But I am told by scholars that it now appears to be a fabrication. The current archeology, based on more complete examination of primary materials, indicates the collapse came too suddenly, and the defenders were overwhelmed and killed in the classical way" That's interesting take- I have not come across it. But in these matters of religion - you have go along with Liberty Valance in choice between truth and legend- print the legend. I was shocked to learn the other day- that one of reason what Texas broke from Santa Ana's Mexico was due to aboliton of slavery by Santa Ana- something that I do not rembmer that being mentioned by John Wayne in the Alamo- (probably got lost in the cutting room). Whatever historical truth of Masada its illustrates a severe moral dilemna.

elcid wrote: "A mind like yours, or even Rebrooku's, is potentially a valuable ally - but ONLY if it is on our side and constructively engaged." Elcid, I think I'd like to hear what you mean by constructively engaged. I'm concerned that what those who completely support the President are saying is that if you don't agree with the President's decisions and actions you can't criticize them or offer alternatives and suggestions. For example, I agree with the policy of aggressively confronting totalitarian regimes and terrorism in the world. But I don't believe that some of the choices made were (or are the appropriate ones). Are you telling me that I should shut up about that?

So, I happen to agree with you that we should have gotten rid of Saddam in 1991. We probably could have intervened with troops and had world support, except for the Arabs. I happen to be one of the soldiers that was on "our side" of the ceasefire line and had to what Shia rebels be killed by the Republican Guard. Everyone of us standing there was ashamed that we could do nothing (very similarly to my feelings of shame when I had to watch communist soldiers kill east german defectors and do nothing) and angered that we could do nothing. But that was then and not something that could be undone now. Are you saying that since we didn't do anything in 1991 then we can no longer do anything? From then on we just have to let Saddam be? As far as your point about Saudi Arabia, I think it is interesting that for the first time ever the Monarchy is taking action against Wahabi terrorists in their own country. Apparently they finally figured out that collaboration would not save their butts. Saudi is now feeling the pressure, and will more and more as time goes on. Oh, and your point about the whole establishing satellite nations thing. Are you suggesting that Germany and Japan are sattelite nations of the US that have no choice but to go along with us? This is the situation that is analogous to Iraq, not the American Revolution. In the process of destroying two vicious totalitarian regimes we liberated the German and Japanese people as well. We had to occupy their countries in order to accomplish all of that. While both countries are generally friendly to the US, neither could come close to being considered US sockpuppets.

I don't think that Christianity was pacifist. Here are my Biblical citations: Luke 3:14 And some Soldier were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages" In this passage different people are asking John the Baptist about what they should do to live righteously. John does not tell the soldiers to quit, which he would do if soldiering was evil, or pacifism was preferable. Acts chapter 10 is about the conversion of the first gentile Christian. He was Cornelius the centurian, a career soldier and officer. No mention is made of his having to give of the profession of arms to become or remain a Christian. The fact that he was the first gentile believer also carries the implicit message that he was a commendable archetype. Again, the profession of arms was no hinderance. Rom:13:3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.; Rom:13:4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. In this passage Paul states that the government is authorized to use violence, as an agent of God, to restrain evil. This also legitimizes the profession of arms. There were conflicts between the Christian faith and service in the Roman military, but it wasn't about pacifism. Roman legionary standard were considered semi-divine, and units made sacrifices to them. Christians could not participate in these. Legionaries also had to offer sacrifices to the emperor, and Christians could not do this. There are tales about legionaries, many centurians among them, being martyred in the later centuries of the Roman empire. how could they have been long serving Christian soldiers if Christianity was pacifist?

timon_phocas wrote: "I don't think that Christianity was pacifist." You ignored the obvious citation from Jesus, telling his followers to "turn the other cheek". This citation has been used ever since to justify Christian pacifism. There are, and always have been, many Christian pacifist groups, from the time of the Roman Empire until now. The Jehovah's Witnesses are one such modern organization.

1. El Cid asked me to suggest any alternative scenario any time regarding Iraq- a sort of a counter-history- I tried to keep the counter-history as close to what could have happened without too much changes. 2. The scars of 1991 uprising are partly explain the attidude of many Iraqis toward the US- to extent that you had your loved killed following the advice of Bush I- you maybe a little wary about when you are going to be let down again- to terrible cost. 2. Certainly, Germany and Japan were satelitte nations for a time. There is argument by Martin Shaw - who talks about a western conglomerate state being formed from the Atlantic Alliance- argument is basically the right of self defence which is primary guarantee duty of a state has been seceded to the U.S in a fundamental sense countries like Germany, Britian,even France cannot defend themselves from major war without AMerican support- even in the Falklands without American assisstence and possilbitly of leasing aircraft carriers if Ark Royal got hit - GB would have very difficult time talking the Malavinas. In the case of nuclear policy- it difficult to imagine under what circumstance the British PM would have launched nuclear weapons without agreement of US President... but on your point about analogy of japan and germany and iraq- what is missing is the soviet threat. The Germans could chose Soviet or American occupation, similary the Japanese... without the context of the Soviet meance I do not think the analogies hold- but thats trouble with analogies...

I am sure you believe that Christianity is not pacifist and I respect your beliefs. My argument is historical not theological. If you look at the early history of Chrisitianity there is a pacifist movement which creates problems for the imperial authorities- Chrisitanity like Islam, like other culutral forjmations would not have surived if it did not change over time and place (agian this historical statement) as believer you need to maintain the constancy of your faith. I just do not think there much to be gained by having a theological discussion: a. Its like arguing whether green is better colour than blue b. Its only meaningful if you are both commited to faith. I mean if you are not a catholic you may have opinion about the infalliblity of the pope but really its for Catholics to have a signficant view on it. So all respects to your interpretation of your faith- if want to have discussion whether christianity is pacifist or not with me- it has be historical or you need have to someone else. I say this with all due respect and no rancour- I hope you understand my positon.

I wrote: "You ignored the obvious citation from Jesus, telling his followers to "turn the other cheek"." You also ignore another obvious modern pacifist Christian movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a pacifist. He actually used pacifism "aggressively" (can you say that? does it make any sort of sense?) to win. Think about it. Christianity has a long tradition of pacifism. Historically speaking, Christian pacifism was replaced with Christian militant teachings based on the citations you provide once Christianity began to gain secular power. Like sorkoi, I am not Christian and I believe that allows me to be much more objective on this topic. Just as I can be much more objective about Islam than its followers can be since I'm not Islamic.

And the problem with requiring absolute consistency of policy is that it does not allow for democratic variations of administration. It may be clear to YOU that we should have invaded Iraq in the Clinton era, but it was not clear to that administration. But if you are saying it is better not to let a principled cause wait for many years, I agree. Neither should we wait for years to resolve NK's violation of the Agreed Framework. Not long ago that was hailed far and wide as "fixing" NK's violations of its NPT policy. Well, we are in round three now, and stalling is going to have awful consequences this time. And "we" is not just the USA. NONE of the parties is really considering effective action. This will - mark my words - facilitate awful consequences. IF we believe in non-proliferation, we must act. If we fail to act, we don't believe in non-proliferation, and all statements to the contrary are political cover. And the left is worse than the right on this - for they always claimed to believe in the principle but never have been willing to actually enforce it unless it was cheap and easy. If South Africa wants to come in from the cold, fine, let them. But actually stand up to a nation? You have to look at the USA shutting down Taiwan or South Korean programs to find evidence of spine - and never with the left in charge nor the world backing them up. It is late in the day - and NK clearly is willing to sell anything worth hard currency to anyone. Let this go you do not have even a decade before a nuclear 911.

Sork - go get your heart medicine. I agree with you. My position on nuclear weapons is entirely logical and consistent. And it has always sided with India, which never failed to point out the logical contradictions in US policy, specifically saying the US advocated a "double standard of sovereignty - one for nuclear powers and one for non-nuclear powers." The compelling logic of US historical policy was you (whoever you are) ought to become a nuclear power. And it worked - we got nuclear powers. Further, historical US nuclear policy was hardly principled, moral, legal or sane. The FIRST policy was one WE would call "nuclear blackmail" if anyone else did it, and we DID call it "atomic diplomacy." A few years later, a variation of it was called "the doctrine of massive retaliation." It contemplated using nuclear weapons, on cities, in any situation we did not like, war or no. It was not very often used, and it rarely if ever achieved policy goals, but some of the clearer applications (Ike re China in 1952 and 1954) are known to have led to the creation of China as a nuclear power (the decision being taken in 1955, very early for China, one it could ill-afford, to stop these threats in future). Further, I can read. NPT was originally a deal. ALL the nuclear powers AGREED to do away with ALL nuclear weapons by 2000 - in exchang for that NON nuclear powers agreed not to go nuclear. But no progress was attempted for decades, and only late in the game (from the mid-1980s) did a real build down begin. Where it will end is not clear, the water becoming muddy of late - the US ended making all nuclear weapons fuels and all design activities but both these decisions have been reversed. Nevertheless, remembering the age of 60,000 nuclear weapons, with no end in sight to the nuclear arms race, we have made real progress. I also remember an era of really dumb weapons - torpedoes that would sink the launching submarine - SAMs that would blind all defending radars for a significant distance (rendering air defense impossible) - and almost no security for tactical weapons (a personal testimony). If we stayed in that world long enough, terrorists would have ended up with them for sure. Disclaimer: Nuclear weapons are not illegal per se. See Are US Nuclear Weapons Legal? Or look up Prof. Harry Almond's articles. No law outlaws them as such. But the law does not permit weapons to be used in ways that cause "wanton and disproportionate" casualties - such as placing hydrogen bombs on cities. Even planning to do this is criminal in US DOMESTIC law. Even civilians are covered by this law (see DOD regulations). Formal study concluded that, de facto, there had been little consideration for the effects of US nuclear weapons, if used as planned, and that while many applications were potentially legal, this lack of proper planning rendered most likely or certain to be in violation. Once we went down this road - led by general officers of the Strategic Air Command - policy changed radically and I do not expect it ever to return to the old days. [If it does, I will be taking the people responsible to court, to see wether or not we are a nation of law?] I note that the new generation of nuclear weapons contemplated ARE entirely legal - they are tactical and very limited in effect compared to older ones. But in spite of having advocated weapons of those very types (long ago), I am persuaded that it is unwise to go that way: it will be easier to sell "no one has wmd" than a double standard "we get them, you don't." And I don't think there is any mission we cannot do without them. I regret to say I don't expect NPT to be really enforced until AFTER we lose a city or two. But I do expect we will get serious after, say, we lose New York. There will be no debate, even on the left, of tolerating a NK situation.