RAzOR

Good point. Slavery was the hardest issue ever faced by our country. It nearly destroyed us. However, that correction did succeed and the country did survive. More recently we have worked hard to remove racism, sexism, etc all without violence (of any significant military magnitiude). To me that says we have a good system. And again, I am not purporting Imperialism, just thinking. Sometimes I think the children of Africa would be far better off if we ran the show over there. Wouldn't you agree?

Agreed- the balance is civil liberties against security and that is no easy question. To me the real threat to our countries and our civilzation comes from within, our own weaknesses, our own sense of guilt for our wealth, our faults in dispensing our wealth, and the like. Sometimes I wonder if Imperialism, done right, is such a bad thing. I mean the Romans brought their way of life to societies that ranged from inferior to just downright savage (They didn't want to war with Egypt or Carthage I think, as they were powerful and succesfully goverened). After the bloodshed, in the long run, those societies, those provinces, flourished with trade and wealth. Again, I'm just pondering. Sometimes I feel like the US should just go where it will with overwhelming force, hold our own, annex the land and teach our way of life- our freedom, democracy, justice system and trade wealth for resources. And our systems are far from perfect, but about as good as it gets. Anyway, just thinking. One of my favorite thinkers stated recently that a society should not be judged by its faults but more by what it does to remove its faults, to grow. For me, that did wonders.

I was only making the point that it isn't that the Islamic radicals cannot take the west out in a violent manner (like your sparring analogy stated). I probably shouldn't have included those other religeons but I was only demonstrating that save from nuking themselves, the US, Britian, France, Russia- all judeo-christian rooted nations, could obliterate any country, any religeon external to themselves without even trying. That it is not the Islamic world that is keeping our power at bay, it is our own principles. I couldn't include Chrisitian since those countries are largely Christian. Yeah, adding Hinduism and Busshism confused things, sorry. So I'll say it without those two and maybe it's more clear: The west could wipe out nearly all of Islam thirty minutes which not coincidentally is the time it takes for an ICBM to reach its target. A fact that is lost on the vastly illiterate masses of Muslims who think Allah is keeping the infidels at bay. We are keeping ourselves at bay. Our war, in my humble opinion is for the heart of the moderate Muslim, who is afraid of being killed by the radical Muslim which is why they are largely silent. The real civil war in Islam will erupt once (if at all) the moderates decide the radicals are their worst enemy. Unfortunately, I think that is the strategy the West must adopt- enabling the moderate Islamists to reclaim their religeon. The Christians went through this 500 years ago. Again, bad form on my part, I think you are right, I should not have lumped Hinduism and Buddhism with Islam even for purposes of example. My apologies.

I know you are worked up but please read it again. I have not edited it and it makes no such threats. For clarity, here is your particular line I was responding too with my "nuke" observation. If you put them in order, I think you will see my point: Your post clip... "If violence is truly the answer, i challange you to come down here n get in a sparring ring with me. I'll give you 2 rounds to knock me out n then ill descimate you. Thats whats going on over there, we're in round 2 n we haven't knocked them out yet, so we're just pissing em off. What do you think is gonna happen when its time for them to fight back?" -HtownTurboBrick --- My reply: The west could wipe out nearly all of Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism in thirty minutes which not coincidentally is the time it takes for an ICBM to reach its target. A fact that is lost on the vastly illiterate masses of Muslims who think Allah is keeping the infidels at bay. We are keeping ourselves at bay. Our war, in my humble opinion is for the heart of the moderate Muslim, who is afraid of being killed by the radical Muslim which is why they are largely silent. The real civil war in Islam will erupt once (if at all) the moderates decide the radicals are their worst enemy. Unfortunately, I think that is the strategy the West must adopt- enabling the moderate Islamists to reclaim their religeon. The Christians went through this 500 years ago.

The big reason NK is not as dangerous as Iran: Islamic fundamentalists have shown to an exhausting degree they are more than willing to die for their cause (infidels out of formerly Muslim land, destruction of Israel, etc). Now, put a nuke in the hand of a man prepared to die, and you have big problem. The only reason the concept of nuclear detente (MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the US and the Soviets is that both sides did not want to die. It seems that is not the case with so many of the Islamic radicals. That is what makes Iran far more worriesome to me- is that if they get nukes, Iran's government leaders are not concerned about nuclear retaliation by the west so long as they fulfill their objective(s).

Calm down buddy and actually read what I write. And if you REALLY ARE Budhist, then you are definitely the only violent one I've ever encountered!

The west could wipe out nearly all of Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism in thirty minutes which not coincidentally is the time it takes for an ICBM to reach its target. A fact that is lost on the vastly illiterate masses of Muslims who think Allah is keeping the infidels at bay. We are keeping ourselves at bay. Our war, in my humble opinion is for the heart of the moderate Muslim, who is afraid of being killed by the radical Muslim which is why they are largely silent. The real civil war in Islam will erupt once (if at all) the moderates decide the radicals are their worst enemy. Unfortunately, I think that is the strategy the West must adopt- enabling the moderate Islamists to reclaim their religeon. The Christians went through this 500 years ago.

Kuzia, my dear sir, you are just plain wrong. Your information is entirely wrong. Your facts are entirely wrong. This is not hard- check the facts, historical timelines, etc. You are just plain wrong and unless you want to utilize actual, real history in your decision making process, there is literally nothing I can say to you since you do not choose to exist in the real world. Listen, in all sincerity, you have great energy to debate which is unfortunately rare these days- make the energy you spend worthwhile and base your arguments in fact. It takes a little work but soon you will know where you can get reliable information from you'll be surprised and pleased with what you can accomplish. Hint to get you started, Go ahead , its easy! There was no term "Axis of Evil" until after 9-11. Bush came into office 11 months prioir and his focus was education reform. He was even at an elementary school when the 9-11 attack happened. Iran had some F-14's back when the Shah was in power, but since then there have been no parts to maintain them and they were salvaged. I can tell you with complete certainty Iraq's military was far, far more formidable in the region than Iran's. No nation in the ME save for Turkey (NATO) would present any real challenge to coalition forces.

Iran would be milk-toast and I'm not boasting. Their military has not been significantly updated and is smaller than Iraq's was. Look what happened in Gulf War I, Iraq army was much more modern then comparatively and they were decimated. I'm not ignoring any fact. You misunderstand me. Clinton brokered a deal with NK for food and humanitarian supplies in exchange for the end of their nuke program. Lotta good that did. That's what I meant. And Iraq never had the bomb. Did you not read my post and in it addressing indirectly Osama not being Iraqi? There is a potential link I pointed out as rationale to go into Iraq. Read it again and don't call me dumb and I will continue to honor this exchange of ours by providing the informed dialogue. :)

And that's what's great about this country, it's why our way of life IS BETTER- we CAN agree to disagree. Not only is there Good and Evil but there is BETTER AND WORSE. While militarily they would not be an issue, it would another slog. I don't the majority of Americans, including me, want to see us go in- unless we keep it and trade them our way of life for their oil! DEAL! Korea came after we went into Iraq also Clinton supopsedly locked up that deal.

Finally some love. And that's what great about this country, we CAN agree to disagree.

RAzOR was busy drinking heavily in the return of the Steelers to Superbowl Champions! I'll start by saying that the US will not go into Iran. We have too much committed to trying to get out of Iraq with a victory. I would like to see the EU step up to handle this one. At present I have heard two differing sets of info that indicate different senses of urgency. 1. That Iran has one or two bombs already (something must be done ASAP,-military ground campaign, support internal revolution, etc) 2. That Iran is ten years away from a real bomb (heavy diplomacy and regime change should work). I don't know right this second which is correct but you can bet, I'll be paying attention. As for the pesky Kuzia and his/her persistent inquisition in this thread as to why we are in Iraq here's what I think (but not to turn this into an Iraq thread). 1. US, British, French, Russian, Israeli intelligence, all in agreement, indicated high probability that Saddam still had WMD's 2. At the end of the Gulf War, Saddan had confirmed WMD's. 3. Saddam never accounted for their destruction. 4. The goofing off at the UN took 14 months even after 8 years and 15 resolutions (we ended up with 17?) and 14 months is plenty of time to slide those WMD's to, say, Syria or the neighborhood. 5. Saddam consistently obsturcted UN inspectors and hampered their efforts. 6. The finding of buried MIG-25 Foxbats in the desert demonstrates how hard it is find something over there. 7. The Bush Administration had to make a decision as to the RISK that Saddams WMD's could reach the hands of Al Qaida who had recently demonstrated the means to deliver them (9/11) in the US (something Iraq could not do). I believe the decision was made simply to act rather than not act (to be proactive and aggressive). The US coulda pulled out after removing Saddam but are staying behind because of what happened after Gulf War I and the shot at a democratic ME, Islamic country (which may prove to be a valuable ally). I don't buy the war for oil crapola. Venezuela is much closer and woulda been much easier! Plus, we'd be invading Japan now to stop production of the Prius! I work in LA, so obviously these are my perceptions as are nearly all of our opinions here wrought from beer and pretzel rantings. Regardless, the soldiers of the coalition forces are my heros.

I agree. Who, but Kevin, at that hour, would go to a post called To: <insert someone else's name> right after it goes up and then posts on it? KEVIN!!!!!

pwned and boned :o

Not as far as I can remember but there was that time when I was herding cattle in the mountains with another wrangler... This was obviously not my post. My post was to the point (FOR ONCE) as opppsed to my addressee's whose were a bit abrasive but I felt we had a valid discusion going in the right place. Then the thread was killed and I thought Kuzia and I could go on. Password Jack? Maybe, it wasn't tough. Mod Jack? Probable!

I ate a lot of cock today. Please forgive me

Oh, and what country might that be Einstein?

Schools have every right to impose dress codes and in fact should require uniforms. You are there to be educated not express yourself. Do that after the bell rings. Fine with me.

Clinton and Gore are worried about the POSSIBLE fate of penguins in Antarctica 100 years from now which may OR MAY NOT even be the human race's fault. Folks who have their prioirities staright are far more worried about finding themselves glowing in the dark and then dying of radiation poisoning.

I agree and at some point they have to leave it to the locals. But our soldiers are not the ones doing the dismantling. It a curious mix of foreign Syrian backed Arabs and Iraqis. We are helping not hurting I contend. And if we leave now, we leave them less prepared rather than if we left a little later. Thats what the brains are supposed to figure out is "when". And I hope to God we don't have go first into Iran. I hope Europe steps up and takes car of that ballbuster.

The vast majority of our soldiers support the war and rebuilding effort and do not want to leave until their work is finished. No poll ever done shows otherwise. Do some homework. I never said the soliders' opinions do not matter. They matter very much and their perspective is highly valued since they are on the ground and see it first hand. But their opinion cannot direct the course of the war. That's why we have generals and such who get the bigger picture, integrate national policy prioirities, and because of this their actions may not always make sense to the public or the man on the ground.

YEAH! The IRA intentionally blew up schools and weddings and candy stores and beheaded people all the time! What's wrong with you? They're FREEDOM FIGHTERS. No, this is something new and something different. These poeple are NOT defending a territory. And lest you forget, they attacked us on 9-11 and before. We weren't even in their neck of the woods as fits the list of examples you gave. This is different. -You're a fool if you think otherwise bottlecap, nothing matches up to this in history. and YOU fit the "lazy coward" charicature- taking the path of least resistance, least disruption of your life, the path of appeasment and complacency in the face of threat to Western Civilzation itself. HTownTurboBrick: So what if only those who served could speak about it? Well then I guess the military would pretty much be ruling this country since they won WWII for us, held off the Soviets, etc. Where does your logic take you? Not very far. We all have a say in this becuase we have brains and we are allowed to use them. Yeah you three pissed me off alright. Why don't you move to France and help them hoist the white flag? You seem all too eager to do that! You don't beleive in this country and you won't stand up for it because there is no right and no wrong to you. Well let me tell that there is and its coming in the form of a dirty nuke maybe to a neighborhood near you. OOOH but they're freedom fighters! Tell me, WHAT WERE THEY FREEDOM FIGHTING FOR ON 9-11, HUH?!?! Just shake your head and go "Uhu Huhu Duhhh". You gotta think and don't let peace at any cost wackos throw you into a hippie frenzy. Peace is great, but unfortunately, war is need to obtain peace sometimes. It's kinda like "without the 2nd ammendment, we don't have the 1st." Think about it. It isn't going to be OBL saving the world from Bird Flu, or sending up an attempt to divert an asteroid or explore the worlds oceans or give women and homosexuals rights, IT'S the US- IT'S EUROPE, IT'S THE WEST. GET IT THROUGH YOUR SLOGGY HEADS that there is right and wrong, GOOD AND EVIL. Shyeet I'm wide awake now.

THIS WILL EXPLAIN EVERYTHING and scare the sh!t out of you. From the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page

DAGNABIT U R Right! You really are on all the time.

I think they are just going insane. I hope not at the expense of victory.