What people with too much time do...

[JMK]

I wish I could use my photoshop time on projects like this...

[J'hrea Alsac'lynol]

My friend showed me that at another board, heh, weird ain't it...

[Sanis Prent]

Old hat. Funny though.

I much prefer some of the funny art from the pro-action camp :)

[Darth23]

Let's see,

Gulf War II,

George BUsh II

This really IS the Year of the Sequel.

Sanis... I think that WAS fromt he 'pro-action' camp.

How about these instead:

<img src=http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/cover_icon.jpg>

or maybe:

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/quiet.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/silence.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/scrap.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/youwe.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/oldman.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/back.jpg


http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/keepitup.jpg:D

[Sene Unty]

Oh my god those things rule!

[Diego Van Derveld]

Those aren't funny, unless you count Pro-Lethargists trying to rationalize doing nothing funny, which I don't.

<a href=http://dissidentfrogman.8bit.co.uk/price_of_peace.html>This</a> is much more relevant than any of that left-apologist tripe. If it offends your activist streak, good. You need a swift kick in the concience anyway.

And you realize you're taking the bill of rights issue to some of its biggest supporters? Isn't that convenient eh? We think you and your views are wrong. You're free to have them, but keep in mind that we also know that people who promote apathy in the name of peace and humanitarianism are silent killers. No blood on the hands required. Very convenient. Why do we need to do anything to you for you exercising your freedom of speech. I'd think that your guilty concience would do the trick anyway.

[Darth23]

The sad thing about those peopel who can't walk because Saddam killed them is that he got a lot of Btirish and US aid AFTER he killed them.

Killing civilians is ALWAYS bad, not just when it furthers other political goals.


-----------------

PROMOTE APATHY?

I didnt' realize trying to educate, agitate and organize was promoting apthy. I guess all those letters I tried to get peopel to write and petitions I tried to get people to sign was actually promoting them to do nothing.

If anyone wants apathy and inaction it's the BUSH administration. That's why he and Condie Rice are tryign to send out the signal that the marches and protests won't have any effect.

Speaking of killing civillians, why is it that the so-called 'consetvative, anti-COmmunicst Republican governemt does NOTHING about China, despite their continued , illegal occupation of Tibet AND the whole Tienamen Square thing. I mean, they're a 'most favored' trading partner.

I guess it's not politically expedient.

-----------------

I DO have a guilty conscience.

Every time a civilian is killed with mweapons that my tax diollars helped pay for, I feel guilty and wonder of there was more that I could have done to prevent it.

What about YOU, how do YOU feel about your tax dollars paying for a lot of dead people?

If you don't care about foreign civilians, then hopw about all the troops who are goingto die because of 'friendly fire' incidents?

[Diego Van Derveld]

Nice moral high horse. Of course, you do realize sitting on your butt and pretending to champion "peace" is just another way to allow innocent Iraqi citizens to be killed at Hussein's hands. But you don't end up "looking bad", so that's fine and dandy. Your fake peace will and has killed hundreds of times more innocent people than a short war or liberation ever will. The sheer ignorance you pomp by suggesting that more time or inspections will change Saddam, or that you can appease your way out of this, gives me no cause to pay your baby-killing protester ilk any amount of mind. Your fake peace is sound and fury, signifying nothing except the a choking, poisonous malaise that has swept across liberal America like cancer.

Your petitions and activist letters aren't worth the cheap paper they're written on, or the Kurdish/Shiite blood they're penned in. You're using vain, balloon-headed celebrity pundits as mouthpieces for your "great crusade". These are unethical, unqualified entertainers with no compunction to keep them from exploiting the media, and touting their worthless words of wisdom to a media that values their sensationalist rhetoric over an equitable representation of opinion from common americans. Its no different than shifty statisticians cooking polls for elections, and happens far more often. So, such petitions signed by well-known names that prostitute their fame out to solicit politics are absolutely worthless.

At least with China, we're able to work out slow, measurable progress. Through economic stimuli, China is being pressured more and more to move from their Maoist roots into a progressive state. There are human rights abuses there, even still. That is not at dispute. There are human rights abuses here, too. And in France, and nearly every nation on earth. The issue is not the sin, but the willingness to change it. Where is this willingness from Saddam? Nonexistent.

And don't even try to play partisan on me. You know damn-well that most-favored trading status was established under a Democrat's term.

You feel guilty when a bomb misses in a war of liberation, and kills those it might liberate? I do too. I wish we had a 100% accuracy. We don't. I'm sure the percentage is still far better than wallowing in false peace and apathy, and allowing Saddam to continue to murder, unhindered. I feel far more guilty of withdrawing in '91, and not coming to the aid of northern Kurds, even as Saddam raked them with Soviet attack gunships. I feel guilty for my country supplying this madman with financial backing in the 80's and helping him rise against the Ayatollah. I wonder if the French feel that same guilt, in providing Hussein with the means to create a nuclear weapon, or providing him with the planes and anti-naval ordinance to launch attacks on the open sea? I wonder if Russia feels the same guilt, for supplying Hussein with the vast bulk of his military infrastructure, which is used even to this day? I wonder if the same Germans that condemn us today can hear the dying screams of Shiite children in their dreams, murdered with the VX, Sarin, Tabun, and Mustard gas they sold to Hussein? I wonder if these three feel like hypocrites when they take the same foolish moral high ground you attempt to take, and lambast America about a war for oil, when they fear a war of liberation will cut the very Iraqi taps that supply their nations?

Yeah, guilt is a lot more common than even you Pro-Lethargy puppets want to talk about. You know what the best cure for guilt is? Vindication. Rectifying past wrongs. Doing something right for a change. You can argue for more time, for peace, for more inspectors. I don't care how you dress up your fake peace, its wrong. Its murder in the name of apathy. Murder in the name of bleeding hearts. That picket in your hands mights as well be an AK-47, you hypocrite. Its covering a wound, not healing a wound. All you're doing is improving the scenery, while everything continues to fester and die. I see absolutely no virtue in your cause. It is evil, and you should share a little bit of that Iraqi blood on your hands if you disagree. In the meantime, I will prepare for action, not inaction. If it must come to war, I will not shy away from it, and neither will those who are right. We can't keep people from dying, either way...but when Saddam Hussein is dead, imprisoned, or exiled, it will be a great time of healing in Iraq. One that has been needed for many decades.

[Darth Viscera]

*standing ovation*

I couldn't have said it better myself. Give those "peace protestor" thugs their due. You go Charley!

[Darth23]

Guess I should have responded earlier.

There are SO many things to respond to, it's hard not to just write a 50 paragraph rant n response.

Instead, I'll try to answer you point by point and I'll try to AVOID simplistic labeling of what I understand your position to be.




Originally posted by Diego Van Derveld
Nice moral high horse. Of course, you do realize sitting on your butt and pretending to champion "peace" is just another way to allow innocent Iraqi citizens to be killed at Hussein's hands. But you don't end up "looking bad", so that's fine and dandy. Your fake peace will and has killed hundreds of times more innocent people than a short war or liberation ever will. The sheer ignorance you pomp by suggesting that more time or inspections will change Saddam, or that you can appease your way out of this, gives me no cause to pay your baby-killing protester ilk any amount of mind. Your fake peace is sound and fury, signifying nothing except the a choking, poisonous malaise that has swept across liberal America like cancer.


You seem to think that you know what my position is on the whole 'inspection'/ Saddam issue, but I don't think that you do.

First, just to get it out of the way... "baby-killing" protestor ilk?? WTF? Just because I don't want US bombs to kill babies doesn't mean that I want Saddam to kill them. I suppose you're simply using hyperbole in an attempt to bolster your position (Speaking of sound and fury signifying nothing).

Now, your basic argument sounds very much like the phrase "We have to destroy Vietnam in order to save it". You are attempting to define the current situation as having only two choices: either we bomb the crap out of Iraq and invade and install a puppet, pro-American government; or we sit back and to nothing, and allow Saddam to go on killing his own people. Apparently you'd gladly sacrifice the 'small number of Iraqi civilian casualties' in order to liberate them from Saddam. I have to sat that that's might generous of you to make to be willing to make that sacrifice.

But who decided that it's your call? Who decided that it's the Bush/Blair administration's call to make? Because we have ALL the missiles and bombs in the world? Are you arguing simply that 'might makes right'? If most of the people of the democracies of the world, and many of our own long time allies, including countries that supported us in the Afghanistan war and Gulf War I think that we're rushing towards war too quickly, then maybe, just maybe, we should pause a bit and consider whether or not here are alternatives OTHER than the simple DO Nothing/Invade Now.

Curiously, the Bush/Blair position has basically been that we need to disarm Saddam and get rid of "weapons of mass destruction" and that he's supporting international terrorism. The 'humanistic invasion' argument has rarely been mentioned by the people planning the war - only a but more than the argument that our economy will get back on track once we get this pesky war thing over with.

As far as the whole 'war of liberation thing goes, it's generally the occupants of a country who fight a war of liberation. When the only superpower in the world attacks a much smaller country, along with one of the other strongest nations on earth, they can CLAIM any number of motivations, but naked use of power is still just that, whatever attempt justifications are given.

There is such a thing as international law, no mater how much some of the neoconservatives working for the current President want to trivialize and marginalize the idea.



Your petitions and activist letters aren't worth the cheap paper they're written on, or the Kurdish/Shiite blood they're penned in. You're using vain, balloon-headed celebrity pundits as mouthpieces for your "great crusade". These are unethical, unqualified entertainers with no compunction to keep them from exploiting the media, and touting their worthless words of wisdom to a media that values their sensationalist rhetoric over an equitable representation of opinion from common Americans. Its no different than shifty statisticians cooking polls for elections, and happens far more often. So, such petitions signed by well-known names that prostitute their fame out to solicit politics are absolutely worthless.


OK.... I was talking in general about the petition drives I've worked on letters for various anti-war/ anti- intervention campaigns, mostly YEARS ago. My main point is that WORKING for Peace and Justice is the very antithesis of 'promoting apathy and lethargy'. [Side note: I actually got started going door to door getting signatures for attempting to gat a Freeze on the Weapons of Mass Destruction also known as Nuclear Weapons in the mid 80's. Even though it was the height of the Ronnie Ray-gun administration, we got about a 75% success rate for people signing up - LOTS of Republicans and well as Democrats were in favor of the effort. ]

Anyway as far as the whole celebrity thing goes - that's another whole long issue. I'd just say that I'd much rather see celebs trying to use their fame for something that they feel is constructive and will make the world a better place (that goes for 'conservative' as well a 'liberal' celebs), rather than seeing the endless parade of tabloid crap about who's sleeping with/marrying/leaving who, who's going into or out of rehab, who's wearing what and living in what kind of 'crib' and who owns how many cars. That's the usual 'celebrity new' that we're inundated with daily and it is, imo, part of the TRUE promotion of lethargy and apathy in this society. If someone wants to use their fame in order to try to do what they feel is the 'right thing' then more power to them.



At least with China, we're able to work out slow, measurable progress. Through economic stimuli, China is being pressured more and more to move from their Maoist roots into a progressive state. There are human rights abuses there, even still. That is not at dispute. There are human rights abuses here, too. And in France, and nearly every nation on earth. The issue is not the sin, but the willingness to change it. Where is this willingness from Saddam? Nonexistent.

And don't even try to play partisan on me. You know damn-well that most-favored trading status was established under a Democrat's term.


OK, China.... As I recall, there was a Democratic President and a Republican House and Senate when China was granted permanent 'most favored nation status. I believe they were first given this status under the Bush I administration. But that doesn't matter - a majority of BOTH parties totally ignore China’s human rights record and almost EVERYONE (except for a few celebs, ironically) ignore the continues occupation of Tibet.

The point I was trying to make what that now that Bush is President, and HIS party, the supposedly Pro-Freedom, Anti-Communist party controls BOTH houses of Congress, I would expect that he'd take the lack of freedoms there a little more seriously. Since Bush/Blair are willing to sacrifice possibly large numbers of lives in order to free the people of Iraq, the LEAST they could do is publicly raise the issue of the occupied country of Tibet, and to a little more than give lip service to the human rights issue in China.

Bush couldn't even back up his initially tough talk on China when their military plane rammed our Spy plane early in his administration. He started out with tough words, like he uses against Al queda and Iraq, but apparently someone in the administration reminded him that China has a LOT if weapons of mass destruction - some that could even hit the US, so he backed off. I remember when the US service personnel were set free, but I didn't think it even made the news when we finally got the plane back.

Assuming they don't still have it, that is.

It's possible, though not a necessity, that China will allow more political freedoms as they move more and more towards a market economy, but it's also quite possible that they could continue to deal severely with dissidents and potential critics of governmental authority while they undergo economic changes that we approve of.

Surely there have been countless examples of governments whose economic we liked, but whose people were in desperate need of liberation from political repression.

My only explanation for why the Dems and Reps love the repressive regime in China so much is that they believe the country is no longer a 'communist totalitarian' regime, and instead believe that is a generic third world authoritarian repressive regime.


Considering the support that the US gave to Indonesia as it invaded and occupied East Timor for years, including military aid, there's no reason to think that the US would treat the Tibet issue any differently.



You feel guilty when a bomb misses in a war of liberation, and kills those it might liberate? I do too. I wish we had a 100% accuracy. We don't. I'm sure the percentage is still far better than wallowing in false peace and apathy, and allowing Saddam to continue to murder, unhindered. I feel far more guilty of withdrawing in '91, and not coming to the aid of northern Kurds, even as Saddam raked them with Soviet attack gunships. I feel guilty for my country supplying this madman with financial backing in the 80's and helping him rise against the Ayatollah. I wonder if the French feel that same guilt, in providing Hussein with the means to create a nuclear weapon, or providing him with the planes and anti-naval ordinance to launch attacks on the open sea? I wonder if Russia feels the same guilt, for supplying Hussein with the vast bulk of his military infrastructure, which is used even to this day? I wonder if the same Germans that condemn us today can hear the dying screams of Shiite children in their dreams, murdered with the VX, Sarin, Tabun, and Mustard gas they sold to Hussein? I wonder if these three feel like hypocrites when they take the same foolish moral high ground you attempt to take, and lambast America about a war for oil, when they fear a war of liberation will cut the very Iraqi taps that supply their nations?

Why highlight the Russian efforts to build up Saddam while ignoring the help he received from the US and the UK? (And of course France)

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/2002/msg00148.html


And as far as the Kurds go - right now Northern Iraq is pretty much the only place where the Kurds live are NOT being repressed. Turkey, our ally who's about to get a 32 billion dollar war bribe has a long history of repression of the Kurds. Since they're an ethnic minority on Iraq, my guess the new US backed regime in Iraq will probably attempt to treat the Kurds as badly as Saddam, or our ally Turkey.




Yeah, guilt is a lot more common than even you Pro-Lethargy puppets want to talk about. You know what the best cure for guilt is? Vindication. Rectifying past wrongs. Doing something right for a change. You can argue for more time, for peace, for more inspectors. I don't care how you dress up your fake peace, its wrong. Its murder in the name of apathy. Murder in the name of bleeding hearts. That picket in your hands mights as well be an AK-47, you hypocrite. Its covering a wound, not healing a wound. All you're doing is improving the scenery, while everything continues to fester and die. I see absolutely no virtue in your cause. It is evil, and you should share a little bit of that Iraqi blood on your hands if you disagree. In the meantime, I will prepare for action, not inaction. If it must come to war, I will not shy away from it, and neither will those who are right. We can't keep people from dying, either way...but when Saddam Hussein is dead, imprisoned, or exiled, it will be a great time of healing in Iraq. One that has been needed for many decades.

Ok, I'm a Pro-lethargy hypocrite now.

What can you say about the Bush administration's inaction in China? If freedom and Human Rights were truly the issue here, I suggest that many of the administrations policies toward some of our allies and trading partners would be radically different. It was The Bush Administration what demanded that inspectors be let back into Iraq - what was that 3 months ago. It's amazing how supporting those inspectors has suddenly turned into the moral equivalent of mowing down innocent people with AK-47's.


---------------------------------

I don't believe that supporting peace and trying to seek alternatives to war is 'promoting lethargy and apathy'. Actually it’s called ‘diplomacy’ and many of our longtime allies are practicing it. Apparently you disagree. Since you seem to be so opposed to 'inaction' and so supportive of on the only alternative you acknowledge: the 'War of Liberation', I'm tempted to suggest that you go out sign up right now and go take a more active part in the liberation struggle yourself.

But since I believe that war is generally bad, and particularly unwise in this particular situation, and because I’d much rather have LESS American servicemen ‘in harm’s way’ in order to further Bush’s political agenda I would suggest instead that you consider that there might truly be other alternatives you have not yet considered.

[JMK]

Just a reminder boys, but let's not personally flame each other with these posts ok? It's a heated debate, so no need to get personal. I'm not saying these posts have been, but we did see what happened to the Australia thread. Just keep it constructive and civil.....:)

[Darth23]

Um.... 'each other'?

[Diego Van Derveld]

The pundits in Hollywood aren't simply expressing their opinions. You've missed the point. They're manipulating the media to disproportionally represent opinions. Despite what you might think, entertainers are not a heterogeneous representative group. If you conducted polls using celebrities, there would be MASSIVE bias. There was a presidential poll taken early in the 20th century, that predicted a winner, based on a poll taken by telephone. The only problem is, only certain people, with certain views, owned telephones at the time. Thus, if entertainers all each get on their elevated soapbox...far above average american citizens, they'll still represent a horribly skewed bias that is incongruent with the general public. From that point, they can use their fame as a trojan horse to disproportionally deliver a message. Its highly unethical to sugarcoat politics in fame. I don't have problems with celebs exercising their right to free speech, but do it equitably, like James Woods did, when he called into a talk show. Or do it within the confines of your profession. Actors make a political movie. Musicians make a political song. That way, if people disagree or if they agree, then the consequences are all on your shoulders. But the trend thats been growing lately is the absolute wrong way to go about it.

As for China, I'll be brief. They, like others, do not have the track record that Saddam and Iraq have. They're not throwing caution and care to the wind, to destroy citizens or other nations. Confronting China with the same methods is simply gratuitous and unnecessary. The economic stick and carrot effect that we've used in this regard is a slow process to show change. But there are so many areas in China's ideology, government, and domestic life in which it bumps into crossroads between its past, and its future. China is going through massive growing pains, and even today, the Politburo is abandoning many of its workers in some of their bloated state-run industries. It is going to force them into either progress, or reversion. Its risky, but then again...so are all matters of war and peace.

As far as the Kurds...I'd consider having to rely on America to keep your countrymen from blowing you to pieces to be living in oppression. I have no idea what your definition is, but just because Saddam hasn't gotten to do much gassing of late, doesn't mean he isn't trying to at every possible opportunity. He constantly tests these no fly zones. Killing Kurds and Shiites is the closest thing Hussein has to game hunting. I will admit, I have concerns over post-war Iraq. I have strongly supported a multicultural, democratic Iraqi state for many years now. Yet, the path of least resistance leads to simple "regime change". While I would be extremely disappointed by this end-game strategy...I can't imagine any new regime coming into existance and being as totally lacking in moral compunction as the Baath party. I've written my senators and representatives on the issue on several occasions, so the reservation is at the very least noted. In that regard, that is all that can be done.

Now, to the heart of the matter...

Aside from voodoo or the Force, exactly what else to you do with a noncompliant tyrant that has an unrepentant multi-decade track record of trying to kill mass amounts of people, both within and without his borders? I'll give you that your method sounds nicer. Its much friendlier to people, animals, flowers, and whatever. But c'mon. Its absolutely not pragmatic, and its a policy lacking in any sense of reason whatsoever. So, you keep waiting for a third option....indefinitely. People are dying now. Its a slow burn. But, slow burns aren't public opinion lightning rods, so its generally accepted. You put it out of sight, out of mind, and keep waiting for peace. Its a very naive, childlike anticipation. Look at the track record of Saddam Hussein, and find an inkling of ANYTHING that supports that assumption.

The thing is...no amount of "proof" is ever going to be enough for the global community. Good grief, enough has been presented already. Chemical munitions with the agents conveniently "missing", (the storage protocols for these weapons require the agents to be stored outside of the warhead, until time to be armed.). Surveillance till we're blue in the face. Audio, video, I/R, etc. Illegal delivery systems. Procurement components. The excuses to shy away from these things that have been presented are straight out of left field. Straw-grasping coincidences. You're obviously not familiar with the protocols of engagement, which are different from a court of law's mandate to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, resolution 1441 puts the burden of proof...not on the inspectors...but on Saddam. Dragging your heels, and accomplishing demands in half-measures is NOT compliance.

Not that it matters anyway. The pro-action nations can maneuver around the oil-mongers in Old Europe and in Russia. They've already got sufficient clearance to do so. To be honest, all this crap is just to make the uninformed around the world "feel better".

When you consider, bleeding heart idealists aside, that the roadblocks in the UN have nothing to do with proving Saddam is in breach, then you come to see that the United Nations is spiraling closer and closer to a dangerous point of irrelevancy. Vetos are all but assured by Iraqi oil contracts in France, Germany, and Russia. They'll feel free to borrow your idealistic crusade though, to make sure that they keep the pipelines open. Funny, and I thought America was the one after the oil :lol

And if you must know, I've already made my choice on armed service. I graduate from college in one year, and at that point, I will join the reserves. I won't hesitate to serve if called upon...because I know its the right thing to do. I am proud that my president listens to his heart, and not to protestors.

[Darth23]

Maybe they're ALL after oil. Maybe the Us believe exactly what Bush and his supporters said during the campaign - that the only legitimate use if US military might should be to protect Vital US Interests. Which is almost EXACTLY the same response the 'liberal' Jimmy Carter gave in 1976 when asked if ne supported the possible use of military force in the Persian Gulf.



Aside from voodoo or the Force, exactly what else to you do with a noncompliant tyrant that has an unrepentant multi-decade track record of trying to kill mass amounts of people, both within and without his borders?

I'll tell you what the U.S. USUALLY does with dicatators who have a penchant for killing their own people. Generally we give them lots a of military and economic aid, and make them trading partners. We onyl turn on them when their usefullness no longer exists (Pinochet, Noriega, Somoza, Marcos....) or when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

Want a <A HREF=http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html>List</A>?


As near as I can tell, 'manipulating the media' is another way of saying 'engaging in a political dialogue'. I know you're probably used to hearing the mainstream media automatically parrot every line out of the administration, but there ARE other opinions out there. If the media pays attention to famous people so be it, cause thay're certainly not paying any attention to the non-famous 'learned experts' who happen to disagree witht he party line.

The Bush admoinsistration in the past year or so has done a masterful of attempting to manipulate the media.

Inspectors aren't in Iraq? The administration demands that Iraq accept inspectors.

Iraq lets the instectors back in? (the nuclear inspectors never left, btw) Demand that Iraq give the UN a book report on what it has and doesn't have!

Inspetectors ask for more time? Suggest that they're no longer needed?

NATO having doubts? Suggest that the alliance is falling apart and make veiled threats about leaving NATO!

UN Security Council (which endorsed Gulf War I) looking like it won't support Gulf War II? Suggest that they're no longer relevant.

Maybe it's just me, but is seems like the only enties that are relevant are the ones that unquestioningly submit to the Will of the Bush Administration. And should an important ally show the slightest doubt or suggest caution, they're suddenly branded as 'irrelevant' and in-depth think pieces start appearing in the media backing the latest Official Party line.

-------------
I completely and totally agree that Saddam Hussein is a really bad guy, but just ONCE it would be cool if you'd acknowledge the continuing illegal occupation of Tibet by a country that has Most Favored Nation trading status with the US, and the brutal human rights abuses that country is engaging in.

[Diego Van Derveld]

So, you admit that the pro-inaction camp needs unethical pundits for parity against the GOVERNMENT? How about sticking to the right arena, which is among the American people. Sound off there. If you can't speak out in a legitimate, ethical manner that isn't dependant on deception, then perhaps you don't deserve to. If you're to be vindicated in what you believe, you'll be proven right in the arena of the American public anyway, so why can't Hollywood can the paid soapboxes? It'll help lend you some credibility.

Do Idealists understand the concepts of "lesser evil" or "no-win scenario"? The installed regimes, of which I am not unaware of at all, all have one thing in common. They run counter to a larger, better organized, more prevalent threat, in the past, known as Communism, aka Cold War, aka possible warhead exchange, aka MAD, aka we ALL die, not just a few. Now, things are different. Yes, there are stay-behinds still in existence. Its not the best testament that we can leave behind. But these, like nearly all matters of foreign policy, are difficult to discern through bleeding heart-tinted glasses.

And I think both Iraq and al Qaeda admitting support and interaction is plenty of cause to resume an aggressive disarmament pursuit. It may be pushing hard for progress, but I daresay its better than Clinton's cruise missile-firing zipper on his pants. He seemed to think that firing blind and forgetting was creating progress. People criticize Bush's foreign policy. Bellicose as it may be (and these are times that I believe demand that kind of edge), I still think its an improvement over the previous, abysmal treatment.