate for Americans to celebrate intolerance. It is dangerous for Americans to fail to listen to those who think differently, if for no other reason than to understand their thinking and give a proper review to the underlying facts. - Leo -" Like those people who ramsacked republican headquarters in quite a few states this past week? Like those who are actually shooting bullets into republican headquarters with people in them (again, just happened in this past week too)? Like those who tear up a little girl's "Bush and Cheney" sign? (which by the way made her cried) Like those who call republicans just plain stupid and cold hearted just because they don't agree with you? It sounds like the other side should start doing what they preach.

And your point is (Sork)? If the US didn't stop Saddam from killing Iranians - so what? Was not Saddam, in control of the worlds fifth largest army, a savage beast dangerous to his own people as well as his neighbors? Why does it matter exactly when we put him out of business? I personally think sooner would have been better. Are you in favor of letting him remain in power still? If invasion was wrong in 2003, when would it have been right? What exactly is YOUR idea of a proper US military policy re Iraq - pick any era - when would it have been right to invade? Or de facto do you really advocate leaving Saddam on the throne? There was growing pressure to remove sanctions. If this happened, do you think Saddam would not again have invaded someone? And what about Iraqis? Do they have any rights in your conception of policy?

The dispatch of Iraqi military teams to attack US targets is a matter of public record. There is no dispute about it from the left. [They do conspicuously ignore it in their logic because it would be inconvenient to pay attention to it - but no one ever wrote an article saying US border patrol agents got it wrong]. It is pretty convenient for you to say you never heard of it, so it isn't accepted truth. I didn't point it out because it is fiction, but salient. You are evading the question by saying you doubt my datum. You demonstrate no superior wisdom or logic that way. Why not treat it hypothetically? Suppose I happen to know what I am talking about - what do you do with that datum? You have entirely narrowed the basis of the case against Iraq if you limit us to striking against it only for supporting certain terrorist groups. The fact is Iraq participated in the illicit development of nuclear weapons (with North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Lybia, among others) - details about which are only now coming out (from Iraq, Pakistan and Lybia). This network succeeded in developing nw for Pakistan (in spite of its repeated pledges not to do so, so we would sell F-16s for example), as well as Iran and NK. The connections of these nations to terrorists, and to these weapons, should not be ignored, even to the exten we do not have complete information. Proceeding otherwise would probably result in a nuclear variation of 911 one day. I regard your attitude as very irresponsible if you will not advocate and support appropriate measures to that end. I believe you really do oppose such measures - but I am giving you the opportunity to say otherwise. How could we EFFECTIVELY break up this cabul that developed these weapons and supported terrorists - support including permitting passage, training camps, funding, exchanging information, selling or providing weapons, etc.?? And does it matter if these threats were not all fully developed? We are supposed to wait until we lose cities before we take steps? And why is your country less at risk than ours?

No it would not. While there are countless Christian denominations, each with its unique interpretation, and many individual Christians who have their own individual ideas which do not exactly equate to any formal denominations theology, a few things seem clear, if only one accepts the Christian Bible as a source of wisdom: God is not a pacifist, nor anti-military. There is (or at least there is when required) an actual Army in Heaven, and its commander is either Jesus in person, or he wears Jesus formal title as insignia. Jesus observed that the greatest faith he had encountered, after recruiting all his Deciples, and going on the road for a couple of years, was that of an active duty Roman Centurian. Whatever muddle minded theologians may say about it, Jesus saw no contradiction in being a Roman captain and having more faith even than his Deciples. There are numerous other references to things military which make it clear that in God's eyes things military are honorable. The rules for sentry duty make it clear this is because of community welfare - and to not diligently do that duty is to be personally held responsible for all who die by God himself. It is irresponsible, and very, very dangerous, to passively react to terrorism. Further, we have contemporary evidence this is so. OBL declared war on us a decade ago, and we failed to take it seriously. He began to attack us (USS Cole, the Embassy Bombings, etc) and we did not go on a large-scale offensive. The fruit of this ineffective policy is 911. We will not do that any more. You should not advocate otherwise either. Otherwise your moral posturing is truly false. To see evil and not condemn it is moral fraud.

How about this: being respectful of US leaders is a rule of this board. You are not required to agree with them, but you are not permitted to be grossly disrespectful. It is a condition of being here. And it happens to be much more appropriate to W than to Clinton - who sometimes seemed to be a very unrespectable person. And I could tell you tales of Johnson that would make you a Republican, most likely (given your weak mind). But even so I was unwilling to allow him to be assassinated one day in 1967. Can you manage this or are you determined to stay outside our rules - and the rules of all civil discourse?

Sork you are saying Kuwaiti's do not count at all. 13 years was entirely too long to wait to shut Saddam down. Waiting another 13 years only ocmpounds the injustice - and hurts way too many Iraqis along the way. Stop pretending you care at all about victims if you don't think ending nasty and aggressive regimes is justified. One reason it took so long is that we had a wet for a leader (British usage). Another is that we pretended the UN SC might do something. These are not endorsements for wet policy or UN policy. If it fails to act, decisively, in a timely way, it is always bad policy.

Actually, a bunker buster nuke should work better than other weapons - assuming it is used at a real bunker so hardened no other weapon will take it out. That means the nuke - this guy is a very little one - on the order of a few tons yield - is deep underground in fortified facilities when it goes off. Odds are long there will be no civil casualties (unless civilians are inside the bunker - the choice of the despot who built it - not a place I would put my children or whatever). I long studied mini-nukes, and advocated them combined with precision guidance as an alternative to big ones. Only in the 1990s did I accept the view that crossing the nuclear threshhold is a bad idea, both because it might be misunderstood, and because it might give other nations an excuse to go nuclear. [It is more logical to have a rule against anyone using them than to say we can, they cannot - long the position of India].

We understand freedom of speech. We fight for the right of people who think we are wrong to fight for them, and who insult us, and demonstrate against us, and worse. But in a general war on our civilization itself, in which all peoples and races and even Muslims (actually, statistically speaking, especially Muslims) are targets, we expect some rational support in organizing the resistance. This board matters little to AQ (not zero, but little) - but it matters a lot to our side and to the rest of the world. If you are not contributing to policy in a constructive way, you are in fact obstructing those who want to define a better one. For lots of practical reasons, any timely strategy will be imprefect: responsible free speech will help us make it better. But responsible free speech must not completely ignore the nature of the enemy, the situation, and what is likely to work or fail. A mind like yours, or even Rebrooku's, is potentially a valuable ally - but ONLY if it is on our side and constructively engaged. Otherwise he (or you) are part of the problem.