If most adults nowadays, and unfortunately many of their children to follow, had not been brainwashed into the Democrat and Republican’s sorry excuse of a foreign policy, we’d have a hell of a lot less to worry about. Terrorism would not go away, but we never would have reached the point we are at now; hated and targeted. It’s amazing how blind many Americans are when it comes to the things our government does. I couldn’t imagine why they’d hate us, considering those thousands of rallies comprising millions of people over the last decade, protesting our troops being in their lands. Especially since we pretty much just told them to shove it and continued on unfazed.
michael-Even didn’t have a debate with the 15 year old. He thought something, but did not say it. So, congrats on your ability to look like an idiot for only reading half of a story and opening your mouth.

i dont know about the rest of you but its not much to brag about.

The line between reporter and commentator has gotten far to blurry for my liking.

1> In this context, terror is a method … making the lives of noncombatants the primary target of surprise attacks, by forces that do not take steps to identify their members as a military force, to evoke a political response that is based more on fear than reason.

IMO, our response must be to make clear that this method is absolutely unacceptable as a lever for political change, regardless of the cause, if we value the stability of civilization itself (not just American, either).

2> What I see as the primary fuel for today’s terrorism is not a yearning to simply throw off the influence of “evil America” — I see the driving force as a puritanical hatred that is only palatable to fanatics … a hatred that is not embraced by the majority of people in these nations, and in fact has made their lives miserable on many occasions (ask the Afghanis).

These fanatics seek to severely infringe upon the inalienable rights of these people … which in itself creates instability.

That’s not to say that we have not added to that by our errors in foreign policy … but I lay those errors as much at the feet of the Leftists who dissuaded us from the direct use of American force to immediately remove despots instead of coddling them, as I do at the feet of the Right who went along with this.

In fact, part of the disdain for America is because they equate us with the corrupt despots who oppress them … even as those despots rail against us.

3> History aside, when nations allow themselves to be hijacked and leveraged by such fanatics, to the point that they enhance the threat of these fanatics to the inalienable rights of those outside their borders, free people have both the right and responsibility to “tell these nations what to do” — if necessary, by force.

First, let’s look at what I call the “dichotomy of blame” that follows something like 9/11. Simple-minded folks who do not wish to investigate the root causes of a tragedy will be quick to say “it was them evil trrrrists! Let’s kill all the terrrrrsts!”

On the other hand, there are those who are courageous enough to stand up and face the problem head-on, and look at the realities of our situation, rather than burying their heads in the sand and spouting off a few soundbytes about how we’re gonna “win” the war on “terra”.

Now, in this dichotomy, if one would be courageous enough to open their eyes, there are 2 causes: the immediate actionable cause, and the driving factor behind that cause. First, the immediate actionable cause: the 17 hijackers and their organization, Al Qaeda. These are the people responsible. These are the people who should be punished. There is no question about that. Yes, Libertarians believe in justice.

But if we are to prevent another 9/11, then we must ALSO look beyond the immediate action, and investigate the causes. Saying we’re going to wage a war on terror is like saying we’re going to wage a war on…jealousy, or anger, or lust. How do you wage a war on terror? Terror is an innate part of the human psyche. And killing a bunch of known terrorists is not really going to put an end to the idea of “terror”. Nothing will.

In fact, I believe that Badnarik’s statement above, which has been made before by a great many people on the left, right and center, is the true root cause. They don’t hate us because of our freedom, or because they want to take over our country. Sure, there may be a few extremists who want to turn the earth into a muslim kingdom, but the muslim world, as a whole, hates us for another reason. And that is, quite simply, that we’ve been sticking our nose in their business and trying to turn them into us, for years, often with dire results for them.

This isn’t just the ol’ “everything the government does is bad” schtick.

No — but I do maintain that Saddam & Sons would have no qualms cooperating with Al Quada, religious differences notwithstanding.

If they thought it was their advantage to materially support an Al Quada attack on American soil, they would do so. In fact, it would give Saddam & Sons the ability to leverage their resources to create problems for us, while maintaining plausible deniability in the eyes of the rest of the world.

My concern is neither retaliation nor revenge — it is preventing an attack from people whose history and character clearly indicate they would have the will to do so, the instant they thought it was to their advantage and/or our will to overtly oppose them faltered.

And, let’s not forget the reported Iraqi ties to the FIRST WTC bombing. So, if these reports are true, they did contribute to American deaths on American soil.

Yes, yes, the article was supposed to just be funny (and it was, I laughed my ass off), the thing is that humor has a hard edge to it that insults a great deal of the media, while making assertions about journalism. If he honestly believed what he said, then fine, but he should at least stay consistent.

when if ever have the actions of saddam and sons ever caused bodies to drop on our streets? Are you one of these who maintain Al-Quaida is a front for Iraqi intelligence?

You have to remember, Rich, that these are libertarians. When bodies drop in our streets they blame America for it.

We tried it Kerry’s way (or at least the way his supporters want us to go, which will probably turn out to be his approach) for decades — and it never removed one dictator. Is that “competence” in the primary mission of any government: the protection of our right to live?

Chalabi’s info was only one piece of the whole puzzle — problem is, y’all wouldn’t even consider the character and history of Saddam & Sons in making the go/no-go decision for war.

You’d wait until the bodies dropped on our streets, instead, before you’d be that “judgmental”.

Well, that’s because Kerry hasn’t been running around like a jackass for four years, saying things like “watch this drive”, “bring it on”, “mission accomplished”, etc. Kerry didn’t launch a war based on the disinformation campaign of an Iranian spy.

Etc, etc.

Competence has its benefits.

heh.

I bet if Kerry goes to Ireland, RTE will treat him with kid gloves.

http://www.narphonax.com/blog/2004/07/good-for-awhile-there.html

(yeah, I know, long-winded, but it just kept coming out…)

John

And, I expect you to treat candidates for the office the same way — where’s your hard questions for Kerry?