Please allow an old (very old) warrier to list a line or two. As a veteran of the 'Korean Police action' of 1950-1953 plus one who served multiple times in Viet Nam, I probably have a different perspective than many who, judging by the comments, never heard a shot fired in anger other than East L.A. or N. Y. I was in Viet Nam when it was stated "we had to destroy the village to save it." (ring a bell with anyone?) I fear we have become what we profess to be fighting against.

Dont all of you get it yet? It doesent matter what you say to the left wing you will always be wrong. It doesent matter, you and everyone else will forever be wrong. Wrong wrong wrong, no, no, no. That is all the left says over and over and over. You can argue all day long, you are wrong they are right. Dont waist your breath with a lefty just do your own thing. I like it when lefty's speak up because the more they do, the more fanatical they get, its a good laugh. If the lefty's did not have something to complain about they then they would have some type of break down. There is no one here who has the scoop on everything that goes on in the world but they will monday night quarterback about how wrong everyone is. I started a drinking game where we watch the news highlights and then have to take a shot everytime a Democrat says no. Good Times

The Taliban must have been taking lessons in incompetency from the Bush/Cheney administration. **Oh golly gee whiz** say the right wing warmongering, hypocritical/fundamentalist right wing loonies, **mistakes were made. Let's just shut up and continue to re-fight the USA's Civil War/Viet Nam War, only this time in Iraq.** After Congress ends Bush/Cheney's War--belatedly--and impeach Bush/Cheney--belatedly--perhaps they should seriously consider dividing the good old USA at the old Mason-Dixon Line and let the values-spouting/life-respecting/hypocritical/warmongering Southerners start their own wars without killing the rest of us or pillaging what's left of our national treasure.

==if you throw your medals away, from a soldiers perspective, you are saying that I no longer own these medals==

Yes, one no longer owns things one throws away.

==Sean: I never had issue with your own personal opinion...I could actually care less if you were an unreformed communist...my issue is your pretense in knowing what the American people want...unless you are some sort of savant, you dont have a clue...you can look at the Balkans campaign for an recent example of what the American people want...put Bosnian victims on CNN with Christiane Amanpour and voila, you have the American people stating "do something". ==

Whatever, dude. I pointed out that misspellings of names is boorish. You responde with more personal attacks. It's your call.

==Sean: See my comments above. I dont think you have any idea on how the average American thinks about this...you are in your own echo chamber.==

Really? I think today most citizens would agree with me, or me with them. I am afraid it is your opinion that is in the minority, and it upsetting you, regardless of numerous proclamations of "that's jake with me". Hence the personal attacks.

==Jimmy Carter was not exactly the internationalist standard by any means...he was trounced by Reagan because Reagan promised a muscular foriegn policy...this is not news and it is not new...==

That was then, this is now.

the concept of Americans becoming isolationist may be coming/maybe with this next election. i do not doubt that there are many who feel plain tired of the idea of America being the worlds policeman...I have no doubt that many look at the world and say, why do we bother? I think that we may be coming to an end of the internationalist FP that we have had for the last 65 years...but I also think that if the people have made these decisions in enough mass, then they will ELECT the PRESIDENT that most closely holds their view on this issue...just like they did with Reagan in 80 and 84....so call me an authoritarian masked as a populist but I really do believe that the people will make the choice that THEY WANT.==

Yes the people will duly chose from the two candidates filtered through the hundreds of millions of dollars of special interests and deep minority of party machinery. Half of the people won't even bother to vote, convinced that it changes nothing. Many would be disenfranchised from voting, or banned outright through fraudulent list purging. Most Americans who will speak out for the war won't be able to find Iraq on a labeled map of the world. Most Americans 18-24 won't be able to tell you how big is the population of this country. But we will duly select among the two "choices". Come to think about it, we should force the rest of the world to follow OUR system.

I can imagine a system where there is no corporate financial contributions subverting the electoral process, where most people vote and where the people are not deeply ignorant of important issues of the day, because most of news coverage is devoted to a death of a starlet. But that system would not be America today.

"Why do we bother", indeed. We kill and kill and kill, and that ungreatful world just seems to not appreciate our efforts at platning the seeds of freedom everywhere. They just end up hating us, for the life of me, can figure out why...

REV SAYS: How About A Plan To Eliminate Poverty in America?

Sean: How about you lead by example Rev...lets talk about what you are doing personally to stop homelessness? Why is it always someone elses job to fix REV? I mean you got a spare couch right?

Sean #1
"What is amazing about the spitting myth is the truth of how many veterans threw away military decorations and metals to protest the Vietnam War. I recall seeing over a dozen veterans at once toss all of their metals and decorations into a river to protest the war. I guess you're going to say this was a "liberal lefty lie".

Sean: I actually really respect those who tossed their medals and "meant it"...if you throw your medals away, from a soldiers perspective, you are saying that I no longer own these medals...they are not mine and I have no connection to them...those who pretended to throw them away, well that is even more weasely than Mr Arkin...and that is saying something....

Sean #1 says: I read the entire post and none of the stories you posted were proven to be antiwar war protesters spitting on soldiers. "

Sean: What, are you high? NYT pulitzer prize winning reporters and Medal of Honor winners stating it as fact? I guess if that is not good enough for you, then you had to be there watching it...but people like you would convince yourself you did not see it anyway...how old are you anyway Sean #1? I am 44 just so you know...I am asking because you seem awful defensive about this particular incident...usually, in my experience it masks a baby boomer leftist...are you like somwhere between say 52-62? Just wondering...

Dimitri:
"Actually, I don't think "comrade" is an appropriate moniker for me. And I don't find my very basic desire for more political choice "elitist" at all - just logical. Further, I don't think we have done well - trillions of dollars spent on foreign policy of aggression, with hatred and terrorism to show for it.

Sean: I never had issue with your own personal opinion...I could actually care less if you were an unreformed communist...my issue is your pretense in knowing what the American people want...unless you are some sort of savant, you dont have a clue...you can look at the Balkans campaign for an recent example of what the American people want...put Bosnian victims on CNN with Christiane Amanpour and voila, you have the American people stating "do something".

There are many on the left and a few on the right who believe we should have an isolationist foreign policy (which essentially means no military action outside of our borders). I always point out the isolationist arguments for what they are...every single time, whoever I am speaking with' denies they are isolationist.

I am telling you that I dont care if the American people want to become isolationist, it is FINE BY ME...but then again, I trust their judgement...but for the last 60 years, that is not what they have wanted. For the most part, they like being the new Romans from my foxhole. They do have choices...money did not stop Dean who wanted to stop the war...the people did.

Dimitri:
"It sounds to me that people like you (authoritarians mascarading as populists, with fake "respect for the people" coming out of every crack), are genuinely afraid of giving the American people an actual choice. Because you know what they will choose - a foreign policy based on respect for sovereignty and soft power, instead of the gun.

Sean: See my comments above. I dont think you have any idea on how the average American thinks about this...you are in your own echo chamber. Jimmy Carter was not exactly the internationalist standard by any means...he was trounced by Reagan because Reagan promised a muscular foriegn policy...this is not news and it is not new...

the concept of Americans becoming isolationist may be coming/maybe with this next election. i do not doubt that there are many who feel plain tired of the idea of America being the worlds policeman...I have no doubt that many look at the world and say, why do we bother? I think that we may be coming to an end of the internationalist FP that we have had for the last 65 years...but I also think that if the people have made these decisions in enough mass, then they will ELECT the PRESIDENT that most closely holds their view on this issue...just like they did with Reagan in 80 and 84....so call me an authoritarian masked as a populist but I really do believe that the people will make the choice that THEY WANT.

==Jefferson sums it up best:==

I encourage you to read the text of one of the very early treaties the young US established with kingdom (caliphate?) of Lybia. In there, Congress specifially states that our difference of religion (and by extension, ideology), should not be viewed in any way as detrimental to good, fair and friendly relations between the two countries. In that treaty's language the founding fathers specifically contrast the US with the European powers, which have been invading Arab lands on essentially that times' version of "regime change" for a very long time. It is a remarkable document.

==I would move to nominate you for President of the U.S.A==

I am afraid my naturalized citizenship status will disqualify me before any other consideration, but thank you for kind words.

=="Killing for ideology, even perhaps good ideology is in itself wrong." The logical conclusion of what you appear to be saying is that oppressive and brutal regimes should be dealt with by not using force. I would argue the opposite. The world has let brutal dictators from Stalin and Hitler to Saddam wreak havoc on their citizens, neighbors and the world. All ideologies are not good or valid or something that should be accepted. With all due respect to the Rev, for the most part, warts and all, America's is. Jefferson sums it up best: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."==

Your problem is a misinterpretation of the above famous statement. He also said that America should not go abroad in search of monsters to slay. The founding fathers valued liberty for themselves, perhaps enough to kill in defense of it at home. But they certainly considered killing foreigners, not in defense of OUR own liberty but in EXPANSE of liberty abroad to be a completely un-American endeavour. They thought America to be a guiding light for the world, "a friend to all", a fair trading partner and supporter of freedom, but never as a aggressive expeditionary force to install "regime change" at the point of a bayonet. American foreign policy of relentless aggression abroad and reduced liberties at home is antithetical to all that our founding represents. The idea that it is America's destiny to go on essentially ideological wars abroad, to kill multitudes to institute our idea of freedom in others' lands is truly insane and preposterous. It is violence bred by hubris and hubris reinforced by religion of ideology. It is a cult of merciless violence in wicked pursuit of an ephemeral goal. It is a truly horrible thing, and it should be rejected by all freedom loving citizens.

And as far as humanitarian interventions are concerned, perhaps, in some limited circmustances they can be helpful. However, in both Somalia and Kosovo, they clearly failed, judging by continuous crisis in Somalia and continued reversed ethnic cleansing and violence in Kosovo. A humanitarian intervention in Iraq would have perhaps been justified when he was gassing the Kurds int he Anfal campaign, but at that time he was our allies and Ronald Regan quashed the cautious Congressional resolution speaking against Saddam at that time.

Dimitry
"Killing for ideology, even perhaps good ideology is in itself wrong." The logical conclusion of what you appear to be saying is that oppressive and brutal regimes should be dealt with by not using force. I would argue the opposite. The world has let brutal dictators from Stalin and Hitler to Saddam wreak havoc on their citizens, neighbors and the world. All ideologies are not good or valid or something that should be accepted. With all due respect to the Rev, for the most part, warts and all, America's is. Jefferson sums it up best: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Something to ponder!

If we could only get the same kind of consensus in America from our leadership and the American people to fix the pernicious historical and systemic problems that have lingered in America for so long;

The same problems that have lingered since America's existence;

And the kind of consensus and solidarity that we get when it comes to attacking other sovereign nations of the world like Iraq for their purported wrongs;

Just imagine what we might be able to accomplish in America; the nation that judges and brings harsh judgment rightly or wronly upon other nations even handing out death sentences?

Ironically, the same nation that repudiates anyone or any other nation for what America perceives as injustice (the same behavior, many times, that America engages in); however, who would even dare to mention American dysfunction wihout being vociferously attacked by the same America who judges others for doing what America and Americans often do!

Imagine how we could minimize the damage that we are doing around the world when we stop and start dealing with our own nation faults, flaws and outright corruption (how about spying, Abu Gharib, secret prisons, kidnapping citizens from other nations and killing people and I haven't touched on the domestic stuff?

What would it require? America would require a new and different kind of leadership (perhaps a restructing of government itself), and a change of heart by the American people!

Why do people come to America Debi? Why do people do anything? Action is predicated upon what people believe. Having said that, what people believe is not always the truth. Unfortuantely, many immigrants who have elected to come to the land of the free and the home of the slave have been disappointed, while others have been engratiated.

Either way, do we keep on overlooking America's problems, or addressing them at a snail's pace, while bringing swift retribution against many other nations of the world?

Americans always proudly proclaim that America is the best place in the world to live. Is that true, or is that pride and/or American Idol worship?

Imagine if the concerted effort put forth over the past 5 years to destroy Iraq, had been forth to straighten out America? Where would we be now?

Dimity said:

Isn't there something wrong with this picture? Any historical bells a-ringing? And for the religious Americans, isn't this type of behavior anathema?

Dimitry,

I would move to nominate you for President of the U.S.A., however, you appear to be a man of integrity, honesty and character. Ergo, you do not possess the qualifications that are needed for the job.

Thank you for telling the truth. Obviously too many in the American church today have abandoned the very biblical creeds (the inerrant truth as they tell it), that they say that they believe in.

Portions of the nazi Christian church did the same when Hitler was forcing his designs upon his own country and the world!

Debi,

True, but can a Saudi Arabian be critical of the ruling family or worse yet dare to speak of someday there being a democratically elected government in Saudi Arabia? Or is it that we turn our heads to the Saudi's, 911, financing Al Qaeda, and financing the Sunni insurgents, all three of which have killed and are killing our troops and citizens, to reap the benefits of reliable cheap oil? The greatest threat to our country right now is not the dictator Sadam, but DICKTATOR CHENEY who has who has mismanaged our military and foreign policy since 911. Too bad Rummy and scooter have to be the scapegoats for his ideological stupidity.

Debi; "Iraqis had no freewill to express their thoughts against their "Dictator" for fear of being imprisoned or put to death.", and nothing has changed, the entire government under US occupation has to hide in the green zone to stay physically alive. Debi, you are very critical of Rev, but I have yet to see you post anything critical of the bush Administration or its policies, therefore you are not in any position to criticize Rev without being a total hypocrite.

Sean#1

There is not one government on this planet that is not flawed in one way or another. I do not think that anyone in this blog is trying to say that the US Government is perfect. I lived in the Middle East for 4 months. I saw both Iraqi people and Jordanian people. One group afraid to speak their mind and the other westernized living peacefully beside Christians. Iraqis had no freewill to express their thoughts against their "Dictator" for fear of being imprisoned or put to death.
Posted by: Debi | February 26, 2007 09:28 AM

Debi,

I fully accept that you do not agree with my positions.

However, please agree with this one.

Our theme
Ought to be
To pursue different passions
For different people!

If you can agree with that, we are on the same page!

==Shouldn't everyone have the right to express their thoughts without fear as we are doing in this blog?==

Yes, but when you kill people to impose this right overseas, that's wrong, don't you think? Killing for ideology, even perhaps good ideology is in itself wrong. Ideology, essentially a system of national organization and transactional order, has, curiosly, become the new religion for the largely secular West, to a point where many in the US are willing to kill many people in far away countries, ostensibly in order to bring the benefits of freedom to them. Isn't there something wrong with this picture? Any historical bells a-ringing? And for the religious Americans, isn't this type of behavior anathema?

There is not one government on this planet that is not flawed in one way or another. I do not think that anyone in this blog is trying to say that the US Government is perfect. I lived in the Middle East for 4 months. I saw both Iraqi people and Jordanian people. One group afraid to speak their mind and the other westernized living peacefully beside Christians. Iraqis had no freewill to express their thoughts against their "Dictator" for fear of being imprisoned or put to death.

Rev, it is you that believes that other nations should not have what we have. Shouldn't everyone have the right to express their thoughts without fear as we are doing in this blog? If our soldiers leave Iraq now, the fragile Iraqi government that our soldiers have given their blood, sweat, tears and lives for will collapse and once again be ruled by an evil dictator. I see again and again in this blog of people screaming that the US are bullies. The facts are, we have worked hard to become such a strong nation, and if people want to call us bullies....so be it. Shouldn't the strong look out for the weak?

I must also state the fact that resorting to derogatory comments and name calling only shows ones ignorance. Can't anyone get their point across without resorting to this?

Rev, you state that, "America's most infamous heroes and leaders, were mostly hyporites, liars, scoundrels, vicious racists, land grabbers, trucebreakers, invasionist's, occupiers and criminals!"

Rev, let me remind you of a great former American icon. What are your thoughts of Abraham Lincoln? Where would the blacks of America be if not for this great man? There is not one man on this planet that that can say that they are perfect (Oops besides you, rev). I am sure that if given the resources, you could probably find dirt on 'Honest Abe' too, but that does not change the good that he did.

Rev, I also find it funny that you refer to Sean as "Deep Space 9." It sounds to me that you are the one watching too much Sci-Fi here? May I ask what is the 'united people's military?" Did I see that on Star Trek or something? Come to reality Rev, there is always going to be one person that feels that they are superior, and can rule the world better than anyone else. Hitler is the perfect example.

Rev, you said, "How do you change the present condition in the world, you change America and Americans, there is no need to attack any more countries or to remain, illegally, in any other countries. The problem lies smack dab in America!"

Rev, All I can say is that you must not be an American. Where do you live? If America is so bad, why do so many immigrants, illegal immigrants, etc. still live here, and continue to come to such a horrific country everyday?

==Second, the new agreement, like the 1994 pact, is an attempt to modify behavior using bribery. But under the 1994 agreement, North Korea got the bribe -- energy assistance -- before being required to change its behavior. Under the new agreement, North Korea will receive just 5 percent of promised oil -- 50,000 of 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil -- before it must fulfill, in 60 days, the first of the many commitments it has made.==

The "new" agreement simply get NK to a point they were before Bush's presidency. It doesn't even address theit new nucleam BOMBS, nor the supposed uranium enrichment program, over which the original agreement was abrogated by Bush.

==Third, the administration believes it found, in Banco Delta Asia, a lever that moved Pyongyang. The Macau bank was pressured into freezing 52 accounts holding $24 million -- yes, million, not billion -- of North Korean assets because Pyongyang has been using them for illicit purposes. If Pyongyang flinched from being deprived of $24 million -- less than Americans spend on archery equipment in a month -- Pyongyang's low pain threshold suggests how fragile, and hence perhaps how containable, that regime is.==

Perhaps. So Bush spend years rattling sabres at NK, while they built nuclear bombs to no avail. Then it decided to use diplomacy and economic sanctions to cut the best deal we could. This deal is a just as much a sign of American weakness, after years of trying to intimidate NK ("we don't negotiate with evil, we defeat it!"), than as of fragility of NK regime.

==then I have no problem trying to get the world on that page==

The main thing is not to be willing to kill people to accomplish it. Killing people for ideology is perhaps at the root of our political problems worldwide. Even as we agree that the ideology is "good", it is impermissible then to force it on others at the point of the gun.

The Rev,
"Unfortunately they cannot navigate around or avoid the interferring behemoth, the United States of America; the world's that insists on controlling the narrative and driving the discussion and direction that the world must go in based on its limited Amero-centric perspective." Ahhh, The Rev makes me laugh. His arguement brings to mind a scene from the movie The Sting when cheating card player Robert Shaw, upon losing to cheater Paul Newman, complains "What was I supposed to do - call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?" The Rev seems to think that the US is unique in trying to influence events and other countries. He also seems to think that the rest of the countries in the world have a "world-centric perspective" as opposed to say just a "european-perspective" or a "middle-east perspective". No country brings a world perspective - each has its interests and acts accordingly as best it can. The US just does it more effectively than most.

"America wants its design and blueprint placed upon the whole world. America has to accept that the rest of the world, those other lowly nations, have some ideas of their own, which the United States of America simply will not tolerate." Here is where the Rev does not make me laugh. It seems to me the Rev is saying that Hitler or Stalin (or pick any number of brutal oppresive regimes) had some ideas of there own that America was not willing to tolerate, but America should have just accepted those and not been an "interferring behemoth". OK, that's one point of view. Not a good one in my book but i'll try to be less "Amero-centric" and accept that as a sensible position. If by "design and blueprint" you mean democracy, liberty and personal freedoms and yes, even capitalism, then I have no problem trying to get the world on that page. But the Rev wants to shoot not only the messenger but also the message. When there is some country in the world, other than America, where year after year countless people continue to literally die trying to get IN because they want the things that country has to offer, I'll consider that America may have to alter its "design and blueprint". Until then, perhaps the Rev should focus his venom on the countries where people are unable or are dying trying to get OUT.

Correction

Unfortunately they cannot navigate around or avoid the interferring behemoth, the United States of America; the world's 'meddling Superpower'...

The world is tiring of America's 'manifest destiny' abroad. Even America's allies are complaining of America's abridgement of the laws in their nations.

Germany has warrants out for American CIA agents.

France is complaining about America's illegal activities being carried out in its nations.

America downed an Egyptian airliner in the past.

Listen I could make up a whole list, but from this short-list you can see that America does not even respect the borders of its friends.

Who could help shape the world given this current Administration that ignores the American people, Congress, american law, international law, NATO, the United Nations...?

Americans insist that their way is right, others need not apply or suggest...just get in lockstep, for that is America's motto.

God help you Dave and help to open up your limited perspective on the world.

Toother nations and people of the world, many of them are beginning to see the American President as a dictator, and America as a totalitarian nation, where other nations of the world are concerned.

Is that what you want? Well, if we believe in the freedoms that we talk about, this nation must permit others to free and to pursue their destinies and without interference from the hegemon Uberpower United States of America!

If other countries want to join in and help advance mankind, they are more than welcome.

Dave!

Other countries of the world have been trying to join in for over a half-century now, in order to help to advance mankind.

Unfortunately they cannot navigate around or avoid the interferring behemoth, the United States of America; the world's that insists on controlling the narrative and driving the discussion and direction that the world must go in based on its limited Amero-centric perspective. It's not even a western perspective anymore. And I remind you that America is only 230 years ago, an infant among many of the world's nations.

Most of the reactionist behaviors and condemnations coming from around the world pointing in America's direction, are a consequence of America's need to control and to dominate. The resistance of other nations including our allies is beginning to take hold as well as to mount up.

America wants its design and blueprint placed upon the whole world. America has to accept that the rest of the world, those other lowly nations, have some ideas of their own, which the United States of America simply will not tolerate.

America and Americans view the world through the prism of their own arrogant viewpoints, and that is a recipe for disaster!

Dave, you are a dyed-in-the wool America, seeped in Americanology. However, try looking at things from another perspective sometimes, open up! Believe it or not the world got along fine, ever before there was an America.

American had its century. The world is dynamic, and most nations have tired of machiavellian and draconian American practices, not too mention its incessant inteferences in the affairs of other nations.

The rest of the world is moving on. Well, unless the U.S.A. decides to stop them - and you know what I mean by that.

Dimitry,
"Yup, Bush, through utter idiocy, continuous belicosity and blunder has suceeded in taking NK to a potential agreement very similar to the one they had when he took office. With one small difference" First off - the first deal was nothing to write home about. While there has been some belicosity, there has been very little blunder or idiocy with the negotiations. What would you have done - just continue to give them money while they still developed nukes? The new deal has a few differences as outlined by George Will: First, China was infuriated by North Korea's October nuclear test, which fizzled but expressed defiance of China. So now China seems amenable to serious pressure on its mendicant neighbor, which is substantially dependent on China for food and energy.

Second, the new agreement, like the 1994 pact, is an attempt to modify behavior using bribery. But under the 1994 agreement, North Korea got the bribe -- energy assistance -- before being required to change its behavior. Under the new agreement, North Korea will receive just 5 percent of promised oil -- 50,000 of 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil -- before it must fulfill, in 60 days, the first of the many commitments it has made.

Third, the administration believes it found, in Banco Delta Asia, a lever that moved Pyongyang. The Macau bank was pressured into freezing 52 accounts holding $24 million -- yes, million, not billion -- of North Korean assets because Pyongyang has been using them for illicit purposes. If Pyongyang flinched from being deprived of $24 million -- less than Americans spend on archery equipment in a month -- Pyongyang's low pain threshold suggests how fragile, and hence perhaps how containable, that regime is.

==sean:
DMITRI:

I almost forgot. My name is spelled with a vowel between the first two consonants, like this:

D-I-M-I-T-R-Y

That's the American spelling of my name. You attempt to russify it back to the original is not appreciated. And being bilingual, I am not easily impressed by rudimentary knowledge of a foreign language.

==The problem lies in the fact that those conditions are unacceptable to the Iranians, hence the nuclear blackmail. What they want isn't simply engagement, but engagement on their terms, which is both unrealistic and unacceptable.==

Well, we want stuff on our terms, and we don't think that's unrealistic and unacceptable.

==If they want entry into the club, they should meet the requirements for admission, plain and simple. If they don't want to, they don't have to.==

At this point they seem to want to press their rights under the NPT to have a full nuclear fuel cycle. What we want is for them to remain fully safeguarded by tne NPT, yet not to get any benefits from it, like a fuel cycle. They claim our position to be problematic.

==The Bush Administration should follow the same path they did on NK and simply let the Iranians play their out their cards and then let them come to us, as recent news reports suggest is already happening. By not blinking we prove that peaceful engagement can only come through peaceful means, not blackmail, a precedent that can only have positive consequences for the US.==

Yup, Bush, through utter idiocy, continuous belicosity and blunder has suceeded in taking NK to a potential agreement very similar to the one they had when he took office. With one small difference - they are now a nuclear power. I guess it could have been worse. With Bush, treading water is a REALLY good thing.

Archimedes

The only cartoonish view of international affairs is coming out of the White House and that is the real problem. The other reality is a failed Iraqi war and who will have influence in its aftermath, us or Iran. There is no Al Qaeda presence in Iran, however it can accurately be stated that Nuclear Armed Pakistan is the new headquarters for Al Qaeda, where it has sanctuary from persecution by a sympathetic Sunni population and government. We never thought Saudis would be behind 911, but they were. Going after Iran is barking up the wrong tree, don't turn your back on Pakistan even for a second! As with the real Archimedes, are too bogged down in details to see the real eminent danger, "Noli turbare circulos meos".

"This cartoonish view of international affairs would be laughable if it weren't real, and that is the problem. If, the Iranians really want peaceful engagement and integration with the international community, they have been told what they need to do by multiple members of said community. The problem lies in the fact that those conditions are unacceptable to the Iranians, hence the nuclear blackmail. What they want isn't simply engagement, but engagement on their terms, which is both unrealistic and unacceptable. If they want entry into the club, they should meet the requirements for admission, plain and simple. If they don't want to, they don't have to. The Bush Administration should follow the same path they did on NK and simply let the Iranians play their out their cards and then let them come to us, as recent news reports suggest is already happening. By not blinking we prove that peaceful engagement can only come through peaceful means, not blackmail, a precedent that can only have positive consequences for the US.
Trust always in Reason
Archimedes
Posted by: Archimedes "

Dave, it was not the rest of the rest of the world that flew planes into our buildings and blew up our embassies, I don't recall Canada being behind it? It was a very few deranged right wing conservative Islamic fanatics mostly from Saudi Arabia, not unlike the deranged right wing conservative Christian fanatics from the United States that bombed Oklahoma City and the Atlanta Olympics. We are no different than the rest of the world in that respect. The sad reality of terrorism in today's world is that it's a right wing conservative Islamic movement. Nothing can be blamed on the left or liberals. It's conservatives all the way, if not for the conservatives, the world would be a much safer place.

As for our inventions you mentioned; Getting to the moon was German scientists that defected to our country after WWII and the internet was invented by lefty liberals. The assembly line was invented in Britian in 1801 by Marc Isambard Brunel (Father of Isambard Kingdom Brunel) for the production of blocks for the Royal Navy. The Block assembly line was so successful that it remained in use until the 1960s, with the workshop still visible at HM Dockyard in Portsmouth, and still containing some of the original machinery. As for the airplane it was another method of flight, the first to fly were the French in balloons.

"Actually, we'd just like the rest of the world to stop flying planes into our buildings and blowing up our embassies. We'd rather just concentrate on getting to the moon and inventing new things like the internet, the airplane, the assembly line and such. If other countries want to join in and help advance mankind, they are more than welcome.
Posted by: Dave! "

Dave:

Bravo sir, bravo. The myopia of the good Reverend is, at times, simply astonishing. His generally shallow critiques of American foreign policy and national security calculations make his prescriptions all the more entertaining. The arrogance of the American left continues to amaze me, how they talk all day about 'the world' and 'humanity' but then turn right around and act as if these same people are nothing but pawns before the Great Satan. I continually find it funny how the rest of 'the world' is painted with a broad brush, while America is somehow singled out, as if there is some sort of global peace consensus that the US is always ruining.

This cartoonish view of international affairs would be laughable if it weren't real, and that is the problem. If, the Iranians really want peaceful engagement and integration with the international community, they have been told what they need to do by multiple members of said community. The problem lies in the fact that those conditions are unacceptable to the Iranians, hence the nuclear blackmail. What they want isn't simply engagement, but engagement on their terms, which is both unrealistic and unacceptable. If they want entry into the club, they should meet the requirements for admission, plain and simple. If they don't want to, they don't have to. The Bush Administration should follow the same path they did on NK and simply let the Iranians play their out their cards and then let them come to us, as recent news reports suggest is already happening. By not blinking we prove that peaceful engagement can only come through peaceful means, not blackmail, a precedent that can only have positive consequences for the US.

Trust always in Reason

Archimedes

The Rev(isionist)
"See you folks get angry when the Rev reminds you of the character of America's former icons. Here's a suggestion: On each President's Day, they should scroll information like this across our TV sets during programming. Ah, I could do it, I have a lot of information about all of them including George Washington and Tom Jefferson, slave pimps! These are the types of people that America began with, and the reason that America cannot get it straight now." I'm not angry - just amazed that someone who enjoys all America is and has to offer is so anti-American. The Rev(isionist) is looking for perfection, which is not to be found here on earth. It seems that failure of America to reach the ideals set forth by our founding fathers means that we are a menace to the world. Following this line of thinking, The Rev(isionist) can continue to minimize America's contributions to mankind and the world. According to The Rev(isionist), America is the problem in the world. See, in Iraq, for instance, he thinks that it would be much better for Saddam to be brutally controlling the people and using oil money to fund the massacres. If the US would have just minded its own business, Saddam could have carried on his merry way, gassing and executing the people that he did not like. In The Rev(isionist)'s mind, butting in makes America far worse than Saddam.

"Why do most nations of the world like the DPRK, Iran and Iraq crave nuclear weaponry and nuclear technology? How come nations of the world like France, India, Pakistan, and China...possess and continue to develop nuclear technologies. Answer: A-m-e-r-i-c-a!" Or prestige. Or realizing that all the members of the UN Security Council had nuclear weapons. Or to get them a better seat at the world table. Or, much like Everest, because its there. I find no facts (or common sense) to think that India and Pakistan (sworn enemies) fear America more than each other. And as much as Americans in general despise the French, I also find no reason to believe they have them to protect themselves from the US (since they developed their nukes in 1960 during the cold war - yeah, it was really not the USSR they were worried about).

"Who are they really concerned about (mostly)? Answer: America. Even America's quasi allies are more concerned about America than they are about Russia or China. Hmm and what does that tell you?" It tells me you don't know what you are talking about and that your hate for America is blocking your vision.

"What other nations and its venal leaders would be so stubborn, and persist in the crimes against humanity the kind that are current being carried out in Iraq by the United States of America?" Saddam (was) and Iraq, Arafat and the Palestinians and their suicide bombers, Burundi and Rwanda, Somalia, Omar al-Bashir and Sudan, Castro and Cuba, Soviet Union - especially under Stalin, China and Mao/Jintao, Sayyid Ali KhamEnei and Iran, King Abdullah and Saudi Arabia, Bashar al-Assad and Syria, Isayas Afewerki and Eritrea, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Kim Il Jong and North Korea, Than Shwe and Burma, Mugabe and Zimbabwe, Islam Karimov and Uzbekistan, Saparmurat Niyazov and Turkmenistan, Teodoro Obiang Nguema and Equatorial Guinea, Turkey and the Armenian genocide, Cambodia and Pol Pot, Pinochet and Chile, East Timor, Uganda and Idi Amin, and Slobodan Milošević and Serbia just to name a few. The Rev(isionist) apparently believes that the US should be at the head of this list.

"When I was a kid in the American Public Indoctrination System, I was taught things like America has 60% of the world's automobiles, 80% of the world's telephone's, 80% of the world's refrigerators..., they forget to tell us 100% of the world's nukes." Apparently the APIS forgot to teach The Rev(isionist) math as it is impossible for the US to have 100% of the world's nukes if others have some.

"Most Americans particularly the Reaganized and Bushified one's still want to live in a world where the U.S.A. has a disproportionate share of the world's goods and its wealth. In their minds, America is all that matters. And the rest of the world and the people of the world are ancillary and disposal nuisances." Actually, we'd just like the rest of the world to stop flying planes into our buildings and blowing up our embassies. We'd rather just concentrate on getting to the moon and inventing new things like the internet, the airplane, the assembly line and such. If other countries want to join in and help advance mankind, they are more than welcome.

I see you were surfing the neocon/nazi web sites today. I read the entire post and none of the stories you posted were proven to be antiwar war protesters spitting on soldiers. The one in Allentown was old enemies running into each other, the war had nothing to do with it. One individual who claimed to have been spit on recently in DC was the same individual who claimed a little girl sent a threatening letter to him at Walter Reed, this guy is a confirmed mental case. What is amazing about the spitting myth is the truth of how many veterans threw away military decorations and metals to protest the Vietnam War. I recall seeing over a dozen veterans at once toss all of their metals and decorations into a river to protest the war. I guess you're going to say this was a "liberal lefty lie".

The Rev would pray for a person like you SSean, I'm not the Rev, I'll hound your little fascist ass to hell and back. You are a disgrace to the United States of America and everything it stands for.

"LEMBKE THE MORON
HEY, SEAN #1...HERE IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE, THE SOLDIERS BEING SPIT UPON...
IN a column by Slate's Jack Shafer, in which he asserted that the "myth" that Vietnam War opponents spat on veterans has been debunked. Shafer rests this claim on Jerry Lembcke's 1998 book, "Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam," which Shafer says he has made his "best efforts to publicize":
Posted by: sean"

SSean why do you still support George Bush and his Iraq war strategy of "staying the course"?

Quit dodging the question you jerk!

Yes, Arkin's back by popular demand and here to stay, now go to bed Steve, you bore us!

Well based on Mr. Arkin's military experience, yea right, it would be incorrect for the military to wait until the go order to make plans for attack. This is common knowledge that the military think tanks are always searching and developing new plans for all type of battle conditions.

Why Mr. Arkin's is still at the POST? Writing from the compound of his Vermont hideout you would have thought by now he would be gone.

Posted by: Steve

I'm Okay You're Okay,

Anyone remember that bestseller from a couple of decades ago:

In it the author discussed transactional analysis. For every human encounter both a transaction, and analysis takes place the author wrote, e.g., I'm okay but you're not okay, or You're Okay and I'm not okay, or neither of us or okay, or both of us are okay.

In too many of our, America's, transactions with other people and nations of the world, Americans assume that 'we are okay, but they are not okay'. And once America assumes that you are not okay, believe me America will do something about you or your nation.

I wish that America would take about a decade off from war and persecuting other people and other nations of the world, and during that time we could invest in some badly needed introspection. And, we could do something about what we discover about America.

I believe that if we did so, we could come up with a more just America, and as a result a better world.

We are not always okay in America; it has been long overdue for us to listen to what others have had to say about America. It has been long overdue for us to, if we must, declare war on some of America's problems and to eliminate them!

Good night!

How About A Plan To Eliminate Poverty in America?

The Apostle Paul had the same problem with his native country. Jesus, Jeremiah and most of the major and minor prophets joined him in condemning Israel's misbehaviors. They were all anti-Semitic you know? (-: Ah, people started questioned my patriotism in 1973. What did I do wrong? I told the truth about my native country America; people weren't used to anyone doing that.

What I gathered from that experience way back then is if you tell the truth about America, then in some circles (the President's for example) you are believed to be unpatriotic. If you lie and misrepresent facts (like the President and his team does) then you are an American patriot. Hmm...!

Well back to the Apostle and the prophets. The fact is that the Apostle and company simply told the truth about what was wrong with their own nation; just like I do today. And does that make people angry? Too many Americans love to point out the faults, real or imagined, of other nations, just as George Bush does on a consistent basis with every other nation of the world seemingly.

But George Bush, like most people don't like you telling them the truth about themselves either. He calls other people and nations 'evil'. He didn't like it when President Hugo called him ' el diabalo'. The scriptures did say that Satan was the 'Father of lies'.

Neither Bush nor his compadres will ever acknowledge the problems with America or themselves, and that is why America's problems never get solved. For example there are people in this nation who do not have healthcare, they cannot afford it. But what is more important to Bush? Bush preferred to attack a nation that did not represent any kind of a threat to America. Now you call that leadership? Balderdash, that's buffoonery of the worst kind.

America's leaders prefer attacking other nations as if somehow America was some paragon of virtue itself. But will American's leadership ever deal with the myriad of problems in The White House (Cheney and Libby); on the American streets, rape, murder, poverty and child abductions...shall I go on?

Oh I know, there are terrorists out there. America is the number one exporter of terrorism in the world, the world knows that. Come on people, let's be real. And if America wasn't so corrupt in its dealings with other nations and people, I believe that there would be far fewer freedom-fighters (I mean terrorists) who are fighting back with America!

On the upside, after destroying Iraq's economy, the President wants to create jobs for Iraqi's. What a nice guy. Has the President looked out of the back door of the White House lately? Has he noticed the homeless living in the park across the street near the Ellipse where one of America's 'most wanted' used to live? It's not all Bush's fault. America's domestic and foreign policy has been screwed up since the nation began. However, Bush seems to enjoy his job, even when he smiles and says; well I misled the nation a bit (hee hee)! Well the underserved will simply have to wait won't that? For America has yet another Administration that would prefer to take lives rather than to save them. In the words of Bush's mentor, Ronald Reagan, eventually some of the crumbs will trickle down to those in the lowest echelons of American society. Hope they like ketchup!

Oh and before I go, what did Paul say about Israel? He said that Israel had left the righteousness of God, and instead they set about to establish their own righteousness. Man does that sound like America? Americans certainly aren't pursuing God's righteousness for God does not condone pride, greed, murder, misrepresenting the truth, lying...! But that is exactly what America has been doing since it came into existence. Perhaps that is why there is so much debauchery in the land. Perhaps that is why America cannot rid itself of the spirit of murder, because America began by murdering people and confiscating their lands, and ironically in 2007 America is still doing the same thing.

Sorry guys, I had to miss church today, so I had to preach to somebody.

And let the Congregation and Sean said, Amen!

==Dmitri: Of coursse any military action would need the authorization by Congress, so a defensive war under UN chapter VII would rrequire it. I support the American constitution that grants the Congress such a crucial duty.

SEan: Outstanding that you support the war in Iraq...the congress had that duty and voted on it...I guess that settles that...==

Are you pretending to be this foolish? Iraq war comes nowhere near the defensive war as described in Chapter VII of the UN Charger. Imminent attack on your contry is required for defensive pre-emption. No attack was imminent from Iraq nor one contemplated. So the war in Iraq is a war of aggression, an international war crime.

The question of the Kosovo conflict and the war powers act is MUCH more complex than the factually rump textoid you "present". Here is some more factual meat:

------------------------------------------
The Kosovo controversy began in earnest when on March 26, 1999, President Clinton notified the Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution", that on March 24, 1999, U.S. military forces, at his direction and in coalition with NATO allies, had commenced air strikes against Yugoslavia in response to the Yugoslav government's campaign of violence and repression against the ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo. Prior to the President's action, the Senate, on March 23, 1999, had passed, by a vote of 58-41, S.Con.Res. 21, a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President was authorized to conduct "military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)."

Subsequently, the House voted on a number of measures relating to U.S. participation in the NATO operation in Kosovo. On April 28, 1999, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1569, by a vote of 249-180. This bill would prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Defense Department from being used for the deployment of "ground elements" of the U.S. Armed Forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia unless that deployment is specifically authorized by law. On that same day the House defeated H.Con.Res. 82, by a vote of 139-290. This resolution would have directed the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On April 28, 1999, the House also defeated H.J.Res. 44, by a vote of 2-427. This joint resolution would have declared a state of war between the United States and the "Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." The House on that same day also defeated, on a 213-213 tie vote, S.Con.Res. 21, the Senate resolution passed on March 23, 1999, that supported military air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. On April 30, 1999, Representative Tom Campbell and 17 other members of the House filed suit in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a ruling requiring the President to obtain authorization from Congress before continuing the air war, or taking other military action against Yugoslavia. (69)

The Senate, on May 4, 1999, by a vote of 78-22, tabled S.J.Res. 20, a joint resolution, sponsored by Senator John McCain, that would authorize the President "to use all necessary force and other means, in concert with United States allies, to accomplish United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)." (70) The House, meanwhile, on May 6, 1999, by a vote of 117-301, defeated an amendment by Representative Ernest Istook to H.R. 1664, the FY1999 defense supplemental appropriations bill, that would have prohibited the expenditure of funds in the bill to implement any plan to use U.S. ground forces to invade Yugoslavia, except in time of war. Congress, meanwhile, on May 20, 1999 cleared for the President's signature, H.R. 1141, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill for FY1999, that provided billions in funding for the existing U.S. Kosovo operation.

The Senate tabled two other amendments that would have restricted military operations by President Clinton in Kosovo. On May 24, 1999, it tabled, by a vote of 52-48, an amendment offered by Senator Arlen Specter to state that no funds available to the Defense Department may be obligated or expended for the deployment of U.S. ground troops to Yugoslavia unless authorized by a declaration of war or a joint resolution authorizing the use of military force. The Specter amendment did not apply to certain actions, such as rescuing U.S. military personnel or citizens. (71) On May 26, 1999 the Senate tabled an amendment, by a vote of 77-21, offered by Senator Bob Smith to prohibit, effective October 1, 1999, the use of funds for military operations in Yugoslavia unless Congress enacted specific authorization in law for the conduct of these operations. (72)

On May 25, 1999, the 60th day had passed since the President notified Congress of his actions regarding U.S. participation in military operations in Kosovo. Representative Campbell, and those who joined his suit, noted to the Federal Court that this was a clear violation of the language of the War Powers Resolution stipulating a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the area of hostilities after 60 days in the absence of congressional authorization to continue, or a Presidential request to Congress for an extra 30 day period to safely withdraw. The President did not seek such a 30 day extension, noting instead his view that the War Powers Resolution is constitutionally defective.

On June 8, 1999, Federal District Judge Paul L. Friedman dismissed the suit of Rep. Campbell and others that sought to have the court rule that President Clinton was in violation of the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution by conducting military activities in Yugoslavia without having received prior authorization from Congress. The judge ruled that Representative Campbell and the other Congressional plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the suit. (73) On June 24, 1999, Representative Campbell appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appeals court subsequently agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis before Judges Silberman, Randolph, and Tatel. On February 18, 2000, the appeals court affirmed the opinion of the District Court that Representative Campbell and his co-plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the President. (74) On May 18, 2000, Representative Campbell and 30 other Members of Congress appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court. On October 2, 2000, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, refused to hear the appeal of Representative Campbell, thereby letting stand the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals. (75)
------------------------------------------
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_31
-------------------------------------------

While I supported the Kosovo military actions initially, I no longer think they were justified or appropriate. That recent history demonstrates that both parties pursue the foreign policy of relentless aggression.

==Sean: Who are you? I mean really, who do you think you are? No one elected you to determine what is good or bad about American Foreign policy...no one has stated that you are holder of all virtue and knowledge of virtue...so excuse me while I applaud the American people in choosing who they believe should be president...and what their foreign policy should be...and not decided by the elitist ex Russians who obviously have issues with democracy...that was my France comment...their bureaucrats all go the same elitists schools and they get picked from that bunch...Ronnie Reagan went to some no name school and Bill Clinton defines a poor background...so maybe you are looking for a more French solution==

Whatever or whomever you are angry at, you shouldn't take it out on me. I think I am a citizen, and I am not happy with just two choices at election time, both of them products of highly efficient special interest money pits and party machinery. The two parties have a stranglehold on power and by limiting the choice to two, both beholdent to the same money base, real choice is greatly diminished.

==If the people did not want it, the people would vote for something else...as they did for FDR...as they did for Eisenhower...as they did for Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan and as they did for Bill Clinton...the people are the ones who have decided to push for an internationalist foreign policy...it is too bad that the people do NOT agree with you...you can call it a conspiracy or anything else you want, but lets make it clear...the people have choices...in primaries and in elections...if they want an isolationist candidate that fits YOUR needs, then they will get one. How elitist of you to say that the people are too stupid to know who to vote for..==

That is factually incorrect. I don't know what fantasy you are living in, but it takes many millions to mount a senatorial campaign and hundreds of millions today to run effectively for President. The people get to pick from two candidates pre-selected for them by moneyed elites. Unless you can get the super wealthy to back you to the tunes of millions of dollars, your campaign is over before it is even started. Vilsakc couldn't raise the millions (not from the "people", but from very "special people") so he is gone. That's not real choice, that's a mockery. The founders roll over in their graves as millions are spent on political access.

==Sean: You dont even understand the system you live under.==

Actually, I understand it all too well.

==You have no respect for it or the people that vote for it.==

Actually, it is my respect for the American people that leads me to expect more choice for them.

==You are an elitist who thinks your way is obvious and if it is not acted upon, then obviously there are strong powers that are keeping the American people from their natural isolationist tendencies..lemme tell you something comrade...the American people have done just fine without you or me...and I find your elitism UnAmerican...==

Actually, I don't think "comrade" is an appropriate moniker for me. And I don't find my very basic desire for more political choice "elitist" at all - just logical. Further, I don't think we have done well - trillions of dollars spent on foreign policy of aggression, with hatred and terrorism to show for it.

It sounds to me that people like you (authoritarians mascarading as populists, with fake "respect for the people" coming out of every crack), are genuinely afraid of giving the American people an actual choice. Because you know what they will choose - a foreign policy based on respect for sovereignty and soft power, instead of the gun.

sean: 1: DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE NOT VOTED ON BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL?

DMITRI: Every country has a recognized right of self-defense under UN chapter VII, no vote of the UNSC required. I support this right.

sean; 2: DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS BUT NOT THE UN?

Dmitri: Of coursse any military action would need the authorization by Congress, so a defensive war under UN chapter VII would rrequire it. I support the American constitution that grants the Congress such a crucial duty.

SEan: Outstanding that you support the war in Iraq...the congress had that duty and voted on it...I guess that settles that...

3; DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE PASSED BY THE UN BUT NOT BY THE US CONGRESS?

DMITRI: Well, no, the US military couldn't participate in a UN allowed military conflict without explicit authorization by our Congress, according to our contitution, which I support.

Sean: Yea, except the US attacked Serbia without congressional authorization--the only thing that came close was a funding vote that failed(202-202 vote in the house). HOwever, it was challenged in teh courts, up to the Supreme Court and they ruled that the vote was sufficient to be considered authorization for the war...soooo, since Congress voted for this war, and continues to fund authorizations, i would say you are on some shaky ground here..

4; DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE NOT PASSED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL, NOR ARE THEY PASSED BY THE CONGRESS?

Dmitri: No, that would be in violation of international and US laws.

Sean: Well at least I know now where you stood on Kosovo...you were against it based on the above answer to that question...

4A. HOW ABOUT IF THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT EVEN THOUGH THE WAR IS NOT PASSED BY CONGRESS OR THE UN, IT IS STILL A LEGAL WAR?

Dmitri: "It has no authority to do so under our constitution, as it would violate the primary doctrine of the separation of powers.

Sean: Au Contraire Mon Ami, the Supreme Court did rule just as I stated above in the War of Agression against the soveriegn state of Serbia in 1999 over an internal action within their borders. I would say that that war, was not a war of defense in any sense of the word. That that war did not fit any of your edicts above. Yet, it is the law of the land...

Dmitri: "
The political system is well controlled by a two party oligarchy. It is almost impossible for a third party candiate to mount a potentially winning bid; the only role for a third party appears to be that of a spoiler. Both parties have shown consistent willingness to use military force in questionable circumstances, often well beyond the seeming desires of their constituents, fueled by a conviction of American exceptionalism and inherent goodness of American world hegemony. This hawkish foreign policy and the extensive spread of American military bases in many, many countries, while supported by both ruling parties, is not clearly backed by the population as the basis of American modus operandi in perpetuity.

Sean: Who are you? I mean really, who do you think you are? No one elected you to determine what is good or bad about American Foreign policy...no one has stated that you are holder of all virtue and knowledge of virtue...so excuse me while I applaud the American people in choosing who they believe should be president...and what their foreign policy should be...and not decided by the elitist ex Russians who obviously have issues with democracy...that was my France comment...their bureaucrats all go the same elitists schools and they get picked from that bunch...Ronnie Reagan went to some no name school and Bill Clinton defines a poor background...so maybe you are looking for a more French solution

DMITRI: However, it persists, and will persist, until real choices are offered in the foreign policy arena at actual election time. Americans should be offered a viable candidate at natioanal election time, who explicitely disavowes American role as a global policeman, which come pre-packaged with billions of dollars of taxpayer expenditures and the expected big, great "thank you" from those we "help to help themselves". Neither ruling party will field such a candidate, because that position would be against the now century old party foreign policy platform.

Sean: And? your argument is falling on some deaf ears here. If the people did not want it, the people would vote for something else...as they did for FDR...as they did for Eisenhower...as they did for Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan and as they did for Bill Clinton...the people are the ones who have decided to push for an internationalist foreign policy...it is too bad that the people do NOT agree with you...you can call it a conspiracy or anything else you want, but lets make it clear...the people have choices...in primaries and in elections...if they want an isolationist candidate that fits YOUR needs, then they will get one. How elitist of you to say that the people are too stupid to know who to vote for..

DMITRI: You attacks on me, with the ubiquitous, fake patriotism, straw man arguments and capped by the "go to France" suggestion, is more of a clear evidence of lack of strongly argued position on your part than anything else. Plus it is childish and tiresome. Not to mention churlish.

Sean: You dont even understand the system you live under. You have no respect for it or the people that vote for it. You are an elitist who thinks your way is obvious and if it is not acted upon, then obviously there are strong powers that are keeping the American people from their natural isolationist tendencies..lemme tell you something comrade...the American people have done just fine without you or me...and I find your elitism UnAmerican...

==SEAN: Do you have a reading problem? I stated that the American people could vote for an isolationist socialist and I would have no problem with that...THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT EATS AT YOU...That is the will of the people so be it...regardless of your fantasies about an isolationist foreign policy...but the American people, voted for GW...they could have voted for Pat Buchanon or Ralph Nader...they, the American people, chose not to...I believe in them even if you dont...maybe a little too much dictatorship in the blood there Dmitri...should have tried France...==

The political system is well controlled by a two party oligarchy. It is almost impossible for a third party candiate to mount a potentially winning bid; the only role for a third party appears to be that of a spoiler. Both parties have shown consistent willingness to use military force in questionable circumstances, often well beyond the seeming desires of their constituents, fueled by a conviction of American exceptionalism and inherent goodness of American world hegemony. This hawkish foreign policy and the extensive spread of American military bases in many, many countries, while supported by both ruling parties, is not clearly backed by the population as the basis of American modus operandi in perpetuity. However, it persists, and will persist, until real choices are offered in the foreign policy arena at actual election time. Americans should be offered a viable candidate at natioanal election time, who explicitely disavowes American role as a global policeman, which come pre-packaged with billions of dollars of taxpayer expenditures and the expected big, great "thank you" from those we "help to help themselves". Neither ruling party will field such a candidate, because that position would be against the now century old party foreign policy platform.

You attacks on me, with the ubiquitous, fake patriotism, straw man arguments and capped by the "go to France" suggestion, is more of a clear evidence of lack of strongly argued position on your part than anything else. Plus it is childish and tiresome. Not to mention churlish.

Well based on Mr. Arkin's military experience, yea right, it would be incorrect for the military to wait until the go order to make plans for attack. This is common knowledge that the military think tanks are always searching and developing new plans for all type of battle conditions.

Why Mr. Arkin's is still at the POST? Writing from the compound of his Vermont hideout you would have thought by now he would be gone.

1: DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE NOT VOTED ON BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL?

Every country has a recognized right of self-defense under UN chapter VII, no vote of the UNSC required. I support this right.

2: DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS BUT NOT THE UN?

Of coursse any military action would need the authorization by Congress, so a defensive war under UN chapter VII would rrequire it. I support the American constitution that grants the Congress such a crucial duty.

3; DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE PASSED BY THE UN BUT NOT BY THE US CONGRESS?

Well, no, the US military couldn't participate in a UN allowed military conflict without explicit authorization by our Congress, according to our contitution, which I support. This is explicitely acknowledged in any UNSC resolution allowing (not requiring) members states to use "all means necessary" to remove a common threat to security. UNSC has no direct authority to order military action. It can only allow member states to particpate in it to pursue an explicitely stated goal.

4; DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE NOT PASSED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL, NOR ARE THEY PASSED BY THE CONGRESS?

No, that would be in violation of international and US laws.

4A. HOW ABOUT IF THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT EVEN THOUGH THE WAR IS NOT PASSED BY CONGRESS OR THE UN, IT IS STILL A LEGAL WAR?

It has no authority to do so under our constitution, as it would violate the primary doctrine of the separation of powers.

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

Sean, these are really stupid questions, I am afraid. I am alarmed that you actually don't know the answers to them.

An in-depth look at our clandestine policy in the Middle East:

------------------------------------------
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh?page=1
------------------------------------------

Rev, you mustve missed the below partner...I would guess that you did not see it which is why you would not answer it..I would never think that you were too spineless to ignore the questions posed....right?

THE REV:
"I suspect that Someday, it may take the formation of a 'united people's military' that will include citizens from all of the nations of the earth, that will combat all of the evil forces and governments in the world who have amassed so much deadly power, even an American one that has of late been sent its troops to illegally and immorally invade, occupy and topple a once sovereign nation.

SEAN; LOL...that makes absolutely no sense at all. If all the nations are involved, then why would there be anyone to attack? Also, you are stating you would attack soveriegn governments that you dont agree with...maybe like Iran who hangs 15 year old homosexual boys? Would they be worthy of attack in your idealized version of the world yahoo? How about a country that kills HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ITS OWN PEOPLE, USES CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON ONE OF ITS MINORITIES, STARTS WARS WITH TWO SEPARATE STATES THAT RESULTS IN OVER 1 MILLION DEAD AND BOMBS 3 OTHER COUNTRIES? Would your world body take them on? You are such a child...

What would you fight for if not for the above?

THE REV:Now the Rev would join that military organization. Even American lies and duplicity and hypocrisy, just like any other bad system or ideology must someday be defeated!

SEAN: You spout good revolutionary talk in your nice heated home (with all of that oil stolen from the poor arabs), you are typing on that nice computer using electricity and you are comfortable beyond what any human in history has ever been...and you know what REV? You are not going to do a Damn thing...You wont start a revolution, you wont even organize voters...you will continue to whine on here about racist America but you do not have the stomach nor the stones to do anything about it...when are you starting the revolution REV? LOL, you wont do a damn thing....

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE REV? I hear you about all of the ills of this evil society of which you are a taxpaying member of...so LETS HEAR IT...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO CHANGE IT? (what a joke...complaining on a blog is as far as he has gotten)

SEAN #1 IF YOU HAVE ANY STONES AT ALL (and I am pretty sure you will run away from these questions) then you will answer teh below

So you are against Kosovo/Bosnia obviously...and Somalia too. I guess the last war you were for was WW II...or?

LETS FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU STAND...IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO ANSWER

1: DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE NOT VOTED ON BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL?

2: DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS BUT NOT THE UN?

3; DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE PASSED BY THE UN BUT NOT BY THE US CONGRESS?

4; DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE NOT PASSED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL, NOR ARE THEY PASSED BY THE CONGRESS?

4A. HOW ABOUT IF THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT EVEN THOUGH THE WAR IS NOT PASSED BY CONGRESS OR THE UN, IT IS STILL A LEGAL WAR?

LEMBKE THE MORON
HEY, SEAN #1...HERE IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE, THE SOLDIERS BEING SPIT UPON...

IN a column by Slate's Jack Shafer, in which he asserted that the "myth" that Vietnam War opponents spat on veterans has been debunked. Shafer rests this claim on Jerry Lembcke's 1998 book, "Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam," which Shafer says he has made his "best efforts to publicize":
Lembcke found no news accounts or even claims from the late 1960s or early 1970s of vets getting spat at. . . . Then, starting around 1980, members of the Vietnam War generation began sharing the tales, which Lembcke calls "urban myths."
But Jim Lindgren, blogging at The Volokh Conspiracy, says he "easily found many accounts published in the 1967-1972 period claiming spitting on servicemen." They include articles in the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as smaller papers. Here's just one example:
Among the journalists who gave first-hand accounts of spitting on soldiers was James Reston, two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize. Spitting was one of the actions tame enough for Reston to describe in his New York Times front page story covering the October 21-22, 1967 Washington anti-war demonstrations: "It is difficult to report publicly the ugly and vulgar provocation of many of the militants. They spat on some of the soldiers in the front line at the Pentagon and goaded them with the most vicious personal slander. Many of the signs carried by a small number of militants . . . are too obscene to print."
Contrary to Lembcke's claims, I quite easily found many accounts published in the 1967-1972 period claiming spitting on servicemen.
For example, on October 6, 1967, John F. Geyer and Bill Bowers, two sailors in uniform on a ten-day leave before shipping out, were accosted and taunted by a group of about ten young men while leaving a high-school football game in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Bowers heard one of them say, "We're going to get a couple of sailors." Then one of the band of attackers spat at Geyer, hitting both Geyer and Bowers. Geyer, who was a former high-school football lineman, swung at his attacker. The attacker then stabbed Geyer in the side with a knife. After two hospital stays, Geyer fully recovered. In January and February, 1968, Geyer's 18-year-old attacker was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to a reformatory. All this is laid out in a series of stories in the local newspaper, the Bucks County Courier Times.
This was one of many stories published in American newspapers in the late 1960s and early 1970s in which American servicemen were spat on by citizens or anti-war protesters or the opposite: pro-war servicemen or citizens spat on anti-war protesters. (Because Lembcke recognizes the existence of the stories of people spitting on protesters,

Among the journalists who gave first-hand accounts of spitting on soldiers was James Reston, two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize. Spitting was one of the actions tame enough for Reston to describe in his New York Times front page story covering the October 21-22, 1967 Washington anti-war demonstrations: "It is difficult to report publicly the ugly and vulgar provocation of many of the militants. They spat on some of the soldiers in the front line at the Pentagon and goaded them with the most vicious personal slander. Many of the signs carried by a small number of militants . . . are too obscene to print."
A May 16, 1970 story in the Pomona Progress Bulletin recounted how on May 15, Col. Bowen Smith, head of Claremont Men's College's ROTC program, was spat on by protesters as he went to his campus office.
Many newspapers carried a July 21, 1971 AP story about a Northwestern University student, apparently under surveillance by the FBI for many months, who had been observed spitting on a mid-shipman in uniform. She denied that she had done it (presumably she did not deny that some young woman had spat on the mid-shipman).
Several newspapers, including the June 18, 1969 Panama News, printed an interview with General Chapman of the U.S. Marines, in which he "confirmed stories of physical abuse," including spitting. According to Chapman, a Marine recruiter is invited on campus by the administration, but students have been allowed to enter the area set aside for the Marine recruiter. They "stepped on his hat, smashed cigarettes, spit at him and insulted him. Frequently the recruiters are young officers or NCOs who have served in Vietnam." They are trained to suffer this abuse in silence. "Marines are under very strict orders not to react, not to talk back, not to fight back. Just to stand in dignified silence."
Indeed, according to an August 27, 1967 New York Times article by Neil Sheehan, as part of military training in the national guard, soldiers were actually being drilled by being spat on, abuse to which they were instructed not to respond.
One of the more amazing stories of protester abuse of veterans (and one veteran's violent response) were the attacks on Congressional Medal of Honor winners. In a March 14, 1968 column in the Bucks County Courier Times (and elsewhere), the head of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, WWII Medalist Thomas J. Kelly, reveals that even Medal of Honor winners have been abused and "spat upon as 'monsters.'"
Kelly recounts how, in an appalling lack of decency, about 200 anti-war protesters showed up to harass the Medal of Honor winners at their annual dinner, held one year in Beverly Hills. Most Medalists were able to dodge the hecklers, but WWII Medalist James Conners was unable to avoid a particularly obnoxious man yelling, "Killer, killer, killer." Conners decked him.
In the November 14, 1967 New York Times, Pulitzer-Prize winner Max Frankel quoted Jack Risoen, a California Democrat who runs a liquor store: "Last week I took my parents to an American Legion meeting--it was just a memorial service for the First World War dead and outside three kids spit on my father." Imagine that: spitting on a veteran attending a memorial service for dead veterans!
Several articles, such as in the August 3, 1969 Odessa American, refer to anti-war students spitting on ROTC uniforms, without being entirely clear whether the students are in them at the time.
With all this documented spitting going on, not surprisingly there were many more discussions by politicians and writers of letters to the editor complaining about militants spitting on the military. Indeed, one might say that people at the time were almost obsessed with spitting: in just a day of searching, I found dozens of stories about spitting on flags, spitting on police, spitting on the military, and spitting on protesters. Responsible anti-war activists, such as Allard Lowenstein implored students who opposed the war to stop all the spitting (May 14, 1969 WAPO). When California Governor Ronald Reagan insulted another politician with a crack about spitting on the sidewalk, columnist Drew Pearson (November 25, 1967) suggested that perhaps Reagan had a "spitting gap" as big as his "credibility gap."
The tipping point seemed to come with the White House's efforts to found a counterforce to John Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In early June 1971, there was a huge press push to trumpet the new organization headed by (among others) John O'Neill (later of Swift Boat fame) and Jim Minarik. The first paragraph of the most common story included a claim by Minarik that "he walked out of doors in his uniform and he was twice spat upon."
Over the following eight months, there was an explosion of concern about the shabby treatment of veterans returning from Vietnam, discussions in which some version of Minarik's story seemed to resonate. In July 1971, a month after Minarik's story hit, Birch Bayh was spat on in a Florida airport by a man reported to be a pro-war Vietnam veteran. Bayh's attacker was neither arrested, nor (apparently) questioned by the police.
In August, under a contract with the Veterans Administration, Harris conducted a poll of Vietnam-era veterans, employers, and the general public to assess how veterans were adjusting to life at home. The study would be released in January 1972 to much handwringing.
Even the anti-war movement took notice. Several of the fall 1971 demonstrations adopted explicitly pro-troops orientations. And anti-war servicemen had long been welcome in most anti-war organizations, but particularly (of course) Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
In the December 11, 1971, Stars and Stripes, the brilliant behavioral scientist Norman Zinberg wrote about the three weeks he spent that fall in Vietnam studying heroin addiction for the DOD. By then, the stories of harassment and spitting were so engrained in the minds of soldiers that they used them as excuses for their addictions. Zinberg writes about a difference from earlier wars:
The society which sent the soldier to fight not only does not reward him for his participation, but in fact is often hostile to him. EM (Enlisted men) repeatedly told me bitter and poignant stories (some of them undoubtedly apocryphal about two types of letters they received from home).
One would be from a buddy who would report that he had walked down a street in "The World" still in uniform and somebody had harassed or even spat on him. The other type of letter, described even more bitterly, would be from a civilian wanting to know, "Have you really killed any babies?"
Note that by late 1971, the spitting story (in a form much like Minarik's) had become such a cliche that Zinberg probably correctly surmised that more a few tellings of it are not literally true.
In any event, by the fall of 1971 the story of the spat upon serviceman was both well known and much written about. Lembcke's first and second arguments are simply wrong: Stories of gob-covered servicemen started appearing in the press when anti-war protesters started spitting on them in the late 1960s, not around 1980.
+++++++
Lembcke's 3rd Argument: RETURNING SOLDIERS DID NOT LAND AT SAN FRANCISCO OR LA COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS.
Again, I am amazed that Lembcke would simply state this without checking. The May 7, 1967 New York Times story on re-entry into civilian life states: "Almost all veterans are flown back from Vietnam, usually in commercial jets." There are many press stories about servicemen flying to and from Vietnam through commercial airports, particularly on the US west coast.
+++++++
Lembcke's 4th Argument: GIRLS DON'T SPIT"
If you read enough accounts of the vulgarity of some of the anti-war protesters of the period, Lembcke's notion that "girls don't spit" is almost laughable. Beyond the two examples I already gave of young female anti-war protesters spitting on servicemen, I found many examples of female Vietnam protesters spitting on police or other authority figures. Here are three of many:
The L.A. Times of February 27, 1969, like many other newspapers that week, recounts an anti-war female student spitting on University of Chicago Dean James Redfield.
Another first-hand account of spitting on police by an anti-war demonstrator was published in the Washington Post under the byline of Pulitzer-Prize winner Carl Bernstein on May 7, 1970. A woman described by Bernstein as a "girl" and a "University of Maryland Coed" "spit at a policeman, then called him a 'pig' and a 'filthy swine.'" Less than an hour later," the same woman "offered a flower to a different police officer," saying, "It's not your fault."
Ben A. Franklin, writing in the January 26, 1969 New York Times, talks about the "provocatory tactics employed by the children here": "The spit of a sweet-faced girl ran down a policeman's jacket. Endless insults and [tiny] burning American flags . . . were thrown at the police on the parade route."
I guess some young women do spit!
+++++++
On the issues raised by Professor Lembcke, I have to say that I'll take the world of Congressional Medal of Honor winners and Pulitzer-Prize winning journalists for the New York Times and Washington Post over the professor's armchair speculations--especially since many of the former actually witnessed the events they described, while the professor appears not to have made a serious attempt to review the available evidence before publishing his book.
There Are More Blockbuster Revelations to Come on Some of Jerry Lembcke's Other Arguments (in a few days

SSean sits on his fat ass all weekend munching cheetos and chugging Buds while being programmed by Faux News and then while drooling his "chew'n baccie" he has a revelation that he is intelligent, lol!

dmitri: That's your projection as well. You can't imagine someone who will not scream if comforts are taken away. Therefore, your opponents are automatically placed on that shelf, labeled, ridiculed, etc. That is because you are not actually listening to what the folks are saying. In a nutshell, you are not conversing, but rather, regurgitating propaganda you internalized.

SEAN: SOO, DMITRI, you are willing to live like a peasant in Russia IOT have a country that is perfect in its foreign policy?

==NOW WHEN SHOULD WE USE THE US MILITARY DMITRI?==

dmitri: See above.

SEAN: Please answer the questions finally...this is tiresome chasing down where you stand...if you are afraid, then please say it and I will leave it alone.

==SEAN: EXCEPT, The American people voted for GW Bush...they voted for a GOP Congress again in 04...the system is working and if they vote for Kucinich in 08, more power to them...I have no issue with who the American people vote for but I dont think them stupid for who they voted for in the last three elections...I am a true Liberal who believes in the will of the people...unlike you, with your elitist ideas that you wont back up...==

DMITRI: "Here come the mindless labels, again, which makes is nearly impossible to have a conversation with you - the foam on your mouth is obscuring any thoughfull discourse. My point was, that both party elites cosnistently represent a view of American foreign policy which is rooted in aggressive use of military power and coersion. Therefore, the country is almost never given a real choice of foreign policy. You comments were really not about my statement, but about your own psychological preconceptions.

SEAN: Do you have a reading problem? I stated that the American people could vote for an isolationist socialist and I would have no problem with that...THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT EATS AT YOU...That is the will of the people so be it...regardless of your fantasies about an isolationist foreign policy...but the American people, voted for GW...they could have voted for Pat Buchanon or Ralph Nader...they, the American people, chose not to...I believe in them even if you dont...maybe a little too much dictatorship in the blood there Dmitri...should have tried France...

==NOW DMITRI, WHEN SHOULD THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USE ITS MILITARY? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DO YOU THINK IT APPOPRIATE..==

DMITRI : As has been stated numerous times, defensive use of the military is perfectly fine, even in this devoutely Christian nation. So a military response in Afghanistan was and is certainly justfied. Apprehending OBL would certainly be a worthwhile endeavor. These legitimate and reasonable goals are clearly being sidelined by a war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq. That's a bad thing, bad for the country, bad for the people caught up in it. That's what I am against, and the lies that precipitated it.

Sean: Good answer...now you gave one example...lets see you pass the test on the questions I posed in the earlier post...if you dare expose yourself...

Dmitri:
"You believe in the war on a tactic. That's not very smart. It's like believing in a war against ambushes, or encircling maneuvers. As for your patches, I built the weapons you used, or the weapons that protected you while you were in combat."

sean; actually, my version of strategy is well known and used quite effectively through time...it is called deterrence. I would thank you for the weapons but since I am a mercenary according to those you support here, I dont thank you...arent you a mercenary making weapons for wars you loathe?

DMITRI: Heck, you tire me to tears... This question has been answered many times, but not to a satisfaction of a moron - America should fight defensive wars. A war in Afghanistan is a good example.

SEAN; DMITRI; So you are against Kosovo/Bosnia obviously...and Somalia too. I guess the last war you were for was WW II...or?

LETS FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU STAND...IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO ANSWER

1: DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE NOT VOTED ON BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL?

2: DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS BUT NOT THE UN?

3; DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE PASSED BY THE UN BUT NOT BY THE US CONGRESS?

4; DO YOU SUPPORT WARS THAT ARE NOT PASSED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL, NOR ARE THEY PASSED BY THE CONGRESS?

4A. HOW ABOUT IF THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT EVEN THOUGH THE WAR IS NOT PASSED BY CONGRESS OR THE UN, IT IS STILL A LEGAL WAR?

==SEAN: LOL, yes it is isnt it? You are sitting there yelling about American foreign policy and yet, it provides you with these comforts...and if they were to take them away, you would be screaming...such nonsense from the puddlehead leftists...you dont mean it is my problem...you do not mean it...==

That's your projection as well. You can't imagine someone who will not scream if comforts are taken away. Therefore, your opponents are automatically placed on that shelf, labeled, ridiculed, etc. That is because you are not actually listening to what the folks are saying. In a nutshell, you are not conversing, but rather, regurgitating propaganda you internalized.

==NOW WHEN SHOULD WE USE THE US MILITARY DMITRI?==

See above.

==SEAN: EXCEPT, The American people voted for GW Bush...they voted for a GOP Congress again in 04...the system is working and if they vote for Kucinich in 08, more power to them...I have no issue with who the American people vote for but I dont think them stupid for who they voted for in the last three elections...I am a true Liberal who believes in the will of the people...unlike you, with your elitist ideas that you wont back up...==

Here come the mindless labels, again, which makes is nearly impossible to have a conversation with you - the foam on your mouth is obscuring any thoughfull discourse. My point was, that both party elites cosnistently represent a view of American foreign policy which is rooted in aggressive use of military power and coersion. Therefore, the country is almost never given a real choice of foreign policy. You comments were really not about my statement, but about your own psychological preconceptions.

==NOW DMITRI, WHEN SHOULD THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USE ITS MILITARY? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DO YOU THINK IT APPOPRIATE..==

As has been stated numerous times, defensive use of the military is perfectly fine, even in this devoutely Christian nation. So a military response in Afghanistan was and is certainly justfied. Apprehending OBL would certainly be a worthwhile endeavor. These legitimate and reasonable goals are clearly being sidelined by a war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq. That's a bad thing, bad for the country, bad for the people caught up in it. That's what I am against, and the lies that precipitated it.

==STOP RUNNING AWAY FROM THE QUESTION...IT IS EMBARRASSING YOU...==

It seems like it's all in your mind, man