Perhaps you are bored.  It could be that you are beginning to realize that this isn't some sort of comfortable black and white issue. 

I'm not a big fan of politicians from any country.  Noriega played the collusion/corruption/CIA asset game and he got burned.  I don't feel sorry for the guy.  But I'm not responsible for him. I'm responsible for my own government and what it does.  When the leaders of my country break the law in the name of security and expediency (while often hiding the real reasons) and they are not held accountable, it is my problem as a patriot. Blind faith is not patriotism, it is lunacy.

I hope you will continue to research these foreign policy issues and travel to the under-developed world at some point.  A mind is just like a parachute.  It works better when it is open. 

I'm sure everyone is as bored as I am with your relentless pursuit to find America guilty for all their invasions. But for the sake of summary we can conclude that you think:

Panamanian dictator: victim
Bush senior: perpetrator

Iraqi dictator: victim
Bush junior: perpetrator

Korean dictator: victim
Truman: perpetrator

Cuban dictator: victim
Kennedy: perpetrator

North Vietnamese dictator: victim
Kennedy: perpetrator

Cambodian dictator: victim
Nixon: perpetrator

Oh yeah... you're a real patriot.

A true patriot holds his government accountable for its actions. 

I do have an issue with heads of state acting in concert with evil drug cartels.

You don't have a problem with drugs, just black-marketing heads of state that deal in and condone murder.  So Reagan and Bush Sr. should have been arrested for Iran-Contra.  You can't really get more murderous than selling arms to your enemy (Iran) to use against Iraq so that the CIA can supply arms to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua through Panama using their main CIA asset in the region (Manuel Noriega). 

Let's be clear here: Noriega had been consistently harassing both U.S. civilian residents and their military.

Can you provide specifics?

His forces even gunned down an unarmed American soldier.

Can you determine exactly what happened in this incident?

That's one soldier too many in my opinion.

Twenty-three times more US soldiers died during the invasion. 

Oh, and before I forget, there was that little declaration made by the PRD that "a state of war" existed between Panama and the U.S. ~ before the invasion.

You should have forgotten.  As I have already explained, Panama declared that US actions had created a state of war against Panama.  Your selective and disingenuous use of that declaration is disturbing.  I realize that you have serious issues with reality, and have attempted repeatedly to help you, but at some point you have to  help yourself.  In order to defend your positions you must research the various sides, not just read pentagon press statements.  Your confidence as to what really happened in Panama is simply unjustified.  You may choose to repeat your argument without addressing their tenuous veracity, but they will carry just as much weight.

aren't your run-of-the-mill pharmacists dispensing paracetamol: they are murdering thugs backed by terror forces. While I have no problem with consenting adults consuming whatever the hell they like, I do have an issue with heads of state acting in concert with evil drug cartels.

Let's be clear here: Noriega had been consistently harassing both U.S. civilian residents and their military. His forces even gunned down an unarmed American soldier. That's one soldier too many in my opinion. But then I'm more of a patriot than you'll ever be, and I'm not even American.

Oh, and before I forget, there was that little declaration made by the PRD that "a state of war" existed between Panama and the U.S. ~ before the invasion.

I didn't miss your "legal" justifications, I dismissed them by pointing out their invalidity.  The Torrijos-Carter treaty only allowed for the US military to intervene to protect the canal if in fact the canal was actually in danger, which it wasn't.  Noriega didn't try to destroy or close the canal. Besides, using a canal treaty to depose the leader of Panama is ridiculous.  Noriega did annul the election, but that doesn't exactly cause us to invade other countries that have done the same thing. By that premise we should invade countries that fix their elections or don't have them at all.  Which I submit is a bad idea considering the unsustainable requirements of such a policy. Such a policy would lead us to war against Russia. In what way does Panama annulling an election threaten our national security?

My question about drugs was simply a point of interest on my part.  Your tone appeared to be negative when referring to Noriega's drug ties, so I assumed you had a problem with drugs.  The drug-lord references are irrelevant then?

I haven't mentioned drugs anywhere. I have alluded to a maniacal drug lord a few times: Noriega, the dictator who lost the Panamanian election and had it annulled with the backing of his military. I've also given you two legal justifications for the invasion, which you seem to have missed.

What is your  understanding of the threat exactly? 

You keep mentioning drugs as if they should be illegal and justify military conquest.  Is it your view that US drug policy is justified and advisable? 

protocol required America to declare war before their military invaded Panama.

America's justifications were entirely legitimate: protecting 35,000 American citizens who were caught in a coup d'etat by a mad dog drug lord; and protecting its right to pass through the Panama Canal -- legally protected (by force of the U.S. military) under the Torrijos-Carter treaty.

But I'm sure your conspiracy theory is far more fascinating.

The invader is not always the culprit.  In the case of Panama it most certainly was the culprit.

You justified the war through the death of a marine and a threat towards the Americans living in Panama at the time. 

The American population was not threatened in Panama by a declaration of war as Panama did not declare war but documented the fact that US attempts to destabilize and overthrow the government were acts of war. 

Neither of us knows whether the marine attacked the checkpoint, tried to drive through it, or was fired upon while stopping at the check point.  It would be important to have an investigation prior to a war of retribution. 

Panama was not justified through what we know for certain of Panama's actions.

We need armies to protect capitalism and capitalists, and smite totalitarian aggressors wherever they may be.

I don't think you understand the word protect either.  I think you mean project in this case.  While capitalists need protection when their rights are violated, capitalism does not spread at the point of a gun, it spreads through trade.  It is hard to have free trade when one of the parties has all the guns and is willing to use them. 

Wherever they may be?  Does that include whatever the costs and risks? 

Disin, yes, absolutely Panama was justified for reasons I've already stated. We need armies to protect capitalism and capitalists, and smite totalitarian aggressors wherever they may be.

Now, back to your assertion that the invader is the culprit...

Removing Saddam from power was just, but it was quixotic. 

I am not a pacifist.  But you can't honestly justify the war in Panama.  You can't justify our interference in Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Iran, etc.  These foreign policy blunders are simply not in my rational self-interest.  We don't need armies to spread capitalism.  When we try, we create authoritarianism at home and enemies abroad. 

The essence of capitalism's foreign policy is free trade--i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges--the opening of the world's trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another. (Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, pg. 35 Centennial Edition)

The above quotes contain misrepresentations of opposing positions.

I'm confused.  Perhaps you could clarify a few things for me?  Who am I misrepresenting and how?

I see two questions which are seeking clarification,  several of my own positions, and two attempted representations of opposing positions.  Let's face reality: Jameson believes N. Korea and Iran are bad, and he has a complete misunderstanding of the word convince. 

We should define surrender.  I certainly think we should leave (one form of surrender).  I don’t think we should relinquish control of our government to the enemy, whoever that might be (another form of surrender). 

So, to answer your question on surrender: yes and no. 

The level of "influence" you claim defense contractors possess is simply not suggested by the facts, sir.

This is the heart of the problem.  Not only is it suggested by the facts, the level of “influence” I claim defense contractors possess is a fact. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060624/news_1n24cozy.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/citizen-k-street/chapters/introduction/ 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Mar-31-Sat-2007/news/13508806.html

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/defensebudget/index1.asp

The same type of businessmen who sought special advantages by government action in their own countries sought special markets by government action abroad. (Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg. 35 Centennial Edition) 

Communism never "worked." Yet, we still had a Cold War. And, so, was it sheer accident that when the West finally got tough, for the first time, the Soviets soon collapsed?

Statism needs war; a free country does not.  Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production. (Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pgs. 32 and 33 Centennial Edition)

Soviet Russia collapsed because it ran out of things to loot.  Neocons have sold you a lie that a capitalist country needs to waste tremendous amounts of money threatening communists in order for them to fall.  It simply isn’t true.  The reason they fell is the same reason we thrived: the reality of economics. 

The Jihadists' anger of course is rooted in irrationality and mysticism, yes. Are you saying that our presence justifies Muslim anger?

What a difficult question to answer.  You state that Jihadist anger is rooted in irrationality and mysticism then you ask me if our presence justifies Muslim anger.  If Muslim and Jihadist are synonymous, then our presence would justify irrational and mystic anger, and therefore yes our presence would justify their anger. 

If you are asking me about my own opinion as to whether our presence justifies rational anger I would say yes and no.  Our presence as traders should carry no anger.  Our political presence: absolutely. Our military presence does to a certain extent.  When our military presence goes beyond mere presence and into action against ‘insurgents’ that ends up causing a tremendous amount of “collateral damage” in the form of hundreds of thousands dead and 4 million displaced: absolutely.   

If they were rational they would welcome our help when Muslims slaughter Muslims, no? 

Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. (Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg. 31 Centennial Edition)

Absolutely.  They should also help us slaughter the other tribe so as to conquer and loot it so much more easily.  Every organized faction in that country, including us, is playing both sides against the middle so as to destroy the enemy.  The only side that is actually succeeding with this strategy for the long term is Iran.  We will eventually leave, all of the Iraqi factions will be too weak to stand alone, and all of them will have to take their orders from Iran.  Those not loyal to Iran will be destroyed by those loyal to Iran. 

James, the endgame is clear.  The sooner we recognize this fact, the better. 

Or, do you take the full position of the Jihadists -- that we are the evil ones?

Do I take the full position of the Jihadists?  You’re kidding right?  When did you stop beating your wife?  Or did you?  I don’t consider you or myself evil.  Rumsfeld and Cheney are on tape describing what would have happened if we had gone into Iraq after the first Gulf War.  It is exactly what happened.  What’s worse, they told us the exact opposite during the build up towards this war.  Did they become stupid or are they evil?  I think they are evil.   

And, yeah, I do "have a problem" when the helpless get slaughtered. While we have no "duty" to help, and I am certainly not advocating our current altruism, we have every right to stop a killer. 

You don’t have to stop the US from causing “collateral damage” through altruism.  I think it would be rationally self-interested of you.  We cannot afford to keep the helpless from being slaughtered all over the world, just as you cannot adopt all of the orphans in your city, nor would we/you be helping them if we/you did. Indeed, killers are a threat to more than their current victims.

A killer in Iceland doesn’t scare me too much.  If he lives next door it would be a different scenario.  I would probably be asking Jameson for some advice.

 (BTW, cops have a duty to "go to bar fight" -- they do it every night -- and when someone goes to hospital, the DA often prosecutes.)

So, in your scenario, Iraq is a bar and we are the police officers?  Sounds like altruism to me.  What would be the reaction in Tijuana if the LAPD showed up to stop a bar fight?  I personally don’t think it would be good for either party.     

But, Disin, if you manage to pick yourself up off the mat...

"Panama: we invaded them. We started the war."

Given the hostility you've shown towards America for its invasion of Iraq - and Panama - we can determine that you believe the guilty party is the one who invades, regardless of the provocation.

If your principle holds then Israel was the bad guy when it invaded the Sinai in '67, Britain was the bad guy at Dunkirk, and America was the bad guy the moment it crossed the Rhine in '45.

Rick was flicked for being a prick, not for his "logic." Demonstrable bad faith is the only thing one does get flicked for, and he demonstrated it in spades. He was not booted for his views.

Scott -
What do you mean by logic like mine?

After reading the discussion here I was suspicious that you were Rick. I even had a look in the white pages to see if you existed - you will be pleased to know that you do exist.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned your logic but, as I did, I'll clarify a little...

Healthy people don't enjoy killing.

You would really compare the cultures of Germany and Japan during WWII to radical islamists?

Beyond that, you would compare the current threat to the threat of the armed forces the Axis threw at us?

I don't think we need a full time military industrial complex to defend us against box cutter wielding terrorists.

re: boxcutter. Your point would be relevant if 9/11 was perpetrated by Iran or N. Korea, or if a nuclear weapon had been used.

Jameson Your point is that N. Korea and Iran are bad.

You believe that in order to convince a muslim, you must kill him.

...I really don't care who Saddam was cheering for...

The above quotes contain misrepresentations of opposing positions.

BTW: The last guy with logic like yours got booted eventually.

That is disappointing.

What do you mean by logic like mine?

Irrelevant as usual. 

So, surrender is okay by you?

The level of "influence" you claim defense contractors possess is simply not suggested by the facts, sir.

Communism never "worked." Yet, we still had a Cold War. And, so, was it sheer accident that when the West finally got tough, for the first time, the Soviets soon collapsed?

The Jihadists' anger of course is rooted in irrationality and mysticism, yes. Are you saying that our presence justifies Muslim anger? That there is rational reason to hate us? If they were rational they would welcome our help when Muslims slaughter Muslims, no? Or, do you take the full position of the Jihadists -- that we are the evil ones?

And, yeah, I do "have a problem" when the helpless get slaughtered. While we have no "duty" to help, and I am certainly not advocating our current altruism, we have every right to stop a killer.

Indeed, killers are a threat to more than their current victims.

(BTW, cops have a duty to "go to bar fight" -- they do it every night -- and when someone goes to hospital, the DA often prosecutes.)

May I recommend Ayn Rand's article, "The Roots of War," in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal? Her handle on history was pretty good.

... James and Glenn. How well you smite the seven solecisms of Saddamy.

Rick PD Scott -
Do you consider that America's removal of Saddam was just or unjust?

BTW: The last guy with logic like yours got booted eventually.

Logic is not hard.  It takes a bit of study, but nearly everyone can learn it fairly quickly. 

My position: The US has made enemies by meddling in other countries.  The US should not meddle in other countries. 

This position is consistent with not wanting to invade Iraq. 

I'm not sure of your point.  You see inconsistency.  Could you explain it to me in a different way?

You know my position and justification for the foreign policy issue. 

But let me get this straight: you wouldn't care if a Middle Eastern psychopath had a nuclear arms factory?

Reality is quite dangerous without you having to invent ridiculous consequences to rational actions.  Your vision is that Saddam would have built a nuclear arms factory to supply terrorists with nuclear weapons so that they could destroy the world?

And Hitler didn't hate England either. In fact he considered them a natural ally. Do you think Chamberlain was right to let him annex Czechoslovakia? Do you think we should have let the megalomaniac invade Poland and France too? Should the U.S. have stayed out of Europe because Hitler wasn't a threat to America?

This is an irrelevant diversion. 

So you think America should have sat back and watched their ally fall into the hands of a genocidal maniac? With friends like you...

you would learn to take care of yourself.

Saddam was a madman, but he wasn't stupid enough to drop a nuke or VX on the allies and suffer global condemnation. His gambit was to unify the arab nations. Playing the WMD card would have cost him his 'moral' high ground.

Saddam was worried about global condemnation? 

Among tons of other deadly nerve agents on record, Saddam admitted he had 3.9 tons of VX, the deadliest NV known to man. The U.N. weapons inspectors still haven't accounted for it.

You are relying on Saddam's honesty.

Panama: we invaded them.  We started the war.

Let me get this straight. According to you...

Big Bad America asked for the 9/11 attacks because of the "vast atrocities" they committed on the jihadists friends. Right?

Yet...

It is most definitely not alright for Big Bad America to carry out attacks on Saddam et al in response to attacks on Big Bad America's friends (e.g. Kuwait, Israel)?

Now I am obviously not as advanced in my use of logic as you (the second coming of Aristotle) are. However your stated position seems to be a contradiction.

Please explain.

If, in your eminent logical wisdom, you deem it necessary for me to read textbooks from used book stores - and I don't mean a book store that has been used, I mean a store that sells used books - before answering my question, I will understand.

Your American-bashing is an insult.

"I guess America isn't perfect."

Who said it was. Now, care to substantiate this: "We wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for our foreign policy over the last 60 years."

But let me get this straight: you wouldn't care if a Middle Eastern psychopath had a nuclear arms factory?

"He didn't hate America before we attacked him, so we would have avoided this problem all together."

And Hitler didn't hate England either. In fact he considered them a natural ally. Do you think Chamberlain was right to let him annex Czechoslovakia? Do you think we should have let the megalomaniac invade Poland and France too? Should the U.S. have stayed out of Europe because Hitler wasn't a threat to America?

"Friends don't ask friends to sacrifice themselves."

So you think America should have sat back and watched their ally fall into the hands of a genocidal maniac? With friends like you...

"If he had had a nuke he would have used it on the amassing US army in Kuwait.""

Saddam was a madman, but he wasn't stupid enough to drop a nuke or VX on the allies and suffer global condemnation. His gambit was to unify the arab nations. Playing the WMD card would have cost him his 'moral' high ground.

"WMD stockpiles: pesticides, off the record testimony, government conspiracy, and a press conspiracy. You call this evidence?"

Among tons of other deadly nerve agents on record, Saddam admitted he had 3.9 tons of VX, the deadliest NV known to man. The U.N. weapons inspectors still haven't accounted for it.

What war has America started?

"Let's start with Panama."

You mean the war precipitated by the rogue drug lord, Noriega, who was threatening the lives of 35,000 American residents, and killed a U.S. soldier?

You'll have to do better than that I'm afraid.

Interesting title for your post, considering your proximity.

Defense contractors and munitions dealers cannot start wars or keep them going in America.

That's just a very tired and repeatedly refuted myth.

Not all capitalists are good.  Especially those that can make money by getting government contracts. You honestly believe that political contributions and future well paid positions don't influence government actions?

Had 9/11 not happened, Americans, in their ignorant bliss, would have continued to enjoy the "peace dividend" from having won the Cold War, slashing away at military budgets and spy networks. As I recall, lots and lots of defense workers found themselves out of work in the early 90s.

You would have a hard time arguing that the US defeated the USSR.  As if US spending bankrupted a communist country.  Communism doesn't work, that's why the USSR fell. 

9/11 was certainly fortunate for the defense industry. 

You must let Muslims slaughter helpless and innocent Muslims, or we "make enemies" -- see?

You have a problem with this?  People don't like it when strangers get involved in family business.  You don't go to a bar fight.

So, now, it is our presence in Iraq which allegedly is "making enemies," because we are dying (literally) to bring order to a place that has never known it.

Why is an Objectivist promoting sacrifice so?

To say that such activities "make enemies" is to accept the Jihadists' hatred and unreason.

The activities that we have used in Iraq include disbanding the army which created an instant armed insurgency.  I would be upset if anybody came to town and suddenly created anarchy.  Other activities have included torture and misplaced bombs.  To say that such activities don't "make enemies" is to embrace unreason wholeheartedly.

No, it is the Jihadists' blind and bigoted hatred and their mysticism-inspired aggression which is the source of the problem, of course -- and NOTHING we do short of total capitulation and surrender will do for them.

Their anger and aggression is only motivated by mysticism?  There is no other source?

Dictatorship is the cause of war.

This is an impossible absolute to defend.  The Peloponnesian War was a war between a democracy and an oligarchy. Which dictatorship caused this war?

In fact, it is itself a condition of warfare by a state against its own people which, left unchecked, will one day spill over into warfare with others, as the dictatorship runs out of local victims.

Wow.  Another one. Robert Mugabe.  I guess he hasn't run out of local victims, but when he does, he'll invade South Africa.

Your personal insults are unfortunate.

No, it was a very bad idea to let the arabs nationalise our oil fields. We should have sent the military in then.

I guess America isn't perfect.

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

Let's find out. 

Heartless cunt.

You're the one that wants to sacrifice American soldiers.

What do you think the ramifications would have been, for the free world, if we hadn't stopped the arab nutcase in his tracks?

We could choose to buy oil from him or not.  Oil might have been more expensive.

What do you think would have happened? An invasion of Europe?

You wouldn't care about an American-hating nutcase with a nuclear arms factory, in control of an entire oil region, brutalising a nation full of people who call us their friends?

He didn't hate America before we attacked him, so we would have avoided this problem all together.  Friends don't ask friends to sacrifice themselves.

 In other words he didn't have them... yet. Although even David Kay admitted they couldn't rule out that WMD hadn't been smuggled into Syria before the war began.

If he had had a nuke he would have used it on the amassing US army in Kuwait.

WMD stockpiles: pesticides, off the record testimony, government conspiracy, and a press conspiracy.  You call this evidence?

Refresh my memory. What war has America started?

It's ironic you call me lazy.  Is it lost on you? Let's start with Panama.

A lazy cunt too.

You should also check out "Why we fight" by Eugene Jareki

Defense contractors and munitions dealers cannot start wars or keep them going in America.

That's just a very tired and repeatedly refuted myth.

Had 9/11 not happened, Americans, in their ignorant bliss, would have continued to enjoy the "peace dividend" from having won the Cold War, slashing away at military budgets and spy networks. As I recall, lots and lots of defense workers found themselves out of work in the early 90s.

It's as silly as the assertion that oil companies keep gasoline prices high -- when, of course, they'd just love to drill off California's coast, off Florida's coast and up in Alaska, if allowed the chance.

If corporations had such power, we'd have seen this drilling long ago (and, thus, less "dependency" on Arab oil)-- and we'd still have a Cold War (whatever the condition of Russia).

Israel is indeed capable of defending itself -- in part, because of the assistance it gets from America.

It is this assistance, we are told, which permanently pits Muslim solidarity against us -- 'cause they don't want Israel even to exist.

We don't need to do anything but help Israel defend itself -- and we "make enemies."

Okay, so Iraq invades Kuwait. The world comes to its defense and kicks them out. We don't topple the regime in Iraq -- in part, hoping that Iraqis will do it in the wake of the defeat. Instead, the Iraqi government proceeds to engage in the mass murder of its own unhappy populace. We attempt to enforce a "no fly zone" to protect Iraqis from such genocide. The Iraqi government shoots at the planes enforcing this zone.

Sure, Saddam uses weapons of mass destruction on his own population -- sure, he starts wars -- sure, he shoots at the planes of those who try to preserve the lives of his own otherwise helpless people... but our actions there, we are told, will inevitably only "make enemies."

See how we have so justly earned the violent resentment of Muslims?

Meanwhile, having saved a small Muslim nation friendly to the West from conquest by a dictatorial neighbor, with the consent of the entire world, it is our very presence on "Arab soil" which "justifies" the murder of thousands of innocent lives on 9/11, according to the Jihadists.

You must let Muslims slaughter helpless and innocent Muslims, or we "make enemies" -- see?

So, now, it is our presence in Iraq which allegedly is "making enemies," because we are dying (literally) to bring order to a place that has never known it.

To say that such activities "make enemies" is to accept the Jihadists' hatred and unreason.

A criminal gang kidnaps someone for ransom. Meanwhile, as the FBI negotiates, they try to trace the criminals to their hideout. The crooks get wind of these efforts and kill their victim.

Do we blame the effort of the FBI to save the victim for the death -- or the kidnappers?

No, it is the Jihadists' blind and bigoted hatred and their mysticism-inspired aggression which is the source of the problem, of course -- and NOTHING we do short of total capitulation and surrender will do for them. Britain will have to give Muslims their own legal system -- Israel will have to be utterly abandoned -- etc.

Dictatorship is the cause of war.

In fact, it is itself a condition of warfare by a state against its own people which, left unchecked, will one day spill over into warfare with others, as the dictatorship runs out of local victims.

Opposition can be crushed -- even, perhaps especially, religiously motivated opposition -- totally and permanently -- as history has repeatedly shown.

No, it was a very bad idea to let the arabs nationalise our oil fields. We should have sent the military in then.

"Either [Israel] can survive on their own [against arab nations wanting to annihilate it], or they can't. BTW they can survive on their own."

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

"Why should I care [if Saddam invaded Kuwait]? My tax money gets wasted as it is, there is no need to get volunteer soldiers killed if national security is not at risk."

Heartless cunt. And a stupid one at that. What do you think the ramifications would have been, for the free world, if we hadn't stopped the arab nutcase in his tracks? You wouldn't care about an American-hating nutcase with a nuclear arms factory, in control of an entire oil region, brutalising a nation full of people who call us their friends?

"What nukes?"

Iraq Survey Group report

"Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion — although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

From the Dueller Report:

"Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities."

In other words he didn't have them... yet. Although even David Kay admitted they couldn't rule out that WMD hadn't been smuggled into Syria before the war began.

What Saddam did have:

Iraqi WMD Stockpiles

"We've been through this before."

Refresh my memory. What war has America started?

"If you've got time, you should watch "Iraq for sale. The war profiteers." There is quite a lot of info on this stuff if you want to try and debunk it afterwards."

A lazy cunt too.

You mean letting the arabs steal ~ lock, stock and barrel ~ all the oil and technology that belonged to the Americans and Brits?

So you think this was a good idea?

You mean helping Israel defend itself from arab annihilation?

Yes.  Either they can survive on their own, or they can't.  BTW they can survive on their own.

You mean stopping an arab nutcase from invading a host nation?

Yes. Why should I care? My tax money gets wasted as it is, there is no need to get volunteer soldiers killed if national security is not at risk. 

You mean stopping the same arab nutcase from arming himself with nukes?

What nukes?  But yeah, invading a country to keep them from attaining nukes is like trying to beat an idea out of a person.  Nukes are a reality, they aren't going away, and there is no long term way of keeping nations from attaining them.

Ah... starts what wars?

We've been through this before.  You basically just defend them by claiming that American can do no wrong, and if it does it's nothing compared to ___________.

Please explain. [war profiteering]

If you've got time, you should watch "Iraq for sale. The war profiteers"

There is quite a lot of info on this stuff if you want to try and debunk it afterwards.  Enjoy.

"Now, show me how nuclear weapons, a war in Iraq, a war in Iran, a war in Syria and a war in N. Korea are going to save us from boxcutter wielding terrorists... "

Your assertion was that we don't need a M.I.C. ~ I refuted it and explained why we do. That is not an irrelevant diversion.

"I'm being simplistic? Being simplistic is dropping bombs from the sky thinking you are only going to kill the jihadists... bla bla bla... dead, wounded, screaming, hate and sorrow filled... bla bla bla... destroy this evil that is America"... bla bla bla... "

Yes, 'collateral damage' is sad and unfortunate. This is war, it happens. But before you go pointing the finger at America perhaps you could loosen your turban and see which side is spending billions inventing accurate ordnance, and which side is using their neighbours as shields.

Moreover, despite all this 'American evil' the civilians are siding with the allies, making friends with them in fact, and are joining up to kick al Qaeda butt.

"As for your intimate knowledge of the situation on the ground in Baghdad: you are completely full of shit."

Good News in Iraq ~ Petraeus

[edit: this isn't the Hitch clip I was looking for, nevertheless it still has good news]

"Very simply: you are trying to tell me that you personally would not hunt down and seek retribution upon the people that killed your family. "

If I was living in a country that demanded the removal of totalitarians I would accept such unfortunate consequences.

I certainly wouldn't side with the totalitarians. Would you?

"We wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for our foreign policy over the last 60 years."

You mean letting the arabs steal ~ lock, stock and barrel ~ all the oil and technology that belonged to the Americans and Brits? You mean helping Israel defend itself from arab annihilation? You mean stopping an arab nutcase from invading a host nation? You mean stopping the same arab nutcase from arming himself with nukes?

"So no, I don't like having a permanent military industrial complex that topples governments, starts wars, and pisses people off at me."

Ah... starts what wars?

"We shouldn't have immoral profit motivating our foreign policy."

Please explain.

Logic can be annoying.  Especially if you haven't been trained in its use. 

We wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for our foreign policy over the last 60 years.  So no, I don't like having a permanent military industrial complex that topples governments, starts wars, and pisses people off at me.  We shouldn't have immoral profit motivating our foreign policy.

Now, show me how nuclear weapons, a war in Iraq, a war in Iran, a war in Syria and a war in N. Korea are going to save us from boxcutter wielding terrorists.  And try to answer this question without logically irrelevant diversions. 

As for enemies, we started these conflicts.  Yes, if we are going to go around picking fights, we should be well armed.  Staying ahead of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea have no where near the economic nor military power of this country.  The idea that they could threaten us is ridiculous.  In the first place, why call people evil and threaten to topple their governments?  Is it because you want to avoid war and enemy status?

I'mbeing simplistic?  Being simplistic is dropping bombs from the sky thinking you are only going to kill the jihadists.  And if a bomb happens to drop on some regular every day muslims, they won't hold it against us.  Meanwhile, the jihadist down the street (that we missed), points to the hole in the ground, the dead, wounded, screaming, hate and sorrow filled, and says "that is why we must destroy this evil that is America".  At which point, several of the people that considered him a lunatic an hour earlier, decide he was right all along. 

As for your intimate knowledge of the situation on the ground in Baghdad: you are completely full of shit.  Take a field trip and then let me know what the situation on the ground is like.

Very simply: you are trying to tell me that you personally would not hunt down and seek retribution upon the people that killed your family.  You would take the slaughter of your  family and friends as a warning and mind your P's and Q's.  If you can't sympathize with this mentality, you shouldn't expect it of other people.

The distinction between what, Disin?

I really don't care who Saddam was cheering for, he didn't attack us.  I'm sorry if you can't see the distinction. 

The context you've dropped is your own. Your proposition is we don't need the Military Industrial Complex, which I take to mean the system of cooperation between the defence contractors and The Pentagon, Congress and the Executive branch -- as opposed to the fairy tales invented by Chompskian conspiracy nutters.

My point is not that North Korea and Iran are bad (for they are nothing less than evil): I am refuting your suggestion that we don't need to stay as far ahead of our enemies as possible. Like you, Obama also thinks we should cut back -- in other words, reduce our technological advantage and let our enemies catch up. Your reason, you say, is that we don't need nukes to defend ourselves against "box cutter wielding terrorists." With threats from hostile nations still very much in play your policy is not only dumb, it's exceedingly dangerous.

When you talk of muslims you're being very simplistic. Do you mean jihadists? If so, then I stand by my point: suicidal maniacs will only be 'convinced' with a bullet. If you mean muslims who are potential jihadi recruits then you're wrong again: in Baghdad they're being convinced by the droves -- by the use of force -- and as a consequence they're turning on al Qaeda themselves.

"I obviously did not mean "the war on terror" when I referred to 6 weeks."

You were making a false distinction between the second outbreak of hostilities in Iraq and the overall civilizational conflict between radical collectivists and Western Civilization that was brought to the forefront by 9/11. Hussein proudly declared himself to be on the side of Atta and his fellow freedom-haters, as I have been at pains to point out.

My question was to draw out that point. If it was too cryptic, I'll be careful to explicate things more clearly in the future.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

Your point is that N. Korea and Iran are bad.  My point is that the 9/11 terrorists used boxcutters, not nuclear weapons.  I'm not dropping the context, I'm simply pointing out the fact that we are not at war with N. Korea nor Iran because they didn't attack us on 9/11.  The same reason we should not have attacked Iraq. 

I don't think I misunderstand your  point on convincing muslims.  You believe that in order to convince a muslim, you must kill him.  My point is: convince means to help someone change his mind.  Again, you very simply do not understand the meaning of the word.  One literally cannot convince someone by killing him. 

A "simple change in policy" cannot so easily "fix the problem," sir, as the other deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11 should remind you. The sorts of weapons they seek to use are truly frightening.

Reinforcing the cockpit doors and not ordering pilots to relinquish control of their airplanes to hijackers does make the particular tactic used in 9/11, irrelevant.  Please concede this point. 

War in Iraq doesn't keep jihadists from building bombs from fertilizer and household chemicals in Europe.  In fact, it provides extrakoran motivation for such attacks.

It would really suck if the jihadists got a nuclear weapon.  We agree on this.  The war in Iraq won't keep them from getting a nuclear weapon, but it does provide motivation for N. Korea, Syria, and Iran to get them.  The more states that achieve nuclear weapons, the greater opportunity of one getting into the hands of the jihadists. 

Wars can be won.

No red herring.

It is a red herring because the concept that wars can be won, and the fact that we won WWII are not being disputed. 

I'm glad you were offended by myintellectual dishonesty.  At this point, it is important that you realize how offensive and irrelevant it is to misrepresent someone's postion on purpose. 

I obviously did not mean "the war on terror" when I referred to 6 weeks.  You knew that and misrepresented my argument on purpose. 

"The war in Iraq was sold as a 6 week war. You are right to point out that the war in Iraq is completely separate from the 'war on terror'."

I did no such thing, in fact quite the opposite. This does not speak well for your intellectual honesty.

Saddam Hussein lauded the 9/11 attackers and memorialized them in every major city of Iraq, in addition to sponsoring suicide bombing in Israel. The conflict in Iraq that took place after the end of conventional hostilities -is- terrorism on the part of civilization's enemies.

"Do you support a "war on terror"?"

No, I support the defense of Western Civilization against parasitic entities or individuals that make use of its freedoms while at the same time denouncing and attempting to destroy them, whether these entities or individuals are foreign or domestic.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

"Healthy people should always be able and willing to rise and kill what threatens to wipe them out! Survival demands it... Honestly, your soft, new agey tolerance makes me hurl."

Olivia -- Goddess of War; Protectress of Heroes and Civilization... hurl away!!

Your statements was:

"Would I rather not have a military industrial complex? Yes... Would that make us more susceptible to 9/11 style attacks? I don't see why... I don't think we need a full time military industrial complex to defend us against box cutter wielding terrorists. "

Whichever way you look at this, you've completely ignored the bad guys who have bigger ordnance than box cutters.

You're supplementary point makes no sense whatsoever:

"re: boxcutter. Your point would be relevant if 9/11 was perpetrated by Iran or N. Korea, or if a nuclear weapon had been used. " ????

"re: convince: You are seriously confused as to the meaning of the word. "

Not at all. I was pointing out that it takes a lot more to convince an Islamofascist to stop what he's doing.

A "simple change in policy" cannot so easily "fix the problem," sir, as the other deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11 should remind you. The sorts of weapons they seek to use are truly frightening.

Wars can be won.

No red herring.

The war in Iraq was sold as a 6 week war.  You are right to point out that the war in Iraq is completely separate from the "war on terror". 

Do you support a "war on terror"? 

I think baring your throat, and then handing your enemy a sharp knife after he's promised to cut it, is psycho.

Ok.  Who's throat is bare, what is the knife, and who is the psycho?

9/11 showed that you don't need bombs to kill thousands of innocent civilians all at once.

Exactly.  They understood us, and we didn't understand them.  They knew they could take over a plane with boxcutters, and they knew themselves well enough to realize that their soldiers would commit suicide.  However, it would be completely impossible to take over a plane with boxcutters now that we know their strategy.  Pilots no longer give over control of their planes anymore.  A simple change in policy fixed the problem. 

Oh, yes, there were all kinds of "ramifications" to our defeating the Nazis.

Ones I can live with.

Red herring.

re: boxcutter.  Your point would be relevant if 9/11 was perpetrated by Iran or N. Korea, or if a nuclear weapon had been used. 

re: convince: You are seriously confused as to the meaning of the word. 

"We entered into this war with the idea that it would be over in 6 weeks."

Oh, really?

The "war on terror" was supposed to be over in 6 weeks?

That's a new one on me.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

I think baring your throat, and then handing your enemy a sharp knife after he's promised to cut it, is psycho.

9/11 showed that you don't need bombs to kill thousands of innocent civilians all at once.

Of course, I would love a world without war. (And "fuck you" if you are suggesting otherwise, sir.)

Oh, yes, there were all kinds of "ramifications" to our defeating the Nazis.

Ones I can live with.

... you can't convince someone with a gun."

Wrong.

"I don't think we need a full time military industrial complex to defend us against box cutter wielding terrorists. "

Does this look like a freakin' terrorist with a box cutter?!!

Does this look like a freakin' box cutter?!!!

........................................................................................................

By the way... this baby was bought off Kim by Ahmadinejad.

James,

War is not to be entered into lightly.  The fact is that this war is not going to be won as there is way too much money in its continuation.  When we do pull out of Iraq, the Middle East will be such a mess as to guarantee further involvement later on.  I hate war and sympathize with Machiavelli and Hobbes on this issue.  I agree with Machiavelli and Sun Tzu that a war is won or lost before the first battle is fought.  Furthermore, I agree with Sun Tzu that "He who knows himself and not his enemy will win half his battles.  He who knows his enemy and not himself will win half his battles.  He who knows not himself nor his enemy is destined to lose all his battles.  He who knows himself and his enemy is invincible." 

We entered into this war with the idea that it would be over in 6 weeks.  Obviously, we violated a few of these principles of war. 

Bin Laden attacked us, he is obviously our enemy.  We know this guy as we have been tracking him for years.  We know how he is funded, and how he is supported.  We know exactly how to track him down.  Yet we attacked Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy.  Now we need to stay because Iran will take over if we leave.  Wow.  Are we trying to lose?  Meanwhile, we have invaded a country and wont leave.  Machiavelli has some good advice on this scenario.  Either we colonize or we send Bush over there to live.  Should we send Bush to be the viceroy and offer FEMA trailers to anybody that wants to move?  It really doesn't matter how many troops we have over there, we will still be weak invaders.  If somebody were to forcibly move into your house, you would not like the guy, even if he pays the mortgage and builds a new wing.  Your animosity would not diminish with the years. 

I'm sure I will be criticized for demanding perfection.  I'm not demanding perfection as war is messy stuff, I am demanding a winning strategy.   

Remember, our problem is not dictators with bombs, our problem is jihadists. No matter what Jameson says, you can't convince someone with a gun.  Yes, you can render him harmless, but there are ramifications with such a strategy.  Iraqis that had no other concern in the world other than pissing off Saddam, are now pissed off at us.  Syria and Iran realize that the only way to keep us at bay is bravado and nuclear arms acquisition.  Wonderful.   

If Iran is in fact giving arms to insurgents, what are we to do?  Attack a country that is prepared for an insurgent war?  They know us, and how to defeat us.  We know them not.

Iran helped us invade Afghanistan and stopped ending their prayers with "Death to America".  Afterwards, we basically told them to go to hell.  What are they supposed to do when we call them evil? Abdicate?  Not likely.  More likely they will consider us mortal enemies.  I think it is a bad policy to go around threatening people.  In fact, I think it is psychopathic.  How would you deal with a dangerous psychopath?

Who said anything about “enjoying” killing?

Healthy people should always be able and willing to rise and kill what threatens to wipe them out! Survival demands it.

Honestly, your soft, new agey tolerance makes me hurl. We’ve all heard people talk of what happened in Germany and Europe under Hitler as they wring their hands and cry out, “How did the German people EVER let this happen right under their noses?”

It happened because people turned a tolerant, blind eye to the signs that were rampant all over Europe. In short, it happened because of eunuchs who were AFRAID to condemn and then TERRIFIED to make war on what they should have condemned.. and then it was too late.

Today, the signs are rampant all over Europe and the Middle East that another evil atrocity is on its way… indeed has already begun. And people like you sit there and quiver at the thought of having to kill the perpetrators who fuel and nourish the coming atrocity.

And it’s not just box-cutter-wielding terrorists… it is a cunning army of professional, highly trained, capable nut-jobs with endless funding, sophisticated weaponry , and in all probability, nuclear arms. Wake up.

... maybe you need to do some remedial reading, Scott, if you think that pacifism or appeasement will cause the enemies of the West to just pull tent and leave us be.

Either Hitler or the Jihadists would've eaten Gandhi for breakfast...

I've read both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu and I've travelled a bit.

And Americans and Britons and Israelis don't deserve to die, either.

So,

1.  Healthy people don't enjoy killing.

2.  Having to kill more muslims means being exposed to more dangerous muslims.

Would I rather not have a military industrial complex?  Yes.

Would that make us more susceptible to 9/11 style attacks? I don't see why. 

The US was able to go from relatively no military industrial complex to the most powerful one in the world in 1941-42.  I don't think we need a full time military industrial complex to defend us against box cutter wielding terrorists. 

Jameson and Linz, 

Yall know I'm a tolerant person and this pains me to say:  This is the strategy of psychopaths. 

It is completely irrational, and obviously so.  No good can come of Iraq at this point.  No good can come from invading Iran nor Syria.  I am simply amazed that Objecivists can come to your conclusions.  In fact, reason and logic appear to be far from your perspective.  You need to read Chalmers Johnson, "All the Shah's Men", Machiavelli's the Prince, and Sun Tzu's The Art of War.  Furthermore, you need to travel.  There are many good people in the third world that do not deserve to die, you should meet a few.  It's harder to sentence them to death when you know them.

If you can impute all of the sins of "Dem-scum" to the "Hsiekovians," why is not reasonable to impute all of the evils of the "Rep-scum" to you?

I don't impute all the sins of the Dem-scum to the Hsiekovians. The Seven Solecisms are purveyed mainly by lefties and other Saddamites; Solecism 3 is peculiar to Hsiekovians, of course, but the Dem-scum would do their dirty work with or without the votes of the Hsiekovians, since there are only about seven Hsiekovians in the world. Doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous for said Hsiekovians to be voting for Dem-scum. As you realise, James, since you didn't vote for Dem-scum, fatwa notwithstanding.

What "Hsiekovian" has blamed anyone but the Jihadists for what the Jihadists do themselves? I was going to go through all seven items on your list, but realized the exact same thing can be said for every one, except number 3, which is, of course, unfairly stated.

If you can impute all of the sins of "Dem-scum" to the "Hsiekovians," why is not reasonable to impute all of the evils of the "Rep-scum" to you?

And isn't doing either rather silly?

I have no quibble with James' ideal strategy either. It's the notion that because it's not being adopted we should wave the white flag in Iraq and vote for the scum who make such a strategy impossible that gets me apoplectic. The Surge occurred in the teeth of opposition from the very Dem-scum for whom Peikoff voted and told all Objectivists to vote. Vote for pacifists and traitors, then trash your president when he does his best in spite of them. See Solecism 3:

1) When the good guy goes after the bad guy and the bad guy then does more bad things, blame them on the good guy.

2) When the good guy makes mistakes, call him evil; when the bad guy does evil things, call him mistaken (and misunderstood).

3) If the good guy isn't perfect, and a card-carrying Objectivist, call him evil and vote for the bad guys, across the board.

4) If the good guy wiretaps bad guys without a permission slip, when the bad guys are plotting to blow you up, he's the bad guy. If a telco helps the good guy it should be sued.

5) For even calling the bad guy a bad guy, you're a bad guy.

6) For challenging the bad guy's silent friends on where they stand, you're a bad guy again.

7) The state is the bad guy, even when it's performing its legitimate functions. The state is always the bad guy, period—unless it's Saddam's or similar.

In short, "useful idiots."

The more muslims you kill, the more you will have to kill.

Yeah, so?

You are also ignoring the disgusting reality of the modern military industrial complex in this country.

What the hell is so disgusting about it? Would you rather not have it at all and be subject to 9/11 attacks times 1000?