Agkistrodon wrote:

SNIP

situations *was not by our choice*, but a choice made by the enemy. The
US could materially eliminate the killing of innocents (especially given
the precision of our current weapons systems) if the enemy would engage
with any level of honor, wear uniforms, and separate themselves from the
population.


But we declared war on Saddam and not the rest of the terrorist
groups. The present fighting is not being waged by Saddamites but by

'Don't read much news do you. Bush made it clear in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11 that ALL terror groups and their state sponsors
were considered targets. He specifically named Iraq as such as state
sponsor.

new groups that should probably be called "rebels" rather than
"terrorists".

That's a distinction without a difference.



4) We did not start this mess.


That is highly debatable. Since we are allied with Israel and did
much to get Israel instituted as a state, we very well might have just

No, no. no. Your dearly beloved UN was the causal agent for bringing
Israel into existence. Yes, the US pushed and supported it, but the
UN made it happen.


on that basis alone. But then you add in our longstanding activities
with regard to oil interests and you just might conclude that we did
do something that comes close to "starting this mess."

Which "longstanding activities"? The ones where US companies sunk
billions into the exploration and development of new oil fields. You know,
the ones that helped elevate a backward medevial tribal culture into 20th
C technology and creature comforts? Ask the Arabic peoples if they'd
like to go back to riding around on camels and give up air conditioning,
modern medicine, and universities...



Militant Islam has been declaring Jihad
on the West for over a generation. It has acted upon it repeatedly,
culminating with 9/11.


That is because of the Israeli connection AND because of our history
of repression of Islamic fundamentalism through our stooges such as
the Pahlavi family. 9/11 should also be considered in light of our

There is certainly some truth to that. It still does not justify the use
of non-uniformed combatants attacking innocent civilians around the
world. Had the terrorists exclusively targeted US military
installations, this would be a very different discussion in my view.
Instead, yhey declared "war" but targeted civilians. They are cowards
and they are evil. They need to be eradicated with maximum prejudice. I
don't care about their cause, their pain, their plight, or their
sadness. They need to die in as large a number and as fast as we can
dispatch them.


failure to leave Saudi Arabia at the end of Gulf War I. One of
Osama's biggest gripes against us is exactly that point. So, 9/11
more an outgrowth of GWI than any Jihad agaionst the western
countries. Further, the calls for Jihad haven't really been effective
in getting up Muslim's anywhere but the Mideast.

This is complete and irredeemable nonsense. Militant Islam has been
infecting the mainstream of the Islamic community for decades. GW I, the
so-called "plight" of the Palestinians, the presence of Israel et al are
red herrings to cover the real intent of the "new" (old) Islam: to
attack liberal Western democracy wherever it can be found. Such
liberalism is a threat to the religious nutcases that are behind radical
Islam. It is also a threat to the thug governments of the Middle East.
There is _nothing_ that could ever been done to reach detente' w/people
like UBL. You don't negotiate with evil, you kill it where you find it.




Bush properly delared war on ANY state that
operates to support terror in any form.


How about the African states that use it "in any form". Hutus...
Tutsis? How about Norther Ireland? No, there are many governments

All in good time and if and only if they are a threat to the larger
freedom of the planet. Sad as it may be, internal conflicts that
are in no danger of running wild elsewhere are not our problem. Bosnia
leaps to mind. By the way, you may not have heard: N. Ireland has
calmed down some. They're trying to fix it peacefully.

that use terror to control their subjects and that is one form of
terrorism. How about Israeli terrorism against Palestinians?

This is so dumb as to not merit response, but... The Israelis have never
conciously targeted the civilian Palestinian population for murder. Once
again, the "Religion Of Peace" (via its religious and political leaders)
tells its people to harbor fighters wearing civilian garb. You ever see
an Israeli child with Semtex strapped to their body wander through the
Palestinian section of town? You ever see Israeli soldiers purposefully putting
bullets through the head of Palestinian 5 year olds? The Israelis are
sometimes wrong, but they are not the concious and purposeful murders of
people they know to be innocent.




9/11 is not the reason we're in
Iraq. The fact that Sadaam had hatched a plan to assassinate a US
President is more than enough justification to take him out.


No, it isn't. After that plot went astray, he was told not to do that
again. He didn't. No American was ever a target of any terrorist
attack by SH except for GHWB.

Well, while you are busy trying to empathize with that Poor Little
Man, Sadaam, I prefer to see him die screaming because he tried to
kill an American president. I would feel the same way even if he'd
gone after a President I hated, like Clinton. Principle is at stake
here.


The fact

that he openly supported the Palestinian suicide murderers that target
innocents is justification enough.


No, it isn't. He never attacked us. Shall we pursue similar wars
whenever one state uses terroprist strategies against neighbors in a
border dispute. Why didn't we invade Chechnya for its use of terror
against Russians?

Because the Russians took care of it on their own, that's why. If such
conflicts are entirely internal matters, then I agree we should stay out.
But SH inserting himself into the Palestian murder missions internationalized
the conflict (more than it already was) and threatened to further undermine
the stability of the region. If we had historically stayed out of the area
completely, then I'd agree w/you. But we have not - we've been engaged
there forever, so we have an interest in the outcome, however unpleasant it
may be.


The fact that his intelligence

services were well known to cooperate with Al Queda and their fellow
travelers is justification enough.


Not ONE SHRED of evidence indicates this!!

You mean the CIA hasn't been sharing its files with you? OK - our
government claims they have proof, but cannot share the details with the
rest of us because it might compromise our intel processes. Now, what is
more likely: a) That hundreds or even thousands of government,
intelligence, and legislative officials of both parties conspired
together to make up the story and hold the lie together daily (because
we all know how good the Congress Critters are at keeping a secret,
especially a big one like this) OR b) It's true.





Bush's great mistake was leaning on

the WMD argument - he didn't need it, and it was a tenous thing in the
first place because it is hard to prove even when absolutely true - the
evidence can be "disappeared" rapidly. He should have invaded without
any further discussion on that basis of those three facts alone and told
the UN to go scratch.


What three "facts"?

The attempted assassination, SH's support for Palestinian terrorism, and
the collusion of Iraqi intelligence with Al Queda.



5) A better solution all around 25 years ago, would have been to pull
out of the region entirely, and let them all have at each other. In the
50 or so years Israel has been a modern state, less than 100,000 Jews
and Arabs in total have been killed in that conflict. But in that same
time, north of 3 *Million* Muslims have killed *each other* in the
region. The West should have stayed out and let them continue to kill
each other in large numbers. They would either cease to exist or decide
to change their way of thinking, either of which would be good for the
rest of the world.


A better solution would have been fifty years ago when we had a chance
to change the face of Islam by introducing modern education and
development into Iran. We could have, over a generation or two,
developed an understanding of Islamic philosophy by shepherd boys that
would have been modernistic as well as in tune with many of the more
abstract Islamic thinkers of the 8th, 9th, 10th etc. Centuries. Islam
had a level of enlightenment in it that far exceeded that of
Christianity. It still does but its fundamentalist practitioners are
so concrete in their approach that they find their exact equivalents
in Chrsitianity. Read some of those Rapture books by LaHaye (is it?).
They are as bllodthirsty as ever the most fundamentalist Mullah ever
was.

They certainly are. You frequently see Christian Evangelicals sending
their children off as suicide bombers. Just last week I attended a
Fundamentalist service where Jews and Muslims were being beheaded on
video tape. Let's never forget that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell fund
hijackings and murder of handicapped people. Oh, and did I mention how
the Southern Baptists are teaching their people to fly jets into
buildings so they can kill a few Catholics?

Yeah, you're right - Islam is the highly enlightened culture. The rest of
us Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists et al are the barbarians.




Snip to end... your rightwing misconceptions and justifications are
boring.

It may interest you to know that I am by no means right wing. I have
considerable opposition to most of the Right agenda. Over the years I
have supported and voted for people in all corners of politics: Left, Right,
Independent and Libertarian. However, as of the past several years, I will
no longer EVER support any Left candidate so long as I live. Why? The
Right may be wrong about lots of things (Compassionate Conservatism,
Gay Marriage, The War On Drugs, ...) but they're just, well, wrong. The
Left is _stupid_ and therefore very dangerous. The Left would have us
lay down and die while we try to "understand" the terrorist point of view.
The Left is full of genius analysis like the one above:

"They are as bllodthirsty as ever the most fundamentalist
Mullah ever was."

The Left cannot make any kind of nuanced distinctions between actions based
upon the intent of the actor. The Left is morally corrupt and no longer deserves
to exist in its present form. The Left that used to defend Free Speech now
inhibits it on university campuses. The Left that used to challenge the power
of government now exploits it for its own political ends. The Left that used
to believe in freedom and opportunity for all citizens now wants everyone
to be enslaved by government.

I am a Libertarian. I rarely vote for anyone else anymore. I had (and have)
real reservations about our presence in Iraq. But given the behavior of the
enemy, I think President Bush has done all that can be done. I further think
that had he NOT gone to Iraq, the slightest shred of evidence of SH colluding
with Al Queda, no matter how indirect, would have been used as political
fodder by the Left to try and discredit him. The Left doesn't care about
the health of our Union, after all, they care about raw, rancid power.

In short, I have forever abandoned the Left because of the kind of thinking
you've demonstrated here ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/