Henry,

First, in typical right wing fashion , you are, right from the very first sentence, inaccurate, and spinning. I never said I was "confused", o.t.c., I said "Your arguments are becoming less and less logical and coherent, and more difficult to follow. You are all over the map!"

(Ergo, YOU are confused, and unable to counter my main points or address the questions I raised, and are trying to confuse the issue!)

That in no way suggests I am confused by anything you have posted, merely, that YOU are unable to stay on topic, are bringing up issues which are totally irrelevant and have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand.

This appears to be nothing more than a beginners's debate tactic, in an effort to convolute the discussion and take it elsewhere. (Just as JFM tries to do with his insults and put downs.) That is what one does when one cannot debate the logic of their opponents argument; try to change the subject. It won't work with me. Sorry.

No disagreement.

Again, no disagreement. Now, you need to tell Bush and Cheney that, and tell them to stop lying to the American people in their stump speeches when they continue to try to say that because of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Al-Queda is no longer a threat, and that therefore, Afghanistan was a total success and Iraq has been worthwhile.

First, Afghanistan, while worthwhile and for the most part successful, was NOT a total success; at least HALF of AL-Queda, including OBL, escaped, as a result of Bush losing his focus in Afghanistan (again a consistent trait of those of you on the right) and rushing prematurely into Iraq, for political, economic, and religious reasons.

Second, Iraq has had NO meaningful impact upon Al-Queda, except to make them stronger by helping them to recruit new soldiers and begin to reconstitute their numbers; and has not at all been worthwhile, since we now KNOW that the entire premise, (WMD's and ties to terrorism) is FALSE.

I gave you three choices:

A. Did we eliminate or neutalize Al-Queda in Afghanistan?

B. Are they all in Iraq fighting our troops?

C. DOES AL-QUEDA CONTINUE TO PRESENT A THREAT TO THE U.S. AND THE WORLD?

You answered, C. Al-Queda continues to present a threat to the U.S. and the world.

A brief, direct answer would have sufficed. You agree with me, and must therefore agree, and cannot deny, that our war in Iraq has done nothing to make us safer from Al-Queda. All of your other irrelevant dancing around is unnecessary and has nothing to do with the subject at hand:

the war in Iraq;

how we got there;

would we be justified doing the same thing, the same way, even knowing what we now know; (NO, WE WOULD NOT!)

and HAS IT MADE US SAFER FROM TERRORISM IN GENERAL, OR AL-QUEDA IN PARTICULAR! (NO, IT HASN'T!!)

Our efforts in Afghanistan accomplished a great deal in reducing Al-Queda's strength. That was worthwhile. Bush failed to finish the job because he rushed into Iraq for political, economic and religious reasons, ALL of which, benefitted him, PERSONALLY!

I couldn't care less about your analysis about "However, it is now decentralized. decentralizing the terrorists has good and bad sides. Not being localized in Afghanistan... in that like smothering a fire, they have splintered off and formed independent, smaller cells that are difficult to track." None of THAT has anything to do with the subject at hand. (If you need to refresh your memory as to the subject at hand, please see above.)

In fact, the last part of you irrelevant analysis only bolsters my argument that Bush failing to fully finish the job in Afghanistan, before turning his attention to a country which presented NO IMMINENT DANGER OR OTHERWISE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES was a huge blunder! He allowed the rest of them, again, including OBL, to escape, and by going to war prematurely and unjustly in Iraq has enabled them to rally and recruit new members and reconstitute their strength. They are as big a threat now as ever, maybe bigger!!

And again, all of this, "The 1944 Ardenness Offensive, the Japanese Plan to bomb the Panama Canal, Waterloo, and Kennesaw Mountain (1864) all show us.... ....the mind set that an obviously crushed enemy is contained or incapable of launching any sizeable offensive."

is likewise irrelevant to the discussion. In fact, AGAIN the last part of your post should be directed at Bush and Cheny, who would have us believe that Al-Queda was either neutralized in Afghanistan, or are all tied up in Iraq fighting our military, (or BOTH! )and therefore pose no immediate or direct threat to the U.S. or the world. How many times have I heard you and others on this board, or on TV, or in print, justify the war in Iraq by saying that by fighting them THERE we are safer HERE! That argument is TOTALLY OFF THE WALL and HOLDS NO WATER WHATSOEVER!!!




You musta SPUN YOURSELF DIZZY, WITH THAT ONE! I'll bet you're still reeling and swerving!!

Could you BE anymore irrelevant and off topic!!

I NEVER suggested that I would advocate or support military action against ANY of those countries!!!

You said, " ...nor beg Saddam to apologize for the mass graves where people were buried alive; to say sorry for funding Palestinian terrorists that kill hundreds of children on buses, nor to Saddam's tolerance to terrorism as a whole." (There is no evidence in submission to support that allegation. When it comes to waging WAR, it's not what you THINK, it's what you can PROVE!) "Remember when those Brits knocked down an efigy of Bush in London? Where were those people when Saddam killed his own people, or when Kim Jong Il decided to starve his own people. We are fighting to remove a brutal dictator..."

Since Bush's original, primary, justification for invading Iraq was WMD's and ties to terrorism and 9-11, and since that has been disproven, he, you, and others, have attempted to justify his use of force, after the fact, by pointing out that Hussein was a brutal dictator who committed atrocities against his own people. No one has ever disputed that, or suggested otherwise. But that was not Bush's rationale for the necessity of using military force in Iraq!

My reply to YOU was "If your issue is with human rights, why aren't you leading the charge to invade and conquer Saudi Arabia, one of the WORST human rights offenders in the world, and a well documented and well known supporter and sponsor of terrorism? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. If that is your stance, or Bush's, then you must be consistent or you lose all credibility."

I further added:

"Our first responsibility is to our own defense, not the protection of every citizen of the entire world from their own governments. That task is impossible and impractical, and in no way justifies our incursion into Iraq, at that point in time, under those circumstances."

I was NOT advocating or suggesting we SHOULD use military force in any of those countries! I used that to point out that DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS AND REMOVING BRUTAL DICTATORS, while a noble and worthwhile cause and endeavor, IS TYPICALLY NOT ENOUGH JUSTIFICATION, IN AND OF ITSELF, FOR ALL OUT WAR and that if it is, there are other offenders and dictators who are just as bad, if not worse; and that we have known about them for some time, and have not taken military action against them; so why Iraq, and why now? In fact, in the case of S.Arabia, we continue to do billions and billions of dollars with them, thereby supporting their evil regime!

INCONSISTENT AND UNACCEPTABLE!

You have spun and twisted my points into something they are not, and something I have not said! I would NOT support any use of force in ANY of those countries under the present circumstances!

We should, by all means, attempt to put a stop to abuses of human rights around the world. But we do not resort to war to do so, we never have. Our actions in Kosovo were in response to a concerted effort by a foreign government at "ethnic cleansing", genocide, and was in coordination with an international effort led by the U.N., not an essentially unilateral U.S. effort, supposedly executed in the name of self defense, national security, and the legitimate war on terror.


The ONLY justification for the U.S. to launch a first strike, (especially when it is acting essentially unilaterally) against another sovreign nation, is when that nation poses an IMMEDIATE AND IMMINENT THREAT TO THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE U.S., AND WHERE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST.

Otherwise, justice and humanity dictates that we must use greater restraint, and exhaust diplomacy and other less drastic, extreme, and violent and destructive means of achieving a peaceful resolution to any conflict that exists, and do everything in our power to achieve and maintain peaceful relations with the other nations of the world. The only exception to this simple premise of peace is if we are overtly threatened or directly attacked.

And you cannot go to war against an entire country based upon the criminal, terrorist actions of one or more of it's private citizens, absent a concrete, irrefutable link to that country's government i.e. the Taliban. Otherwise, you unjustly punish an entire nation for the actions of a lunatic fringe, and you alienate the entire world.

Otherwise, why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia immediately following 9-11, in light of the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi's, and we know that S.A. has long been a sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism?

Again, INCONSISTENT AND UNACCEPTABLE!


The strategic value of what you have said above cannot be denied. While I recognize that you are responding to a point that I raised, it still does not speak to the specific topic at hand. (See above.) It in no way 1) justifies our war in Iraq, 2) in no way justifies Bush's statement that he would do the same thing even absent his original premise, and 3) in no way demonstrates that we are any safer or have in any way benefitted from the war in Iraq. If the war in Iraq were justified and had in any way made us safer, your above statement would have great strategic value. Since such is not the case your point, while valid as it pertains to Saudi Arabia, is unfortunately irrelevant.

And I still have a problem with compromising our principles on human rights and terrorism where S.A. is concerned, just because it happens to be strategically and diplomatically prudent and necessary in today's global climate, while recognizing that it most likely is, in fact, necessary and prudent.

If I am reading you correctly, and you extrapolate that to it's logical conclusion, you are suggesting that taking military action against S.A. would be tantamount to declaring war on all of Islam, and we are not equipped or prepared to do so, and I must reluctantly agree.

That, however, still is not material to the discussion about Iraq, the justification for the war, doing the same thing even knowing what we now know, and wether or not we are safer as a result.

I am also skeptical of something else you have stated; "...we scrap ANY possible Muslim support (because of its religious value to Islam), which although minimal, is highly strategic."

First, notwithstanding our amicable relationships with Jordan and Egypt, I believe any muslim support in the Middle East is LESS than minimal, and of little or no consequence or value. In fact, again, Bush's war in Iraq may have already done every bit as much to damage that minimal or less than minimal support as attacking S.A. would.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that we would lose the support of Jordan or Egypt, or significantly jeopordize our amicable relationships with them as a result of any such offensive, diplomatically or otherwise, directed at S.A.; or that doing so would have any significant impact upon our current global position or war on terror.

Perhaps I am underestimating the religious value of S.A. and their relationship with Egypt and Jordan, and the value of our own relationship with them.

So you are saying that attacking Iraq was the first step in an eventual war against each of those nations, and that the justification for going to war there, the reason we invaded, conqured, and are occupying them, is because it is strategically advantageous and is only the first step in the larger, grand plan.

That paragraph, by far, is the scariest thing I have read in this entire thread. In this paragraph, you are CLEARLY outlining a strategic plan for eventually invading, conquering, and occupying each and every one of those countries in turn! A plan of global war, and eventual global domination of every country that we have any hostile relationships with, whatsoever. Is that what you think the "war on terror" means? Is that what you think Bush should do, and is going to do?

While I do not disagree with this, logically or strategically speaking, (if in fact that was the answer, the solution, the plan) the implications and ramifications of such a doctrine, absolutely chills me, and gives me great pause. Bush, and you, are already contemplating and planning to continue to escalate this into a global war, global conquest.

While I recognize the need to deal with Iran and Korea as threats, and the fact that they are hostile to our country, I certainly hope with all of my being that we are going to be able to avert any further military actions with regards to these nations, or any other. War is is NOT, the only solution to our conflicts with these two countries, or any other, nor should it be, nor can it be.

You have made it clearer than ever WHY we should "NOT elect Bush", again! I did not use the term re-elect, because we never elected him in the first place.

You and him think exactly alike! You are right. His intention is to wage war with every single one of those countries, eventually, one at a time, each in turn. He sees no other way; no other solution; his answer is to use military force and war to resolve all of our conflicts with everyone and anyone, just as is yours.

He has not the ability, the intelligence, the talent, the desire, or the will, to even ATTEMPT to resolve anything peacefully, or diplomatically. It's too hard for him! It's too much work! It's easier to just send in the military. Plus people profit from it. And they like him because of it. They clap for him and wave flags. He's a hero, and gets to land on a carrier, dressed up like a macho jet jockey. The only thing he, or you, understand, is war, and military force. God help us all.

Thank you, Henry, for opening up my eyes to the real heart of the reason why Bush should not be allowed to continue as President for the next four years. I have learned more from that one paragraph than I have from everything else during this campaign. You have put everything is perspective, and in focus. Thank you.

First, let me assure you that being called a fascist is NOT a compliment; EVER!

Second, let me point out that the fact that you think it is, is the second scariest thing I have read on this thread. Congratulations, you just bumped Jon h. down to number three with this gem; "I don't think it really matters what sandy desert middle eastern country we fight this war in."

Third, let me point out that the fact that you will blindly support any President in power during a war, only further proves that you are nothing but a mindless sheep, who allows himself to be led around and told what is right and what is wrong. So no matter who is in charge, no matter who they go to war with, no matter what the reason or lack thereof, you will agree with and loyally support them, because you think that makes you a "patriot"!?

This is a sad and dangerous thing you are saying, and you are not a responsible, contributing member of our democracy if you walk around nodding your head all of the time.

I wrote you a PM not long ago, and explained the ramifications of silencing the populus during a war, in the name of loyalty, patriotism, and national security. That is precisely how Hitler came to power and how totalitarianistic governments and dictatorships are created. Since I have not posted this for the edification of others, let me repeat what I said to you, but which sadly fell on deaf ears.

If we surrender our freedom of speech, during a war, in the name of loyalty, patriotism, and national security, our democracy, our freedom, and our way of life, cease to exist. All a president has to do to become a dictator is, take us into a war, for any reason, or no reason, silence the populus, and as long as he can keep us at war, he can imprison anyone who criticizes him or voices any opposition or disagreement with him or his policies in the name of national security, eventually impose martial law, do away with any electorate, invoking national security, and we would find ourselves at the mercy of a dictatorship.

Our forefathers knew exactly what they were doing. Their experience with England was fresh in their minds. They wrote the Constitution the way they did for a reason. To give the PEOPLE the power, and not the government. To protect the people from exactly what you and others would create, Henry, given half a chance.

For all your education and intellect, I am sorry, Henry, you KNOW NOTHING about this country, our history, our Constitution, our democracy, or how and why it works, or why we need it to continue to work in order for us to remain free.

Bush, and you, and others like you, claim you are trying to bring the freedom and rights that we cherish here to other nations, when in fact, what you are doing is attempting to undo what our forefathers gave us over 200 years ago.

Our freedoms are all dependent upon what is set forth in the Consitution. You cannot protect and defend freedom, if you do not protect and defend the Constitution. You cannot protect and defend the Constitution while you are simultaneously attacking and attempting to undo the Constitution.

The more I correspond with you, the more afraid I become, and the more I am convinced that Bush, and you, and all the others, are wrong, and must be stopped.

Anyone else reading this, please, listen carefully to what each of us is saying, and vote for John Kerry on November 2nd.

Tomorrow, Henry, I will repost the main points of my previous post and re submit the questions I raised therein, which you have as of yet, failed to reply or respond to, and failed to answer and address.

My final thought, (I have said this before):

Patriotism is loyalty to one's COUNTRY, not one's GOVERNMENT.