Take your time,Bill. You're essays are always worth the wait. And good luck on the written. I forget what I got (I got my IFR in 1980) but it sure wasn't 100. Or 98.

Hmm, what if "we" are wrong? Could it possibly be that other people on this earth feel the same way about their own nation or tribe as you do about America? Their country, right or wrong?

Could it be that people will reject American troops in their country simply because they think that people that speak their own language should rule them, not "us"?

Could people other than Americans really believe in "self-determination"?

Could "we" possibly be occupiers, not liberators?

If "we" were seen as liberators by 80% of the Iraqis, but the 20% minority who thought of "us" as occupiers were willing to fight and die, would it matter?

When "we" accidentally kill, maim, or torture innocent Iraqis, could they and their relatives possibly be so simple-minded as to hold it against "us"?

Could these Iraqis possibly have the same feelings as good Americans do?

Could they have been created equal to us? Could they possibly have human rights? Are human rights only pleasant fictions for peacetime or do they have any universal moral meaning?

Can "we" force people to be free?

Glad to see you are still with us. Yes, I had wondered if perhaps you and Steven were getting all burnt out. Taking time is a good thing, especially since it will give something to care about.

Thanks.

Bill,

Have you considered writing in spite of the anger, and putting the pieces aside for later review? You have a rare talent, and I'd hate to think that fine essays might not get written because the fire of inspiration cools while you deliberate. Many of the professional writers I know keep notebooks in which they record everything from random ideas and quotations to fragments of dialog all the way to rough drafts of essays. Or maybe I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. Obviously I don't know much about your situation, which makes it especially presumptuous to offer any advice, but there's one thing I'm certain of: You're an excellent essayist and I look forward to your next piece.

Best wishes on that test.

Maybe hanging it up would do you some good. Give reality a chance. I've read some of your website and your entries, I am APPALLED that you can think the way that you do. No, I am not a liberal. Must one be a liberal to vehemently disagree with you? How can you, in good conscience, support the incredible amount of crap going on? What about truth? What about justice? What about doing the right thing? America does NOT have a license (issued by herself of course), to do whatever the hell she wants - and yet you seem to think that is exactly what should be done. Disgusting.

Yeah, hang it up. Give reality, logic and reason a chance to function. Watch and read everything you can get your hands on. Come back and tell me you still feel the same way.

Hey, the moonbats liked you so much they posted within minutes!

Ace that test, my mysterious aviator friend. I'll buy some books for the guys in South Baghdad.

Bill, try not to let the naysayers, the dooms-dayers, and the non-players disturb the flow of your fiery feelings. Your absence was keenly felt, and I hope that "Liberty" above continues to be "appalled." This will insure that the Libercontrarian gets his lovin' spoonful from the Big Bird Man.

Bill,

Most certainly do NOT hang up your writing. You have a wonderful way of expressing the spirit of America. I think you miss that the American government, both major parties and most of the minor ones, has gone sour in a big way, but we need reminders of that spirit.

The world isn't as simple as your essays make it look. Where governments are involved, there aren't any good guys. But many many individuals are mostly good.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the other side". There ain't no "other" side. There are over six billion "sides" on the planet. Liberty and property, preserved by the zero aggression principle, allow us to get along.

Good luck on the written, and on the IFR practical, Bill. I got my IFR rating back in Feb, '02. I'll never forget my first time alone up in the clouds a few days later! If you have your instructor put you through an insane ringer (partial panel and three different approaches in rapid succession) for a few weeks, you won't believe how easy the actual checkride will be.

"Hey, the moonbats liked you so much they posted within minutes!"

I echo that sentiment. They find you so dangerous they have to try to convince you to stop!

You keep thinking, Bill. And please keep writing. (And publish that book, eh? Christmas is right around the corner, you know...)

Of course America has a license to do whatever it wants! Who's gonna stop us? Heh, and you tell Bill to give reality a chance...

Keep appalling them, Bill. I eagerly await your next salvo.

O fer crap sake, and what if the moon is made of green cheese.
Looking foreward to it Whittle.
By the way, Liberty is not a liberal.
No, really.

Good luck on the IFR written. I only scored a 96. I took it in 1987. I remember I missed one question outright, and the other one my instructor thought I had chosen the most right answer, but the examiner disagreed, we settled on agreeing to disagree. Anyway get that rating and use it often. Those skills need to be kept honed. We'll wait for your return.

Good luck in your exams. And please hurry back with your new essays. If you've gone through the wringer of self-analysis and doubt, I very much want to know what you came out with.

Buck up, Little Camper. ;)

The sincerest form of flattery is attack by nutjobs. Keep up the brilliant work. I also eagerly await the book. Oh, and TRIBES and INITIATIVE.

I don't think we're wrong or misguided. Human beings are the same the world over. All of us, once our basic biological survival is assured, need intangibles like Love, Hope, Joy, Purpose, association with like-minded individuals, and mental stimulation or entertainment of some kind (Game playing materials similar to Fox and Hounds and Mancala have been found in situ with cave painting materials in the prehistoric caves of Europe). The list could also include belief in God or after-life, but I believe atheists would disagree.

But every human soul craves freedom. As soon as we become aware of ourselves as separate entities from our mothers/parents we know that freedom exists, as anyone with expeience with toddlers in their 'Terrible Twos'can attest.

The U.S. is a nation that offers freedom and democracy with open hands, instead of colonization or client state status, as do the nations of Old Europe. Beyond that, each individual U.S. citizen represents an optimistic, self-confident dream of individualism, peace, opportunity, and freedom. Our nation may not be perfect, but warts and all, democracy is a proven method of self-correcting mistakes.

Ah, Liberty...yet another towering champion of self-indulgent piety who believes in something so fiercely that it does not even draw enough wattage to be worth signing a name to.

Remarkable moral fiber! Be sure to commend yourself. You are a hero sir! Or madam.

Interesting, isn't it, that every other commenter up to this point has left an e-mail address that may be responded to. Apparently these people are not ashamed of what they say.

The fundamental act of courage during the American Revolution was that of the willingness of the Founders to sign their own name to a document that would get them hanged should they lose. It is a tenet of basic integrity to bear responsibility for ones thoughts and actions.

Since your alias is so contrary to the fundamental responsibility concurrent with true Liberty, may I refer to you as "cowardice" from this point forward? I mean, an anonymous handle is an anonymous handle. It's not like it's your real name or anything.

I was just comparing two things that "Liberty" said... (1) "I've read some of your website and your entries...", and then (2) "How can you, in good conscience, support the incredible amount of crap going on?"

Hmmm. One would THINK that if (1) were true, then (2) would have already been answered. But apparently not. In other words, "Liberty," if you actually DO want to understand how Bill (and we) can think and support what we do, then maybe you SHOULD actually "read some of [Bill's] website." Because, in just 50,000+ words or so (or however many it actually is) -- going into exhaustive detail, citing mounds of evidence and data, and spinning out some pretty simple and obvious logic along the way -- Bill has, many times over, answered your questions. And then some. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that any SPECIFIC questions you might have (you know... something a little more to the point than just "how COULD you?") could be answered by anyone here just by copy-pasting excerpts from Bill's essays, if they so chose... that is, if they didn't feel like repeating the obvious again, over and over and over, to every new Bush-o-phobe that came down the pike.

Nah. It'd be a whole lot easier (for you AND us) if you'd just do what you claim to have already done, and actually READ Bill's essays... unless, of course, it's not actually answers that you're looking for... in which case, why bother asking the questions?

In the meantime, Bill -- it's good to see you back, buddy. Dang, how am I ever going to talk to you NOW, what with an IFR rating and all?

I'm not worthy!

GHS

And to Leonard...

You said, "Could it possibly be that other people on this earth feel the same way about their own nation or tribe as you do about America? Their country, right or wrong?"

Of course they do. I've never been to a country where they DIDN'T feel that way. So what? If it's okay for THEM to feel that way, why is it wrong for US? Or are you saying that they're all WRONG? Maybe they're all cowards because they're not either in active revolt, or actively trying to move to another "better," more "perfect" country?

You said, "Could it be that people will reject American troops in their country simply because they think that people that speak their own language should rule them, not "us"?"

Who's "ruling" them? Or did you write that question BEFORE the interim Iraqi government took over? Perhaps you (and "they") would prefer that we left a nice little power vacuum for the next gang of thugs to rush into. After all, it's more important that we leave immediately, right?

You said, "Could people other than Americans really believe in "self-determination"?"

Hell yes! Probably MOST people. And those that don't probably wonder what it must be like. So, don't those "people other than Americans" deserve a shot at it too?

You asked, "Could "we" possibly be occupiers, not liberators?"

Well, let's see... since we have not withdrawn -- as planned -- YET, I guess I'll have to answer that from the perspective of a few more months down the road: when Iraq is governed by Iraqis, and protected by Iraqi police... when the Americans are gone, and are not demanding any reparations or taxes... then I'd have to say "no," we could NOT possibly be occupiers if we're gone, and they are governing themselves. Seems pretty obvious, actually.

You said, "If "we" were seen as liberators by 80% of the Iraqis, but the 20% minority who thought of "us" as occupiers were willing to fight and die, would it matter?"

That one's easy... "no." Oddly enough, we didn't go there seeking their love or approval, and it surprises nobody that those few who think of us as occupiers might be willing to fight and die. It also surprises no one that most of the "resistance" is comprised of religious zealots and "fighters" from other surrounding nations... coincidentally, the very people that we declared war on in the first place.

You said, "When "we" accidentally kill, maim, or torture innocent Iraqis, could they and their relatives possibly be so simple-minded as to hold it against "us"?"

What? You mean like any normal people would? You mean, as if that makes any difference whatsoever in times of war? Or during the peace-keeping that immediately FOLLOWS a war? You mean like the way the Japanese resented us after Hiroshima, or the Nazis after the fall of Berlin? You know, those two strong, viable, stable, relevant players on the world stage, those two formerly vanquished nations that are right now where Iraq would like to be?

You asked, "Could these Iraqis possibly have the same feelings as good Americans do?"

I certainly presume so. And isn't it nice that they're now actually able to EXPRESS those feelings again? Just like Americans do.

And then you asked, "Could they have been created equal to us? Could they possibly have human rights?" [clearly, YES -- one of the reasons they might actually enjoy now being able to EXERCISE those rights and that equality for once] "Are human rights only pleasant fictions for peacetime or do they have any universal moral meaning?"

"Pleasant fictions?" And "universal?" As in "everything should always be wonderful all the time?" I don't know... is it "wrong" that it momentarily hurts to pull a rotten tooth? Or is it amoral that corrective dentistry should temporarily cause more discomfort than the problem that led you to the dentist in the first place? Personally, I think it's wrong (i.e; "amoral") to let a rotten tooth fester until your jaw falls off, just to avoid the brief unpleasantness of pulling the danged thing. But that's probably just me.

And finally, "Can "we" force people to be free?"

Short form? Yes, we can. Long form? That wasn't why we went there, any more than it was in Tokyo, or Berlin, or Appomattox. The fact that they'll BE freer after our occupation has come AND GONE, well, personally I don't think we should begrudge them that bonus.

Hopefully that answered your questions. Or were you not LOOKING for answers?

GHS

Hmmm. Any bets that that flight babe in his "Monkeys and Missle-Men" post is a Liberal Democrat? ;) And, she probably mentioned that John Kerry has a pilot's license as well. ;)

Me thinks Bill has been smitten.

Cue Frank Sinatra...

Come fly with me, come fly, lets fly away...

Have fun Bill.

Brad

A little P.S....

Sorry about the two bloated posts above... I'm getting in all the computer time I can before Hurricane Frances kills the power here in Orlando for another week. So I may not be back for a while.

Looking forward to the next essays though.

See you all then.

GHS

Perhaps the only thing that Liberty actually read was:

"All the the written material at ejectejecteject.com is copyright (C) 2002-2004 by William A Whittle
All rights reserved"

How could you Bill?

GHS and Bill support each other, you can see it in the writing. Are "we" right? I believe so. Can anyone be free? Not without willingness to die. Is a right ours, or anothers? When does our right infringe on anothers? I try to put into words my thoughts, and very often fail, because what makes sense to my mind seems rhetorical or stupid to another mind. I watched little children being shot in the back, and was overwhelmed with rage. The right to die for one's belief...is this a right to kill children? Is this a religion? I read Bill, GHS, Steve, et all. I would like to see the "moderate" muslims stand up and exile this type of "religion" from their ranks. I sincerely hope steven keeps writing, but understand why he is fed up. I have not sent him an email, nor shall I. I never felt weaker than I did when covered in mud, freezing to death, clinging to one hope, that I might see my kids before I died. My job was not done, I had not accomplished my mission, I was about to give it up. My kids kept me going, the thought of hope entered my mind, I forgot all about what the world was about, one thing mattered. I am a dead man, many times over, but my kids are alive, and by god, I will make every effort to keep them alive. I support you Bill, and always will. Hope...what a concept. I Hope we survive.

Good to see you're still planning to come back to us Bill. I couldn't take lose SDB and you in less than a month. Hell, such losses would make me better understand how Kerry must feel after his August (a cheap shot, I know). Anyway, can't wait to read your next mind-blowing installment. Ace that exam and make us all proud.

As an aside, I hope you're right about SDB. I havne't sent him an email thanking him for his work because, well, it seems like the constant emailling from fans and foes alike is what's drained him. So, if he happens to see this, thanks.

I reread Liberty's post, and must reply. Hang it up? How easy it would be to "shut down" and give up. Courage, well, that is but one part of humanity that will not allow "us" to give up. Unlike some, I do not question whether I am right or wrong, I follow God's directions. Now you may of course challenge my knowledge, or belief in a God, that is right if you do not know or believe. We all believe what we believe, but Magic was all about spin. There is but one truth, provable and indisputable, yet we still debate (argue) over facts. Let's not worry about life, death is our real reason to live, without it life is meaningless. Do I follow God's will? I try to. We are human, at least most of us are, and that makes us weak and confused at times. Self doubt is complicated, but necessary. Are "we" right? I think so, at least our ideas are right. Do we always follow our ideas? I try to, but my question is, without great ideals to strive towards, what direction have you? Too many questions, too few answers, so we strive to be better. Beats stagnation, in my mind.

This is an eggsellent way to start the holiday weekend. Good to hear from you, Turbo (c:

Good luck, GHS. And let's say a hearty "thank you" to the National Guardsmen -- like Jason Van Steenwyk of the IraqNow/CounterColumn blog -- for their service during hurricane duty. Take care, y'all.

P.S. krakatoa: "Little Camper"??

I agree with Leonard and Liberty... someone else is decrying the war at last!
However I did enjoy the fact that Bill says he's been thinking about if he's wrong, and all that... That's always good progress, even if you've probably drawn the wrong conclusions.
As to GHS, if we didn't go to war to free them, why did we go in? WMDs? Sorry, there are none. Ties to al-Qaeda? Sorry, you've produced none. So what am I supposed to believe? All your reasons have been disproven.

I got to thinking about my previous post, and thought I would elaborate a bit. The difference between me and some others is that I KNOW when I do something wrong, not that I am never wrong. Sometimes that proof comes after the fact, but the knowledge is conclusive, facts are indisputable. Now we see people blaming Russia for it's response to those that created terror, it is Putin's fault that the hostages were murdered. OK, given that logic, America is responsible for 911. We caused those poor deprived individuals to hate us, and we are to blame for their behaviour. I think my mind just exploded. How simple it would be to sit in comfort and watch and wait. How simple it would be to "believe" everything will be ok. How I would love to forget everything, all reason, just let things work out as they will. Peace is so difficut to attain, impossible for man. I grew up in the wild, with nothing but life to hang on to, no luxuries to fight for, only life. I worshipped no god, for god was life, part of me, and everything around me. I was nothing more than a participant in his world, our world. The capacity to judge was implanted in my being, everything had meaning. I believe Bill knows more than I do, nothing is gained if one is not willing to fight for it. I never attended a college, I have no degrees, perhaps no right to voice my opinions. I will change no one's opinion, that is not my goal, nor do I care to change mine. I will however, notice a threat, and act on that threat, rather than wait for it to destroy me, or my kids. The realities of life are very harsh in the wild, and survival is action, not complacency. Wait if you wish for proof, that is your right. You will find proof when it is too late. I should never have let that lion roam in my area, but it is too late after it has eaten me. My mistake was sleeping on the ground. It only takes one mistake.

To "the poster above," first of all, please pick SOME kind of screen name -- call yourself "X" if you just hate typing -- so that people can respond to you in particular. Surely you're not THAT uncreative.

But in answer to your question -- "As to GHS, if we didn't go to war to free them, why did we go in? WMDs? Sorry, there are none. Ties to al-Qaeda? Sorry, you've produced none. So what am I supposed to believe? All your reasons have been disproven." -- well...

For starters, you listed only two "reasons," then claimed that ALL my reasons had been disproven. And one of those two ain't even on my list.

We didn't go into there because of any ties to al-Qaeda. That was never in question. Saddam helped sponsor terrorism in general, both financially and with safe havens, but he was never linked to al-Qaeda or bin Laden. So you can rule that one out. And though the legitimate threat of Saddam's overt pursuit of WMDs -- combined with the historical precedents of those times that he'd already employed them -- was ONE of the many other reasons, the fact that it was LATER disproven doesn't for a second detract from the seriousness of the threat at the time of the invasion. It wasn't disproven THEN.

If we're playing poker, and you keep upping the ante, implying that you've got 4 aces and a king in your hand, and if I call your bluff and wind up kicking your ass with a pair of jacks, whose fault is it that you lost all that ante in your failed bluff? Saddam played it like someone who was packing some serious heat. Bluff or no, our response was entirely appropriate to the threat.

But that's still not the main reason we went over there.

Legally speaking, we were justified to go in just under the terms of UN 1441, as the UN kept huffing and puffing they were going to do, but never did and never would. We tried to time it and tie it into the invasion of Afghanistan to take advantage of the momentary global support we had, hoping that the momentum would carry over and FINALLY get these people to act on all their empty threats. But our intent to "go in" was not contingent upon their support. And it's a good thing too.

But the main reason was our own national security. And it astonishes me how little people seem to learn from the repetitions of history.

We shrugged off Hitler's threats, along with his thoroughly spelled out plans for expansion, when we ignored "Mein Kampf." We looked the other way when the stories of his atrocities against the Jews within his own borders filtered out. We chewed our nails but did nothing when he violated almost every term of the Treaty of Versailles that his country had signed 20 years before. We appeased his every aggression, allowing him to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia with little more than a grimace, all the while hoping that those few "concessions" would be sufficient to satisfy his lust for power and conquest. And we passed up a perfect opportunity to stop him dead in his tracks when he marched a piddling little formation of Wehrmacht soldiers into the demilitarized Rhineland -- a platoon or two standing in his way would have turned them back, most likely without bloodshed, and that, as Hitler himself admitted, would have been his downfall. That reckless and dangerous maneuver would have seen him ousted, if not assassinated, and that would have been that.

Do you see any parallels between our handling of Hitler and our handling of Hussein pre-GWII? I do.

To quote Bill (as I said above we could easily do to answer any of these questions)...

"What if President Franklin Roosevelt, seeing this failure to enforce Versailles -– which, like UN 1441 et al., was an international agreement designed to contain a militant and dangerous nation -– decided to unilaterally [insert] a regiment or two [of U.S. troops] into the Rhineland and force the Germans to comply with the agreement they had signed?

"What would have happened is this: the widespread and extremely vocal pacificst establishment [both abroad AND in the U.S.] would have decried it as an unwarranted act of aggression against a far weaker foe who was, after all, only moving within the bounds of their own country. We would have been accused of beating up on a poor, battered and defeated nation whose leader had done nothing but build roads and schools and hospitals, all because our President feared the international competition or still harbored a sick desire for revenge against a weak and essentially harmless member of the family of nations.

"Americans, rather than being loved as the good-natured liberators of 1944 and ’45, would [have been] hated as swaggering militant agressors wherever they went. And what would we have to show for it [now]?

"Nothing but the prevention of 50-odd million deaths and the destruction of a continent.

"I swear to God, you just can’t please some people."
Bill Whittle, from "STRENGTH (Part 2)"

We went into Iraq now, BEFORE Hussein's growing power-hunger and notorious readiness to use WMDs on ANYbody, including his own citizenry, could blow up in our faces, just the way our 20/20 hindsight looks back and wishes we could do with Hitler back in the 1930s. It's called "learning from past mistakes."

"If we had it all to do over again..."

YOU may think that Americans have to die on American soil before a response is appropriate, but I don't. And thank God my president doesn't either.

And one more quote from Bill...

"We’ve become hated overseas for this pre-emptive action, and it often seems to me that this alone is why so many Americans have opposed it; not because it was necessarily the right or wrong thing to do in and of itself, but because it makes us unpopular. This is our vital weakness, this desire to be loved by the rest of the world. How many currently opposed to the War in Iraq would change their minds had it been cheered and applauded by the French and the Germans?

"But what difference would that have made to the rightness or wrongness of the action?"
Bill Whittle, from "STRENGTH (Part 2)"

We did the RIGHT THING for ourselves -- and as a happy (albeit unappreciated) corollary, for everyone else as well -- and thankfully, we'll never know just HOW right it was. We already DON'T know what all those follow-on terrorist attacks would have looked like, on, and immediately following 9/11. We already DON'T know how much more powerful Saddam Hussein would have been in the eyes of the Arab world, had his brazen defiance of the United Nations and the U.S. continued unchecked. We already DON'T know what kind of organized "reprisals" al-Qaeda might have mustered had we done nothing more than track down and arrest the handful of others directly associated with the 9/11 attacks. And we already DON'T know what an all-out war with a nation that has set off a nuke in one of our cities would look like.

Personally, I'm damned glad to leave that to my imagination.

There were other reasons as well (you forgot to mention the oil!), but the rest are pretty much subservient to the ones mentioned above.

There's more I wanted to say (surprise, surprise), but Frances is howling outside my window now, and I don't want to lose this to a power outage. So... enough.

Just try and look beyond how much you detest George Bush personally, and how much you hate war in general. In those regards, we're not ALL that far apart. And before you get all cocky about any imagined weakening of Bill's resolve, just because he has openly questioned whether or not this might all be wrong, wait for his next couple of essays.

It turns out there are LOTS of reasons to believe this was the right thing to do.

GHS

I'm blog-sitting at The Zoo, and wrote out my observations on current events that should have an effect on Bill's introspection there.

In short, my conclusion is: "I occasionally question my ideology as well, as an exercise in keeping myself honest. It is an excellent thing to do, and I have no fear that Bill Whittle's introspection will result in his abandoning the principles of rationalism and empiricism when defining the world in which we live."

So rather than reprint the entire essay in another massive post here, I figure I'll just give the link, and maybe drum up some numbers for Sandor while I'm at it. ;)

http://the-zoo.blogspot.com/

ARL: :D Li'l Camper... yeah... something a friend of mine in Ohio would say whenever I was having a bad day. Never failed to make me smile at the silliness of it.

Good to see some words from you, Bill.

I was in Iraq earlier this year and I got to hold the hand of a little girl who was brought into the South Korean humanitarian hospital on base. She had several bullets in her back, one in her spine. She had those bullets because her uncle was furious at the family's decision to leave town, rather than stay with him. Her brother was lucky. Only one bullet struck him, shattering his jaw. Her parents were not so lucky. Neither made it through the assault on their vehicle with an AK-47.

We are not wrong. The monsters are real, Liberty.

Let's shut them down, Bill.

Excellent posts, GHS & Rik especially.

I'd like to respond to two of Leonard's questions, because I think they comprise a particularly tricksy little trap, and I think GHS fell for it in a small way.

Leonard asked:

Could "we" possibly be occupiers, not liberators?

If "we" were seen as liberators by 80% of the Iraqis, but the 20% minority who thought of "us" as occupiers were willing to fight and die, would it matter?

The true answer to the first question makes the second question irrelevant.

And the true answer lies in the definition of the terms.

In the realm of international military operations, the titles of Occupiers and Liberators are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, in the history of the 20th century American application of military might, they are indeed entwined.

Having invaded Iraq, and removed a tyrant from power, is the correct action to then leave immediately, having left, as GHS accurately points out "a nice little power vacuum for the next gang of thugs to rush into"?

I submit that this is the action of a Marauder, and that the ethical solution is to do is to establish order via a representative government before we take the training wheels off their bike.

This requires occupation, as it did in Germany and Japan. So we provide the security, regardless of indiginous polls, and not only for those people polled, but also for the stability and security of the world.

Occupation is not a four letter word. Don't fall for that trap.

Good luck on the instrument rating, Bill. I only got about a 92 on my written, but I did get to fly home 200 miles in the soup after finishing an 11-day accelerated course. (**NEVER** say 'crash course').

Sure hope you'll make OSH next year. I'd like to shake your hand, buy you dinner (if you're so-inclined), and perhaps get you to autograph The Book.

Anxiously awaiting your next missive.

-lr

I actually think GHS forgot something.

Saddam Hussein used WMDs three times, against Iran, the Kurds, and Israel. All three of those people can testitify that they DID exist.

Later, sure, there were inspections, but the UN itself admits that it was a gigantic, seven-year scam. Then there were, what, three, four years during which there wasn't the slightest control of Hussein's WMDs. Does anyone seriously believe he sat on his hands for three years?

As far as I'm concerned, he did have WMDs. They may have been destroyed, or given to Syria, Libya or some terrorist group - but he did have them. You want proof, the Iranians, Kurds and Israelis are the proof of that - too bad I can't say "living proof".

Were they a serious threat? And even if they were, does that justify preemptive war? Those are legitimate questions, and I'm not even sure where I stand on them these days - but to assert that "he didn't have any" is, IMO, totally nuts.

Sure enough. Within a minute of posting my last monstrosity, we lost power for an hour. Thankfully we got it back right away (one of the few benefits of living next to a high priority water treatment plant, I guess).

Anyhoo, good call, Krakatoa. You're right -- I DO tend to take the word "occupation" (as it pertains to war) as a four-letter word. I guess it stems from frequently heard references to "occupied France" (as in "occupied by the Nazis"), with all the negative connotations that go along with that. But it IS a sensible -- and responsible -- aspect of a sound invasion plan, and taken in the context you provided, is just fine by me.

And Ryan, you're half-right, in that I didn't put much attention on the extent of Hussein's known WMD efforts, but I didn't forget it entirely. I just sorta' brushed it off as a given when I said, in passing, "... and though the legitimate threat of Saddam's overt pursuit of WMDs -- combined with the historical precedents of those times that he'd already employed them -- was ONE of the many other reasons...". But you're absolutely right about the certainty of the existence of a WMD program, the implementation of those WMDs, and the importance of not taking them for granted.

I'm glad the gang's all here, because Frances is probably going to shut me down for a couple of DAYS here shortly, and I wouldn't want the ramparts to be left undefended.

Thanks guys.

GHS

I read GHS refer to the post above and thought, did I not sign my name? What a pleasure it is not to be on the losing side of this war. All storms pass, and all have severe side effects, but not one destroys a nation. I will point out that we have 14 ohio class subs, down from 18, due to salt 2 talks, and I feel pretty secure. That is nuance, the real meat and potatoes are the men and women we employ. {deploy) I thank god we have a reason to be secure, and that reason is we are all one, americans. Will the world learn? I learned. Thanks GHS and Bill, you rule.

I support the war for other reasons - mainly because Saddam was a world-class bastard and civilized people have a duty to put butchers like him in small prison cells and eventually metal chairs - but I have problems with the WMD thing.

Simply put, *where are the damn things*?

If Saddam had them at the time we invaded, where did they go? Where's the evidence he had any in the first place, post-1991? Surely a bioweapons project would leave considerable traces. Where?

Then again, Saddam/Uday/Qusay won't be feeding any more people else feet-first into leaf chippers. Frankly, I don't *care* what pretext Bush used to achieve that.

As a certified moonbat, I posted some questions for Bill because I honestly believe he is smart enough to shake off the nationalist programming. And he'd be a powerful ally if turned.

It's unlikely, though. People really don't change that much.

Anyway, I look forward to his essays in any case. Even though he is, IMO, wrong on a few highly important things, Bill has great style and writes with flair. That's why I link him and visit hoping for more. I admire talent even in the service of the opposition, much as I admired Zell Miller's speech the other night. It was (from the horserace perspective) a great speech. He laid his worldview down explicitly and implicitly: soldiers and war are the ultimate source of the good things in life. Spending (other people's) money on weapons: good. Ergo John Kerry's votes: bad. Votes show the man; ergo John Kerry: bad. That logic works on about half the American public, including our host. It's that which I'd have him challenge himself on, were it up to me.

I do not believe you are a moonbat, leonard, I am not even sure what that denotes. I am sure of honest debate, and what goes into the willing effort to create honest questions. I have two options, my friend, act or react. If I act, I lose allies, if I react, I may lose as many, if not more. If I do nothing, I die. Harsh reality, but I was brought up in a harsh world. I did not create it, I merely learned to live in it.

This may appear out of context with the thread, but it is not. Please check out this article:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm

The author goes into detail about why we've gone the route we have, and why it is a good thing (ahem...Liberty).

The person signing in as “I'll have a new name very soon (formerly Well I'm Still Out Of Names, formerly Well I'm Out Of Names” is of course our old friend who first signed in as “Michael Moore FOREVER and Ever.”

Welcome back, old friend. It will be good to be entertained with your comments and insights once more. I look forward to being reminded of the value of our constitutionally protected right to show how delusional a person can be and still manage to operate a computer keyboard.
------------
My late-night post a few nights back, in which I incorrectly calculated the yield of fission bomb cores from 40 tons of Iranian Uranium (try saying THAT ten times...) was very promptly corrected by another reader who pointed out my embarrassingly elementary error in converting pounds to kilograms. On the other hand, that’s exactly why I posted my question and calculations--- because I was sure I’d done SOMETHING wrong at 4am, but couldn’t see it. And, HEY! Even NASA scientist screw those conversions up occasionally...

It underscores the value of the net, and of these blogs (so long as the host can sustain the bandwidth.)

David March, animator & fiddler

Rob's link to Thomas Barnett's “Pentagon's New Map” is worth following up, whether or not you agree with him. I caught the last ten minutes of Barnett's lecture on C-Span yesterday--- it's probable they will run it again soon. Apart from the cheesy sound effects he pasted into his slideshow, I would say it's worth watching.

Bravo, David March... yes, the bandwidth for all my previous names wasn't enough.
Delusional, am I? All right.
First of all, Ryan, your assertion of WMDs... right. Look, let's be perfectly objective. Iraq has been under occupation for how long? Since April of last year. And you still haven't found any WMDs. You don't have a shred of proof to say that they actually existed. You haven't found a single one. Is it really that unbelievable that we simply went in to take their oil, and that Bush did, in fact, lie about the threat? With his CIA up and about, I'm sure he couldn't have failed to note their abscence.
And GHS. After having been told for half a year that his WMDs were a threat and that he had ties to al-Qaeda (excuse me, HOW often did the neocons repeat that in their speeches?) you are now saying, oh yeah, but we're attacking a harmless place so that it doesn't become harmful. So, are you going to attack everything that might become harmful? Every country that might, potentially, become a threat? You're going to have a lot of countries to take down.
Saying that Saddam had WMDs, that is delusional. And saying that we have the right to attack a country with no WMDs just in order to prevent it from acquiring them, that is delusional.
You accuse Michael Moore of being delusional, but you keep referring to myths such as these weapons, and you keep trying to justify a war against a country which POSED NO THREAT!
How is Michael Moore a liar if he exposes the administration's own lies?

"First of all, Ryan, your assertion of WMDs... right. Look, let's be perfectly objective. Iraq has been under occupation for how long? Since April of last year. And you still haven't found any WMDs."

Sarin and mustard gas shells. Oops, guess you were lying.

Might also want to read David Kay's initial report on just how much Iraq was trying to hide and conceal their WMD programs.

Hope that busts your delusions, but something tells me it won't hit hard enough.

In response to the Delusionbuster's charge of lunacy to anybody who believes Iraq ever had WMD's...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1877161.stm

"Iraqi aircraft shelled Halabja with chemical weapons on 16 March 1988, in an attack which left 5,000 dead and 7,000 injured or with long-term illnesses."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/58206.stm

"Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles on Israel in the 1991 Gulf War"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

"Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq"

The first two links, you will note, are from the BBC, so there is clearly no right-wing slant. The last is evidence of WMD's found in Iraq recently, post-liberation.

Please, Delusionbuster, if you wish to make an assertion, at least make it a sane one.

-Benjamin

AAUURRGGHH! It took me 10 hours to get my power back, without a hiccup in my phone lines... until I got 3 paragraphs into this posting, when the phones bit the dust for another 4 hours. Well, the phones just came back up, so, QUICK, before they can go down again...

(I apologize in advance for the ridiculous length…)

--------
Gawd, "Delusionbuster"... (sigh)... Lordy.

You said, "You don't have a shred of proof to say that they [meaning WMDs] actually existed."

What do you think they gassed the Iranian troops with? Car exhaust? Was it just a massive fajita fart that wiped out entire villages of Kurds? Do you think they were burning driftwood in the Osirak nuclear reactor? Do you understand that “Weapons of Mass Destruction” means more than just “atomic bombs?”

Same paragraph: "You haven't found a single one."

Well, in that case, I guess they never existed, including the ones he actually USED. But, regardless of the EXTENT of his WMD stockpiles, or how well they might or might not have been hidden or transported elsewhere, or how ridiculously they might have simply been exaggerated (by Saddam himself, as well as all the defectors we interviewed), as I already stated above, IT DOESN'T MATTER! Even if it was all a bluff (and who knows how much Saddam himself was misinformed by his own cowed legions of yes-men), it was a threat fostered and expounded by Hussein to his own detriment. And, as with the poker analogy that I already used previously, who's fault is that?

You asked, "So, are you going to attack everything that might become harmful?"

First of all, would you prefer to wait until they've committed a harmful act against you? Just so I know, which American city would you prefer they attack first? I mean, I wouldn't want to be visiting your all-important "smoking gun" site when they decided to up the ante another notch or two.

I'm curious -- did you read any of the Hitler comparisons? Mine OR Bill's? Do you know your history well enough to understand what appeasement and negotiation have repeatedly resulted in in the past? When historians, strategists and politicians alike look back to the 1930s and bemoan all the missed opportunities -- when a simple, if unpopular, little action might have diverted history onto a whole new track that DIDN'T include the suffering and deaths of tens of millions of people worldwide -- don'tcha think it might actually be smarter to LEARN something from those errors than to just keep repeating them?

So, in answer to your question: no, I'm not advocating attacking "everything that might become harmful." That would include John Kerry and most of the Democrats I know. I AM, however, saying that we SHOULD stop any overt physical threat dead in its tracks. And that includes the leader of a powerful (if badly managed) modern military, who has a history of USING weapons of mass destruction against not only his own people, but against other nations as well, nations that include our allies... who proudly alludes to the extent of his WMD development, who has actively invaded his neighbors on several occasions, who does not recognize the value of human life, and who has, almost step for step, duplicated the progression that Hitler followed in leading the world into a global conflagration. All this while blithely thumbing his nose at the world -- over 12 friggin' years, mind you -- whenever they asked him to abide by the rules he agreed to, in writing, at the end of GW1. That's a potent coiled-and-hissing threat there, buddy. And when over a decade of impotent "requests" and "insistences" have failed to neuter the threat -- when even our bald-faced declaration of intent to invade and drive him out by force only brought him out onto his balcony to shoot his pistol into the air before a cheering crowd -- then the choices have run out. Like it or not, he’s not going to play by your rules. You're going to have to deal with him on HIS TERMS... you'll either make good on YOUR threats, or he'll make good on his. It’s that simple. So which would YOU prefer?

Amazingly, you then asked, “Is it really that unbelievable that we simply went in to take their oil, and that Bush did, in fact, lie about the threat?” Short answer? Yes, it’s really that unbelievable.

Gawd… the “oil thing” again. I’m curious: what station are you getting YOUR free gas from? And why haven’t we been rolling around in all our free oil since Gulf War I? From what part of the world -- including any of the nations that we’ve ever defeated in all the wars we’ve ever fought beyond our shores -- are we receiving ANY kind of free resources? Taking ANYTHING from any nation we’ve ever engaged in war has NEVER been an objective. It’s an unbelievably stupid, childish claim, no matter how frequently it's made, or who makes it.

And “Bush lying about the threat?” What the hell for? So that when the truth inevitably came out in the end, he could look as stupid and discreditable as possible? Presuming that no WMDs are EVER found – and we’re a long way from ever conceding that – you could claim that Bush was misinformed (along with all the legions of congresspersons and cabinet folks and leaders of other nations as well), or misjudged the legitimacy of the threat (along with all those very same “other folks” again), but “lied?” Give me a break.

So “is it really that unbelievable that we simply went in to take their oil?” Yep. And stupid too.

Then you said, “Saying that Saddam had WMDs, that is delusional.” Brilliant. Right up there with denying the Nazi holocaust. All you gotta’ do is say the words, and that makes it right. Right? Know any Kurds that’ll back you up on that one?

“And saying that we have the right to attack a country with no WMDs just in order to prevent it from acquiring them, that is delusional.” Lord, I can’t respond to this without repeating everything I just said. Although I would suggest you take a moment to look up "delusional" in the dictionary, because even in YOUR context, it doesn't apply in that sentence.

And finally, this gem: “How is Michael Moore a liar if he exposes the administration's own lies?”

Michael Moore is a liar because HE USES LIES to make his points! That’s why he’s a liar. Pretty obvious when you think about it. He makes shit up. He changes dates to suit his claims (like his claim that the bin Ladens were exiled at a time when no one else in America could fly, when they were in fact sent packing 5 days after normal scheduled flights had resumed… as if any of that made any difference anyway). He selectively edits news footage and interviews that he himself has staged (like the bogus scene of a bank manager handing him a rifle when he opened an account there), including many completely fictional situations (like the Columbine shooters bowling before their rampage), so that only one side of the argument is presented, completely unfettered by all the easy and obvious counterarguments. He does half-assed “research,” then passes huge judgments on his incomplete information (like the “hostile environment” that the Columbine kids existed in, “living in the shadow” of a missile-building corporation, when the company in question had nothing to do with weapons). He sets up scenarios that are designed solely to inflame, and then looks aghast at the inflammatory response (like jamming a mike into the faces of congresspersons on the street, and “asking” them to sign a petition that would send their kids off to war). And all this under the guise of documentary rigor.

Enjoy his biased and slanted antics all you want. Lend them any credibility though, and you’re an idiot.

(sigh)

Pissing in the wind again. You’d think I’d learn.

GHS

For starters: Why can't more self-proclaimed "Moonbats" be as polite and rational as Leonard? I used to stay up 'til 2 or 3AM debating liberals in the AOL chatrooms. Since about late '99 or early 2000, they have been utterly irrational, totally averse to debate, hopelessly devoted to bumper-sticker sloganeering. It's too bad, because I used to enjoy debating liberals. Nowadays they're insane with W-phobia.

With that said, let me state my position right off the bat:

I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHETHER THEY FIND WMDs OR NOT, OUR PRESENCE AND OUR ACTIONS IN IRAQ ARE JUSTIFIED.

Wow, that felt good. Try it, you'll be amazed at its therapeutic effect.

This has been my official position on the matter of Weapons of Mass Destruction for more than a year now. It was formed on the day Martha Stewart was arrested for insider trading. No, really. Because on that day, newspapers in Australia (and other nations) reported the discovery of several mass graves of Kurdish children in Iraq. Let me repeat that: On the day that foreign media were reporting the discovery of mass graves of CHILDREN murdered by Saddam Hussein, our nation's "media" gave us wall-to-wall coverage of a washed-up home decorator doing the Perp-Walk. Some of the skeletons exhumed were still wearing blindfolds, some were still clutching dolls and toys. Most had bullet holes in their skulls. Images like that would have galvanized the nation's support for the war, and our media couldn't let that happen. If it weren't for the Internet, no one in this country would have known the story.

By that time (early June of 2003), we had started to hear the first grumblings in the media and among the leftist intellegensia regarding the WMDs that weren't being found. In these days of a presidential campaign, it's a standard battle cry for Kerry and Edwards' supporters that "There were no WMDs!", "The War was a fraud!", and several variations of these mantras. The most repugnant, of course, is Michael Moore's "Ode to Islamo-Fascism," better known as "Fahrenheit 9-11." Again, Moore has crafted a screed that appeals to all the barking moonbats of the left. You won't see any mass graves in this piece of cinemanure, you'll see smiling Iraqi children, flying kites and generally enjoying a life that is free of those nasty, evil, Halliburton-funded American Killbots. It is the modern-day moral equivalent of Holocaust Denial. It is the continuation of Leni Reifenstahl's work. And it will probably win him another Oscar, which says as much about Hollywood as it does about Moore.

(Full Disclosure Time: I have not seen, nor do I intend to ever see, Fahrenheit 9-11. I won't see this or any other Moore movie until I get a chance to put him in a hammerlock for an hour and demand that he return the hour of my life that I wasted watching the first hour of "Bowling for Bullshit Columbine." I bailed at the cartoon. Not only was it puerile filmmaking, it was deliberately, laughably bad history. My only consolation is that I watched it on Showtime, which means that I didn't contribute to Moore's Twinkie fund any more than if I had never watched it in the first place.)

So yes, despite the best efforts of Kerry, Edwards, Moore, Clinton, Berger, the other Clinton, and the bought-and-paid-for "Band of Brothers," my support for The President and our actions in Iraq, regardless of WMDs, is unwavering. Blanket statements about my apathy towards Iraq's pre-war weaponry are all well and good, but even the warmest, fuzziest blanket statement needs to have some intellectual filler. So here goes:

When you boil it all down, there are just two possibilities:

1) Iraq/Saddam did not have WMDs.

2) Iraq/Saddam did have WMDs.

I favor the latter, as does history. After all, thousands of dead Kurds can't be wrong. And if there actually were WMDs, the game is over and our presence was justified. Indeed, we are starting to find them in drips and drabs. A Sarin-tipped artillery shell here, a cache of missile delivery systems there. The systems were based on Soviet designs, which were built to be easily disassembled and moved or hidden. And in a country the size of California that is almost entirely desert, there are plenty of places to hide things.

So that's the easy part. Now. What if Option One is true? Well, it changes nothing. Our actions were justified, and here's why.

[[Following 10,000 words replaced by the image of the North Tower in flames, and another airliner moments from striking the South Tower. Hey, if Michael Moore-on can use that image in his "Oscar Winning" movie, I can use it here. For better reasons.]]

This is not some late-night dorm room bull session, this is the Real World, and WE! ARE! AT! WAR! We have been attacked in a way that has not been seen since Pearl Harbor. This isn't a matter for diplomats and their effite snobbery, this is a time for generals and admirals and their unapologetic aggression.

Since the end of Gulf War 1, Saddam had been attempting to acquire the means to make WMDs, sometimes openly, sometimes covertly. Maybe he really DIDN'T have them, but he sure wanted us to think that he did. (And let's all send a nice warm fuzzy Thank-You note to Senator Church for destroying the CIA's ability to get to the bottom of the Iraqi WMD program.)

So basically, Saddam was playing a high-stakes poker game with his UN oil-for-blood program as his ante, and then he went all-in with his entire regime. He was holding a pair of deuces (Ouday and Qusay) and a Joker (Mohammed al-Schaff, a.k.a. "Baghdad Bob"), while George W. Bush was holding four aces (Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld).

Saddam learned the hard way: Never bluff a Texan. They have a swagger that, in Texas, is known as "walking".

--Dave

(*sniff*)

VRWC Man... I love you, dude.

I sure hope you mean that platonically.

Off topic... do any of you fine human beings know where I could purchase a copy of the Republican Convention on DVD? Thanks!

-Benjamin

Bill, the easier way to get your Instrument ticket is to join the AF, go through 2 years of pilot training, take the Mil Comp test (I got a 98, pissed about the Q I missed - something about the transponder), and walk away with Commercial and Instrument tickets for the types of planes you flew. In my case I got Commerical Rotary and Commerical SEL in addition to Instrument.

;)

Looking forward to the next essay since you've been hyping it enough! Post it already!

VRWC Man & GHS...

Very nice ennumeration of the facts, along with commentary! You two are more patient than I.

I was hoping someone would answer that. I sure didn't want to. The "Bush Lied about WMD" argument is so old and debunked, it gives me headaches to respond to it yet again.

I wonder if Delusionbuster isn't just yanking chains here. He/she is bound to know Saddam's history of using and pursuing WMD, right?

Huh...well, maybe not. At this point in the game, I don't know if I have the energy to respond to BS like that. I'm perfectly happy arguing points of logic and debating philosophical differences, but I'm a little out of my leage dealing with medical issues like cranial-rectal inversion.

Another good read entitled,

"World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

Also, krakatoa, I hear the application of high velocity patent leather to the posterior region is an excellent deaccelerant in the cranial-rectal inversion process. It's even been known to reverse the syndrome when used repeatedly.

There's no doubt Saddam was an evil bastard and needed to be taken out. But, then.. the US put him in power. How'd he get so out of control? And since when does the US need to bomb an entire country to get one guy? We're the USA for cryin out loud. There's also a basic strategies ALL historians understand: don't completely destroy a country and its people, unless all you want is a very large cemetary.
and sorry, but no one has convinced me we have liberated those people... because we're still occupying the place. and we obviously didn't have any strategy to really (honestly) help them BEFORE we started bombing the crap out of them. So what the heck is really going on with this whole thing?
Also, most of you you guys scare the hell outta me. You're picking your allies. you're declaring which "side" you're on, you're aligning yourselves with generic terms: Liberal, Red, Blue, God-Fearing Believer.
We are becoming a nation of Hatfields and McCoys.
The USA is being divided. By opinons, by half-truths and outright lies. It's getting harder and harder to find the truth anymore.
The past three years, we've seen more protests that we've seen in the past 30. What does that tell you? And I don't mean that in a finger pointing way.. I mean what does it say to You? If you're unaffected by a crowd of 5000 protesters... if you can dismiss that many people as "nutjobs", then you've quit thinking for yourself.
I like to believe most men are peacful and would prefer to live in harmony with the family next door. who would benefit from driving a wedge between myself and my neighbor?
Look around, guys. What the hells going on? Whats with us?? Can anybody explain what the current situation is without resorting to a canned "They're wrong and evil and we're right and good" party line?

oh, yea.. Bill, good luck on the test. Rock on, buddy.

One thing GHS, VRWCman, and others are missing is that the reason we are not swimming in free oil after evil Mr. BusHitler and his Halliburton Buddies stole it from nice Mr. Never-swatted-a-fly Hussein, is that THEY ARE CHARGING THE US PUBLIC LOTS OF DOLLARS SO THEY CAN MAKE A HUGE PROFIT!!!!

See, according to the circular logic of Good Sir Muchos Nombres, the Bush administration exists for one purpose only: to gather power and wealth unto itself, at the expense of EVERYBODY ELSE. We peasants stupid enough to vote Republican are not going to be favored with any special discount on the OCEANS of crude oil suddenly being pumped from Iraqi wells into the tens of thousands of Halliburton-owned tankers now crowding the Persian Gulf.

Jeez. I love it. I went to look at the site "Serendipity" a couple of days ago. There's a wonderful page full of truly excellent grammar tips, which justifies the visit, whatever you may think of the rest. But the best part was the business about how our own government was responsible for flying the jets into the WTC.

The premise is that major defense contractors worked out ways of electronically commandeering the controls of a hijacked jetliner starting twenty years ago. Now the CIA is fully capable of controlling ANY commercial flight from their command centers on the ground. The proof is that they actually have remote controlled aircraft they're operating in war zones!!!!!!!!!! (Never mind that R-C model aircraft have been popular since the 1930's...)

So these turd-for-brains maintain that the Bush administration is completely responsible for the WTC, the pentagon, and the crash in Pennsylvania, JUST so they could have an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I stopped reading about that point, it was just so nuts.

What caps the sheer lunacy of it all is that the author identifies himself and has feedback for a US and European site... Of course, if he's enough of a genius he can fudge his trail, I suppose.

The movie "enemy of the state" has Will Smith being tracked by a chip in his shoe, by government agents that see his movements in highly detailed virtual displays of every building he runs through. They just happen to have the data for every wire, pipe, screw, nail, light bulb, drawer, potted plant, sofa, rolling ergonomic chair, and roll of toilet paper that's ever been delivered and installed in those buildings, along with the plans for the buildings. When someone asks these agents to look for suspicious bank transactions, they call up the account figures for Will Smith and his girlfriend, analyze and compare the various transactions and come up with a match in ten seconds.

Sure.

Well, there are lots of people that saw Princess Leah's little appeal to Obi-Wan Kenobi projected from R2D2 in the first Star Wars film in 1977 and came away talking in WONDER that someone had finally figured out how to manage 3D holgraphic projection.

I think what we're seeing here is the results of the emptying of the asylums by the Democrats back in the 1970's and 80's. They have since done a pretty good job of claiming they were on another planet at the time, so they couldn't have been involved.

Delusionbuster simply needs to have his dosage re-checked.

That's a wide ranging area you've questioned, hovercraft pilot.

In reading GHS and Bill's material, they strike me as the kind of folks who do not blindly follow a dogma. Rather, their comments show a detailed analysis of the situation followed by a judgement based on their support for the United States of America and the values our nation espouses...in essence life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe the majority of the people who post/listen here are the type of folks who would change their mind if they are shown to be wrong, to paraphrase John Maynard Keynes.

I truly believe this is a fundamentally different mindset than Michael Moore adheres to. I think he, and likeminded individuals, are afraid to make a values judgement.

Whose values, comes their response?

Who are we to judge another, comes their cry?

Our values. Western values. We are the United States of America. We try. That alone sets us apart from - and above - many of the governments and nations of the world. We are not perfect, but we try to do the right thing.

I am going out on a dangerous limb here but I wrote an essay I've posted on my site that further details why I think America is just.

(It is nowhere near the material Bill writes, but it is an attempt. And that is what as essay is. I would say take it easy on me as this is my first real foray into the blogosphere, but that's not the American way. Tear me up if you disagree.)

Hovercraft's points need to be addressed one by one. If you'll indulge me:

There's no doubt Saddam was an evil bastard and needed to be taken out. But, then.. the US put him in power.

Actually, that is a misstatement. Saddam was one of several goons in the Ba'athist party that rose to prominence (much like Stalin) by killing off all his rivals in the late 70's. Saddam was off the Carter administration's radar and wasn't paid attention to until the Reagan admin took notice of him in the eighties as a possible conterbalance to the Ayatollahs in Iran. You can make a case for US support for Saddam in power but there is no evidence or fact to back up your claim.

How'd he get so out of control? And since when does the US need to bomb an entire country to get one guy?

You might remember it was hard to get Hitler or the Kaiser. Ruling heads of state are usually backed up by armies and secret service types making them pretty hard to get at. I'm sure that extremist Islamic factions want to "get" George W Bush, but for the aforementioned reasons they are finding it hard to do. It's never been easy to "get one guy" especially when that guy is important and many people have reasons for wanting to keep him alive.

There's also a basic strategies ALL historians understand: don't completely destroy a country and its people, unless all you want is a very large cemetary.

I don't get this. Are you saying that every person is Iraq is dead through the USA's doings? All accounts show that our troops have been careful to minimize both civilian casualties and infrastructure, often at a personal cost.

and sorry, but no one has convinced me we have liberated those people... because we're still occupying the place.

As has been said above, occupation is a necessary step in liberation. Imagine what would happen if our troops had left the day after the statue was pulled down. Do you think a bloodbath would have taken place? I do. It's happened before. Do you remember when we liberated Kuwait and left without occupation of Iraq? Hundreds of thousands of Kurds were murdered. How about when we ended our "occupation" of South Viet Nam?

we obviously didn't have any strategy to really (honestly) help them BEFORE we started bombing the crap out of them

Actually, getting rid of a dictator and his family that fed people into woodchippers, locked athletes into Iron Maidens and raped and murdered children in front of their parents WAS the stategy to help them. Considering most of this stuff doesn't happen anymore, I'd say it was a successful stategy.

Also, most of you you guys scare the hell outta me. You're picking your allies. you're declaring which "side" you're on, you're aligning yourselves with generic terms: Liberal, Red, Blue, God-Fearing Believer.

Don't be afraid. I'm just like you. I just don't happen to buy into your philosophy. I suppose if I agreed with you you wouldn't be scared of me anymore, but, I can't. From a historical and logical perspective I see too many flaws in your presentation.

We are becoming a nation of Hatfields and McCoys.
The USA is being divided. By opinons, by half-truths and outright lies. It's getting harder and harder to find the truth anymore.

Oftentimes, truth is a subjective term. For example, I am pro-Israeli,I think the world owes a karmic debt to the jews for our foot dragging while they were slaughtered during WWII. Certainly Hitlers's truth was that the Jews are the bearers of all the evil in the world. Who's right? I'd like to think I am because I believe "genocide is bad" is an absolute truth. However, I've seen modern-day protesters with signs that say Jews are evil. Aren't they wrong because they seem to side with Hitler's truth and not mine. How about Dafar? My "genocide is bad" absolute truth means that the world and the UN should be stopping that situation immediately, but they're not. Why? Even absolute truths are colored with subjectivity and opinions. Extremist Islam has its set of truths that are not ours. But they are as committed to theirs as we are to ours. The answer seems to be to self inform and then to make up one's mind while keeping that mind open to new ideas and weighing those ideas constantly against new ones. But even if you do that you will still be taking a side, hopefully a more informed one. If you haven't read "magic" on this site I would encourage you to do so , especially for the last few paragraph which are on how people think. Whittle says it better than I do.

we've seen more protests that we've seen in the past 30. What does that tell you? And I don't mean that in a finger pointing way.. I mean what does it say to You? If you're unaffected by a crowd of 5000 protesters... if you can dismiss that many people as "nutjobs", then you've quit thinking for yourself.

Not true. I'm sure there have been marches of 5000 KKK members in white hoods. I have been totally uneffected by that crowd in the past and have dismissed them as nutjobs. That doesn't mean that I've quit thinking for myself. Are you swayed into bigotry when you see 5000 KKK members marching? If the message is wrong-headed, I'm perfecly justified in ignoring it.

I like to believe most men are peacful and would prefer to live in harmony with the family next door. who would benefit from driving a wedge between myself and my neighbor?

I'd like to believe that also, but have a tough time doing so when I see one group beheading people while chanting to God, shooting Russian schoolchildren in the back, blowing up babies on buses, performing genocide on naturist Africans etc. etc. After all it would be hard to live in harmony with the family next door if that family is the Manson family, dont you think?

Look around, guys. What the hells going on? Whats with us?? Can anybody explain what the current situation is without resorting to a canned "They're wrong and evil and we're right and good" party line?

Certainly there are people out there who commit acts that are evil. Actually all we seem to be doing, as the "free world", is reacting to this evil. That is if you think the above acts are evil or even believe in the concept. But, perhaps believing in evil is my own absolute truth after seeing and weighing the evidence. YMMV

Well, hovercraftpilot...

First of all, for all that I disagreed with in your post, it was still a good read and asked some valid questions. None of them were in the FIRST paragraph, but still, good points.

To summarize (for once) my responses to the questions of your first paragraph...

The U.S. DIDN'T "put Saddam in power." He fought his way into "office" via the usual tyrant's route -- back-stabbing, blackmail, murder and terror. The fact that we supported Iraq over Iran during their little tiff over there is nowhere near the same thing as "putting him in power." Even if you insist that we DID though, does that mean that we're bound forever to our allegiance to a madman? Or would it be okay to sever those ties once we realized the folly of our ways?

So "how'd he get so out of control?" He was ALWAYS a thug, right from his teenaged years when he got shot up attempting to assassinate the Iraqi leader of the time.

And the U.S. DIDN'T "bomb an entire country to get one guy?" We didn't even shoot at people who weren't shooting at US. And "...completely destroy a country and its people?" WHAT? What "news source" are YOU watching? Iraqi casualty figures are just about the lowest ever inflicted on a combatant nation, collateral damage was astonishingly low, and our aid and reparations were immediate in every area we moved into by force. They've got places over there with running water and electricity that never had it BEFORE we got there.

Sorry if you're "not convinced" that we liberated those people, and even if YOU'RE not, THEY'RE damned glad that we've hung around as long as we have to maintain the peace (as best as possible, given the circumstances) until they get completely back onto their feet.

And we obviously DID have a "strategy to really (honestly) help them BEFORE we started bombing the crap out of them." If we didn't, there'd be nothing but wreckage in our wake, instead of rebuilt buildings, restored power and plumbing, and most importantly, an interim Iraqi government and police force already in place.

But, considering your highly selective views on the war, I guess I can see why you'd be dumbfounded and disillusioned by its progress.

Your OTHER points I could more agree with though... like the disheartening polarization that's going on in this country right now. That IS pretty evident, and bothersome. However, historically speaking, it is certainly not unprecedented to find the populace so polarized during wartime. You pretty much either support it or you don't... there's not much gray area in between.

In the past though, unfettered by this modern fashion of self-loathing, pessimistic self-scrutiny, and this penchant for seeking out only the worst in ourselves, our nation, our leadership, and our history, "back then" we tended to see and work toward the longer-term outcomes, and accepted the survival of our homeland as a noble and worthy objective in and of itself. Now we can't seem to do that anymore.

Now, as part of being so "enlightened" and "introspective," we seem to see only our faults, foibles and misadventures... we seem to want to apologize for everything... we seem to BLAME ourselves for everything. As such, with that focus on the negative (not to mention a steady diet of TV, movies and music that lionize those who fight against "evil corporations" and the "evil government"), we trust nothing and no one that operate at power levels higher than our own, we presume the worst in all our political dealings, and we open our collective arms to the world NOT to embrace it, but to apologize to it, because everything is all our fault.

To quote from "Everybody Loves Raymond;" "That's right. It's aaalllll about you, Raymond."

And sorry, but I don't buy that. I try to imagine what ANY other nation in the world -- and in all of HISTORY -- would have done with the kind of power the U.S. has today. And, with only one or two exceptions, it makes me shudder to think of it. Lordy, I don't think we'd even HAVE a northern hemisphere if any other nation had built "the bomb" before us. As it is, our development of it (and proven willingness to actually deploy it), before all others, is probably the only thing that stayed the hand of those that followed.

Anyhoo, I'm veering off on a tangent again here. Suffice it to say then, I too worry over the general polarization of the voting public. I don't see it as a sign of the fall of the republic though, so to speak... just an ugly (and passing) interlude, like flower power and disco. Some day soon, Iraq's going to be standing on its own two feet, there will be no American troops on Middle Eastern soil (since the Saudis will no longer need to fret over the sweep of Hussein's covetous eye), and there will no longer be a NEED for the likes of George W. Bush. And then we can all go back to staring at our own navels and ignoring the rest of the world like we were before.

I too "...like to believe most men are peaceful and would prefer to live in harmony with the family next door." But sometimes you've just got to deal with the neighborhood bully first.

GHS

Interesting...
motorola alcatela advice 3310 download
zakłady bukmacherskie
sts wwts hockey m35 sportowe zealand
the sims 2 simsy simy sim sims2 ericsson help windykacja tanie telefoniczne
Cheap Flights Flight motoroli sms siemens wwts bet
tapety plus win telefoniczne telefoniczne golf
bukmacherzy komorek sportsbook simsy strategy plus
zakłady sportowe loga gsm logosy philips sport
dzwonki help basketball bukmacherka simsy college
dzwonki polifoniczne information siemens philips vegas polifoniczne
aparaty cyfrowe tanie internet arena cricket c35
online sports betting boxing cricket zak³ady bukmacherskie 3310 programy
sports betting college bonuses loga ericsson golf
logo winner sportowe plus sportowe football
wygaszacze statistics sl45i bonuses siemens komurek
gry java statistics s40 rugby service gsm
polifoniczne dzwonki download c35 terms melodyjki service
gry jawa tips bukmacher panasonic zak³ady d³ug³ów
pozycjonowanie komurek 3210 odds arena odzysk
windykacja wwts c45 sport siemens internet

The responses to Delusionbuster prove why I like this place.

When my eyes saw the tired "don't have a shred of proof" blah blah blah "haven't found a single one" blah blah blah "went in to take oil" blah blah blah, I grabbed my Google cap and was ready to do some searching (and destroying).

But before doing that, my finger hit the DOWN button on the Comment window. Lo and behold, ya'll refuted the silly ascertions with links and facts that can be verified.

I heart you (c:

Hey, GHS! (not that I disagree with you, but...) If we have a karmic debt to surviving jews for the several years delay by European and US in warring against Hitler, what karmic debt do we owe to the tens of millions of citizens of the Soviet Union murdered by their own governments between 1920 and 1990? How do we repay the karmic debt we owe the other six million victims of Nazi death camps: Gypsies, union shop-stewards, Episcopalians, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, homosexuals, mentally-impaired, crippled, club-foot, newspaper editors, professors, writers, poets, composers, and resisters?

What drives me crazy is that the liberals in this country use such ridiculous and lame hyperbole to smear the conservatives. If one percent of the bullshit they claim were true, the RepublicaNazis would have ground the liberals into tasty little protester patties decades ago.

You would be able to buy handsome former democrat rendered bodyfat soap bars and votive candles, and sift through all the slightly used but still stylish shoe fashions and eyeglasses of departed democrats. Where are the warehouses and stores full of confiscated silver-plated tea service, encyclopedias, fine leather sofas, jewelry, and Gibson Les Paul guitars, now for sale at rockbottom prices?

Why is it that the websites that present the most vitriolic and bizaare accusations of NAZI RIGHT WING CONTROL of the US are not the least bit afraid of including their own return address along with the option of sending a contribution to their offices, right on their websites???????

Could they get away with that if what they claim were actually true????

Oh, yeah. I guess those sites are just the web equivalent of a baited spring trap for liberal loonies. Send a contribution one day, disappear the next.

My bad.

Seriously, I think the division in America today is the culmination of the success the Communists achieved in their infiltration of governments and institutions (particularly teachers and university faculty) in nations all around the world. These efforts have been extremely well-documented by the records of the Soviet Union which have been available to western researchers since the collapse of that government in the early 1990’s. Beginning in the 1920’s there were international organizations funded and directed by the Soviets whose entire purpose was to infiltrate and influence western culture.

I’m not going to attempt to document the Communist International efforts. I would urge any who doubt to read the histories of communism published by sources they TRUST, if they don’t want to hear it from ME. My point is that the history is available for anyone who wishes to look. The folks challenging that now are the liberals who invested so much in defending communism. Now they’re in profound denial about the documents revealed by the soviet archives. Much to their chagrin and embarrassment, those archives confirm that the United States government was telling us the truth about communist/soviet subversion of western governments and culture all along.

The major contributors to the present divisiveness are the OLD Media, especially the press, hijacked by several generations of self-annointed crusaders who chose journalism for their college degree program after watching Redford and Hoffman in “All the President’s Men.” Combined with the Radical-Left domination of American university faculties, this has produced a tide of counter-cultural primitives steeped since toilet training with the notion that the purpose of journalism is to topple Republican/Fascist presidents. The collection and correlation of facts are only important insofar as they can be used to support the underlying agenda--- Resistance to the oppression of the Conservatives. Inconvenient facts or allegations are to be dismissed, belittled, scorned, and characterized as lacking credibility.

Poop heads, all.

He said 'Poop'