Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Poll: Which US presidential candidate do you like best?

Thank you for your posts, Roger. You've said everything so eloquently that I couldn't even begin to put into words.

I should probably stay out of this too by now, but....

Originally posted by RL:

Translation: President Bush defined North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the three countries on the Earth representing evil. And because President Bush's speech made these countries evil by definition, the United States thereby gained the (moral) right to attack Iran, Iraq and North Korea preemptively. That meant that the United States officially claimed the right to attack these nations before they had actually done anything, to prevent them from doing something bad in the future.

Imagine if preemptive attacks became an acceptable method of self defence in the United States, on American soil, among ordinary Americans. Imagine if you could attack and kill your neighbour preemptively, because people said bad things about him, and he really did beat somebody up ten years ago. Imagine that you could break into his apartment and kill him preemptively to make sure that he won't attack you some time in the future. And by the way, not only do you kill him, but you kill two of his kids as well: one teenager who is already on his way to becoming a gangster, and one toddler, three years old. And afterwards, you tell the court that this wasn't murder at all, but a preemptive strike to protect yourself and your family from being harmed in the future. And the court says that you acted within your rights. Would you like to see that sort of "preemptive killing" become an acceptable form of self defence within the United States itself, Roger? Remember that for all you know, your neighbour could kill you and get away with it, by claiming that it was a case of preemptive self defence.

I once heard an interview with John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton didn't mince words in this interview. He said that because American lives are more important to the United States than the lives of people in other countries, the United States had the right to attack and kill other people in other countries to make sure that these people could not attack and kill people in the U.S.A. in the future.

Roger, do you think it is at all reasonable that other people in other countries will not love the United States when they hear a high-ranking representative for the U.S. administration talk about America's right to kill others as they see fit in order to prevent future attacks on America?

Seriously, though, shouldn't it ever be allowed to attack a country preemptively? Yes, i think it should, if you have a very good reason to believe that this country is on its way to becoming supremely dangerous. But if you want to convince - really convince - the world that you are right about this, you need very good evidence. President Bush's accusations against Iraq came pretty much out of the blue, or at least it certainly looked that way to the international community. All that the rest of us knew was that Iraq hadn't attacked another country for about ten years, it hadn't carried out a genocidal attack on anyone for more than ten years, no international experts had claimed that Saddam was stockpiling dangerous WMDs, and no international terrorist had ever been known to come out of Iraq before Al Qeada took up residence there in response to the U.S. intervention. And, unsurprisingly, after the United States had occupied Iraq, no WMDs were found anywhere and no pre-existing Iraqi terror network was found, either. (However, other nations were known to have terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, or to have WMDs, such as Pakistan.)

It is absolutely true that the UN finally approved Resolution 242, which gave the United States green light to attack Iraq. So yes, you can say that America's war on Iraq has the blessing of the international community. I remember, however, that as the war was about to start, the populations of a whole bunch of nations had been surveyed to find out what they thought about the idea that the United States would attack Iraq. It turned out that the population of one country, Israel, was enthusiastic about a U.S. attack. The populations of all other U.S. allies, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Canada, Australia, everyone - were against it. Populations in important countries like India, Russia and China, were negative, too. As far as I can remember, Israel was in fact the only country whose population supported the attack. This means that when the United Nations approved Resolution 242, a whole lot of governments defied the will of their own populations. By going against their own people, these governments created strife and ill will at home.

In countries which are democracies, it is hard to go against your own voters for a very long time. The governments which act like that will be voted out of office.

I think that the idea of preemptive strikes is a wholly new one. To my knowledge, no American President or Administration before the current one has ever talked about America's right to attack its enemies preemptively. I'm convinced that this idea has an enormous lot to do with the United States' poor ratings in the current "popularity league".

Carol, I agree with you that many of Hillary's policies are better than Obama's, and I agree that very many of Hillary's difficulties stem from the fact that her gender forces her to fight an enormously uphill battle. (Then again, Carol, how many female Prime Ministers have you had in Canada? And how many have we had in Sweden?)

I absolutely disagree with you that John McCain would be a better choice than Obama, at least as far as the international community is concerned. When McCain was asked what he wanted to do with Iran, he answered by singing - singing!!! - "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". As if bombing another country was a funny thing that you could sing a song about.

The United States was incredibly shocked and horrified at the loss of American lives on 9/11. That is certainly understandable. But that also makes it painful to see how totally insensitive and sometimes almost flippant some Republican politicians seem to be to the idea of causing the loss of lives in other countries.

Ann

One, actually. Kim Campbell, for a few months in 1993.

In a non-nuclear age, I'd agree with you. The policy of pre-emption is a difficult one to take on but the consequences of failure are immense today. It's one thing to compare neighbor against neighbor but when you're talking about the slaughter of millions in a single strike, no president can afford to sit still and play defense. One bomb could destroy an entire city. Try to imagine that kind of carnage and how you'd feel if the perpetrator were one of the identified terror sponsors. One life against millions is not a accurate comparison. That is why the president chose that policy and why I agree with it. The consequences are just too high. September 11 was an awakening to the real dangers in the world. With suitcase nukes out there and willing buyers in al Qaeda and sponsors of terror like Iran freely providing money and training to those out to kill us, what choice do we have? Wait for them to come here?

Some have recommended covert operations. Those are completely useless against state sponsors of terrorism. In Iran alone there are potentially dozens of nuclear enrichment facilities close to being able to produce weapons grade fuel.

It only takes one attack to kill many of our citizens and to set back our way of life by many decades. Knowing that threat is out there now, can we sit back, cowering in fear, hoping our acquiescence will keep our enemies from hurting us again? No, against entities like al Qaeda, they must be destroyed before they can succeed again. State sponsors of terrorism have to stopped one way or another. Negotiations is the preferable approach such as with our attempts in North Korea and Iran, but when those fail, you must have a stick to back up the carrot.

You mean John Bolton, the guy with the really big whiskers?

It's perfectly reasonable if a country is a state sponsor of terrorism. Those countries who are not have nothing to fear from the US. Every country has the right of self-defense. This is self-defense by hitting the terrorists before they can kill millions of our citizens.

The US is THE target of terrorists. We are in much greater danger than most of the countries of the world. When you are sitting in the bull's eye, perhaps you'll have a different opinion.

I ask again, why is it Europeans don't care what Americans think of them? We feel Europeans (collectively, not individually) are cowardly do-nothings who hide under our nuclear umbrella and won't lift a finger to help us when we're in danger (with the sole exception being Great Britain), unlike how the United States stepped in to help Europe when it was overrun by the Nazis. The Nazis had not been a threat to the United States at the time of the American entry into World War II. Since the Nazis hadn't done anything to us, why is it we went into Europe to save it? Does Europe regret that the United States preemptively entered the war in Europe? Despite being attacked by Imperial Japan, the US committed the bulk of its forces to Europe as we felt it was the greater threat. If European opinion today is any indication, they would have opposed US entry into the European theater as none of our business, unless they, of course, were the ones occupied by the enemy.

We thought the Nazis were a threat and the greatest generation died by the thousands to bring freedom to Europe. The US dispatched 12 million soldiers to Europe and lost over a quarter of a million of them in the defense of our friends.

I had a bit of a tongue-in-cheek post above in response to Carol's question about whether we could have won WWII with today's media (bonus points if you got the reference to the quote, "Aww, nuts"). It was humorous because the comparisons were so true. History repeats itself over and over. That's why I support our war effort and our policy of preemption because I am a student of history. I've read about the mistakes made in ignoring threats. We've paid the price over and over again. Some still don't learn from those painful lessons.

According to what you said, we had no business invading North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France. The Nazis had done nothing to us but yet we thought they were a future threat to our survival. We preemptively attacked them and killed five million Germans through a process of total war against both military and civilian. Bombers of the US Eighth Air Force flew dangerous daylight raids to destroy German infrastructure, costing us 80,000 of their lives in the process when even the British were too afraid. Their Lancasters flew only at night. Often these B-17 aircrews bravely flew in without air cover, dying by the hundreds on each raid, all in a cause we thought was just even though it did not directly involve us until we involved ourselves. It was so rare for a crew to survive its 30-35 missions that a movie called "Memphis Belle" was made honoring the first aircrew to survive all of its missions without losing a life.

When we came to France in 1917, General John J. Pershing said, "Lafayette, we are here," in honor of the brave Frenchman who fought alongside General Washington in our fight for freedom in the American Revolution. Americans have long memories. We paid back that help many fold in blood, tears, and treasure with many crosses and Stars of David dotting the Normandy beaches and countryside. With the exception of the British, we're still waiting for that General Pershing to come to our aid. It seems we'll have even longer to wait since your opinion is so common.


Not really. See above.

I really apologize for the "Roger Bolton" gaffe. The only thing I can say in my defence is that I had corrected the mistake myself before I saw your post.

But how can you call the U.S. attacks on Nazi countries and forces during World War II a preemptive atack? Taking sides in an ongoing conflict is not preemptive. That is rushing in to help someone who needs your help. I said earlier that if you break into you neighbour's home to kill him, just so he won't be able to kill you in the future, then that is a prememptive attack. But what if you hear noises from your neighbour's house, and you realize that others have broken in there and are trying to kill your neighbour? If you yourself rush in there to defend your neighbour, you are most certainly not carrying out a preemptive attack.

What if you are taking a stroll down a street where you don't live, and you hear cries for help coming out from a house whose occupants you don't know? If you run in there to help, you are still not carrying out a preemptive attack. Because the conflict is already there and you just want to help.

That is what The United States did during World War II. They sacrificed thousands and thousands and thousands of their soldiers for their "neighbours", or rather for the people on another street, when they heard their cries for help. America heard Europe's cries for help, and America elected to help us. That was the decision that the Roosevelt administration made for us Europeans, for our sake. America under Roosevelt (and Truman) did Europe an enormous favor, and at least people of my generation have certainly not forgotten it.

But the present U.S. administration seems so incredibly different from the Roosevelt (and Truman) ones. So incredibly different.

Ann

By this definition, then you fully support American forces going into the Palestinian territories and conquering it or maybe the entire Middle East. After all, our friends the Israelis have called for help time and time again as a small nation of 3 million faced 40 million Arabs around it in three separate wars and an ongoing hot and cold war in the territories. We help them with a total of $3 billion/year and much of their high-tech weaponry. There's a reason the Israelis in that poll you cited were wholeheartedly in favor of our attack on Iraq. We were taking out a huge threat to them. So to satisfy your definition of justified action, we'll just say we invaded Iraq to help Israel.

I seem to recall European governments begging President Clinton to intervene in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Why? Americans had absolutely zero interests there. Europe was not under a direct threat from Slobodon Milosevic, yet US troops were requested to bomb Serbian targets. Again, why? Out of friendship for our allies, US soldiers and airmen put their lives at risk for a cause that meant nothing to us and wasn't even understood by most. Ten years later, our soldiers are still there, despite having been promised that their deployment would be short and very limited.

It seems to be a huge double standard. When European interests are perceived to be at stake, it's justified for some country halfway around the world where most people hadn't even heard of Bosnia and Serbia to go and bomb Serbians. Even our illustrious Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, when asked where Serbia was, couldn't locate it on a globe.

Europeans don't feel they are being threatened, despite the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, so when their interests are not at stake, it seems they feel action isn't justified.

We are doing this to save ourselves this time, not directly to save others. That appears to be the difference between Roosevelt and Bush. It's okay to help friends in need, but helping ourselves is somehow not okay.

I should ask you. Is it only justified after the attack, after one of our cities lies in ruins and the mass graves are filled? Because if that's the only condition where an attack is justified, then it's far too late. Any defensive move earlier than that is preemption. If that's the case, then Europeans can feel free to hate us. We'd rather be alive than dead and popular.

<Of course, I'm being facetious about invading the Palestinian territories, but I'm using it to make a point.>

Back again with just a few things. I'm tired, and I don't really feel like we're getting anywhere. I give my points, you return with your own version of things. I think you're wrong but can't definitively prove it. There are conflicting reports and different takes on the same thing and ultimately... I'm going to go on thinking what I think and you're going to go on thinking what you think.

It has been nice getting some stuff off my chest, and I'm glad that at least some people are enjoying it. What's really cool is that despite strong disagreements, this thread has remained civil. I've said it before, but I love that about these boards. I know, in the past, that I've had to back away from threads because I've become too upset to post rationally. I'm glad it hasn't come to that here. Like I said... I'm tired, but not angry.

Is the world better off with Saddam out of power? For the most part, yes. I mean, he was a ruthless dictator killing his own people. On the other hand, we've thrown the country into such chaos that the people are now doing a much more effective job of killing each other. And, more importantly... we didn't really have the right to go in and seize power. We can't go invading every country whose government we don't like. We're supposed to be the good guys.

Right. You don't like government spending. But you're happy about the ridiculously bloated Republican defense budgets.

Both.

I don't think we should have been in the war in the first place. I don't think we should stay in Iraq now. So I can complain about the expense on those grounds. And I can point out that it'd be more expensive to stay in Iraq than it would be to fund major programs at home.

On the other side of things... If we're going to be there, then let's take a look at how we're spending all that money. For the cost of one fighter jet, we could have bought body armor for everyone. (Something like that, anyway. I'm not going to run through the exact numbers.) Body armor shouldn't have been too expensive to provide, especially if we could have slashed some of the wastage. And then there's the whole issue of hiring expensive mercs instead of doing better by our own troops. And the lack of armored vehicles. And the whole situation with health care. And the programs for vets... In short, if you're going to go to war, support the troops!

Yeah, it's kind of funny that way. He's the Republican nominee. The only viable alternative to Clinton or Obama. Let's face it, third parties don't have a chance this year. Best they can hope for is to gain attention and momentum for the next election. And yet... most core Republicans I hear from hate the guy. His Straight Talk Express drove him straight off a cliff last time, and he was a fringe candidate at best at the beginning this time. I honestly don't understand how he got where he is today.

I'm sorry that you and so many others are left without an option you like. I mean, you're completely wrong about a lot of major issues ( ), but you should at least have a decent choice come election time.

Actually, Mossad has a pretty good history in that department...

I think Israel might disagree with you on that point.

Actually, given our history, I think a lot of countries would disagree on that point. That's one of the major things about 9/11. Before that, attacks had been so scarce that we didn't really take the idea seriously. We felt safe over here on our side of the world, when so many other countries had to deal with bombings as just another fact of life. Then, they were the ones telling us, "When you are sitting in the bull's eye, perhaps you'll have a different opinion."

Could it have something to do with the way we constantly declare that we're the best, ignore what they have to say, and just go ahead and do what we want because we're America and we have the power? If you make it clear that you don't care what they think, why should they have any reason to care what you think?

As for WWII... Take another look at your history books. We stayed out of it. The Nazis were invading one country after another, bombing our longstanding allies, and killing people by the millions. (Big difference between making threats to attack/invade or building weapons/military within your own borders and actually attacking.) But after WWI, most Americans didn't want to get involved in another war across the ocean. Especially not with the Depression.There was a movement to pretty much close our borders and ignore the rest of the world. It wasn't until we were directly attacked at Pearl Harbor that we really got involved.

No, we don't. Some of us do. But plenty of us don't. As one of the latter, I'd like to ask you to please refrain from making such offensive statements on my behalf.

... And that's a lot more than I thought I was going to say. But at least it passed the time.

You are absolutely correct here. Americans did want to stay out of the war. Franklin Roosevelt knew this but still created ways to help our friends, such as Lend-Lease or even aiding the creation of the Flying Tigers in China. When we were attacked, we finally realized the dangers the Axis powers presented. Pearl Harbor was 1941's equivalent of September 11. It woke the population up to the fact that we couldn't stay isolated from the world. There were dangers that had to be addressed to save our way of life. The result was the invasion of Europe and nearly the invasion of Japan if it hadn't been for the timely development of the atomic bomb.

Today is the same, though this time the enemy isn't facing us with armored columns of Tiger tanks but rather suicide bombers or hidden plots to destroy a bridge. The equivalent of the Pacific theater would be the invasion of Afghanistan, a direct attack on the country that had attacked us. The invasion of Iraq would be the equivalent of the invasion of Europe. This was the elimination of a threat that had never directly attacked us.

It is amazing, isn't it, how history continues to repeat itself.

Glad you're enjoying yourself, Paul, even if you are wrong.

No, I certainly don't. Israel kills so many more Palestinians than any Palestinian organisation kills Israelis. Imagine your neighbour again. Suppose he's being bothered by one of his neighbours. They jeer at him, dump trash on his lawn and paint graffiti on his house. In response, your neighbour rents a bulldozer and flattens his tormentors' house. If you help your neighbour flatten that house, you help him being a bully.

Imagine that your neighbour has some other neighbours, too. They shout insults at him because he flattened those other people's house. Your neighbour doesn't like being shouted at, so you rent a bulldozer and flatten all those other people's houses, too. Have you carried out a preemptive attack? No, but I'd say that you are guilty of a horrible case of bullying.

Ann

There's a big difference between bullying somebody and setting off a nuclear bomb in someone's back yard. If it were a person bullying my son, for instance, I'd go talk to his parents and see what they can do to stop him from being a bully. If I knew someone was about to flatten my house, I'd go to the police. If I knew somebody was ready to detonate a nuclear bomb, I wouldn't go talk to his parents. The seriousness of the danger determines the response. You do not respond the same way in all circumstances.

Nice analogy but the consequences simply aren't comparable. Even the law separates between harm against property versus great bodily harm. In the case of the threat of great bodily harm, the law allows you to act in self-defense, killing the perpetrator.

Again, I ask. When is it appropriate to use force? After we've buried our dead? Some would say that it's a matter of proportionality. If someone commits a terrorist act and kills one or two, a million dollar missile fired at a ten dollar tent, hitting a camel in the butt is the appropriate response. Taking out the whole country isn't.

Since so many believe in proportional response, then that implies that only the death of thousands would merit an attack on another nation. Again, though, that means we have to wait to be killed before we could respond. Is that what you support? There are no situations where you would advocate taking preemptive measures?

Bottom line is that you're advocating that they have to take a shot at us before we are allowed to respond. If that shot is a good one, gets through our defenses, and successfully kills, say the entire city of Malmo, would your conscience be satisfied that no one acted until after the attack even though your Prime Minister knew there was the possibility of that happening but had not acted upon his intelligence reports? Or would you do everything in your power to stop it?

It is clear that we are pushing each other's buttons, Roger. So I really hope that this will be my last post.

I think you are exaggerating enormously here:

Taking out a whole country? What? Are you suggesting that this is something that may be about to happen to the United States? As far as I know, there are 300 million people in America - 300,000,000. There were fewer than 3,000 killed on 9/11, fewer than one in 100,000. Losing one person out of 100,000 is evidence that someone could be taking out your entire country?

Are you seriously comparing taking out the entire city of Malmö with killing 3,000 people on 9/11? There are almost 300,000 people in Malmö. Are you seriously saying that killing 3,000 people is equivalent to killing 300,000 people? Is 3,000 the same as 300,000? Or maybe one American is as valuable as a hundred Swedes?

There are nine million people in Sweden. If someone took out the entire city of Malmö, then one out of thirty Swedes would be killed. That isn't equivalent to taking out a whole country, but is certainly more damaging than killing one person out of 100,000.

And if you say that President Bush had to attack Iraq because his intelligence reports said that the entire United States of America could be taken out if he didn't, then I'd say you should worry about the quality of America's intelligence reports instead. Because there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq at all. Whatever Iraq was up to, it didn't have a snowball's chance in Sahara to take out the U.S.A. And there were so many experts who said that this was the case. Roger, are you seriously telling the world that we should like and support your country if it relies on faulty intelligence, refuses to listen to experts who disagree with you, and claims the right to attack and raze another country just because you have decided that it is in your best interest to do so? What if someone tells the Bush administration that the Swedish government is about to build a bomb? Would you have the moral right to attack and bomb us if you want to, whether or not we have any weapons at all?

Seriously. I'm not suggesting that the United States would attack Sweden. Such an implicit charge is far too serious to be made even in jest. But honestly, I'm a bit scared of a military superpower which is so paranoid about being attacked by others. Yes, 9/11 was horrible. And it lasted for exactly one day. And there have been no attacks on American soil since then. Your country is not about to be taken out. How can you honestly think that any of the Arab or Muslim nations can take you out? Destroy you? The only such nation which has any chance at all to do serious damage to the United States is Pakistan, because it does have the bomb. And yet Pakistan is hardly ever mentioned as a threat to the United States, whereas Iraq was described as an immediate threat to the entire world. How weird.

Roger, your nation is the greatest in the world. Don't squander your strength. Don't be unwise. Don't be paranoid. Don't be cocky. Don't think that the rest of the world does not exist. Don't tell yourself that everyone in the world is out to get you. Try to be in the world, not apart from it. The United States has been such an inspiration to the world for such a long time. There are so many people all over the world who would love to see you play that part again.

Ann

oh Saddam definitely would have liked to try to take out the entire US, don't try to fool yourself...


Yeah, this is about as good a Monday morning quarterback as the rest of the frisking world, Ann.

and typical repeating of anti-war dogma, you think when you say "there were no WMD's" over and over again that'll make it true, when Roger has already cited you when and where they were found, not to mention the ones Saddam snuck out of the country while Hans Brix was screwing around.
No you should like and support the US because WE KEEP THE WORLD AFLOAT, WE WERE THE ONES THAT MADE SURE THE NAZI'S DIDN'T RUN ALL OF EUROPE'S WEAK BACKSIDE OVER. Right now the threat of US response is all that is standing between the women of Europe and a burka.

hand-wring away; if you think it helps keep US in line, you go right ahead.

'scuse me, but we don't want to take ANY more losses like 9/11, can you grasp that. Their little suicide bombing might not take out our whole nation, but we don't want to loose another 3000, another 235, another 11, another 1!! Call us sentimental, but if the people who live in the US are here legally, we're going to protect them.

Glad the truth can finally get around to being said.

repeat this back to me when Sweden becomes a caliphate, 'kay sweety

Don't follow the example of other countries who think protecting themselves is wrong.

Sorry but 200+ years of progress to become the greatest nation in the free world is a bit hard to shrug off overnight.

Even if they are GREEEEEEEN with jealousy.

Even at the risk of your free world status and progress; why can't you just join the collective, darn it all? TJ

Sorry to be imprecise on that, but I did write that "next to Israel" in a previous post and was too lazy to write it again.

Yeah, you're right! They've been so successful that they've stopped all terrorist strikes against them! Oh wait...

Getting back to the armored vehicles and body armor, I mentioned earlier that it was essentially a supply problem. When asked about it, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it this way, "You go to war with what you've got, not what you think you'd like to have," essentially saying that the war couldn't be postponed long enough to get enough equipment. As it is, it took two years to fully outfit our troops and then make ongoing adjustments to the changing tactics of the enemy.

Case in point, just look at the Pacific Theater in World War II. After WWI, America had essentially disarmed itself and wasn't ready to go to war against anyone, but circumstances dictated that we didn't have the luxury of time. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the US was left without a single operational battleship, all eight of them having been crippled or sunk in the harbor. Fortunately for us, Halsey's carrier battlegroup composed of the Enterprise and Hornet had been delayed by a day getting into port by a storm. Up until that point, naval wars had always been fought ship to ship with battleships slugging it out. Without a single battleship, we were forced to change tactics to the almost exclusive use of the carrier airwings. For the first time, naval battles were fought without a ship having sighted the enemy ships.

Even with the change in strategy, we went into the Pacific war with only five carriers: the Enterprise, Hornet, Lexington, Yorktown, and Saratoga, against the cream of the Japanese Navy. We eventually brought the Wasp over from the Atlantic theater. Over the course of 1942, we lost the Lexington at Coral Sea, the Yorktown at Midway, the Hornet and Wasp in the Solomons. The Saratoga was crippled but not sunk by a torpedo, and the Enterprise had its forward elevator knocked out of alignment by a bomb. So at the end of 1942, only the half-crippled Enterprise stood between Japan and California. By 1943, industrial production began putting out a navy that could formidably take on Japan with the addition of the Essex class carriers. We eventually finished the war with over 70 heavy carriers and countless light carriers and escort carriers while attrition left the Japanese with none.

Admiral Yamamoto had pressured his government in 1941 not to attack the US, lest they "wake a sleeping giant." He warned them that if the US could not be defeated in the first year, the industrial might of the United States would eventually be more than Japan could withstand. Tojo rejected his recommendation, believing the Americans to be soft and weak, a paper tiger. Yamamoto was right, but he never lived to see it. In late 1942, US code breakers intercepted his itinerary and US fighters met and shot down his plane over Bougainville.

As another instance of history repeating itself, al Qaeda woke the sleeping giant in 2001 and was surprised at the ferocity of the response, believing the response would only be another cruise missile in the desert.

I think you're misreading the intent of what I wrote. I never said they could take out the whole country. That phrase was meant as a response to an attack on our country that we would, in response, take out theirs after losing several thousand of our citizens.

And no, it was not an exaggeration. I'm not talking about what happened in New York and Washington back in 2001. I'm talking about preventing an abomination from happening in the future where a single nuclear weapon could take out a city the size of Malmo. This is not about the past but an uncertain future. And about this paranoia about being attacked. Paranoia is when you're afraid someone will attack you when they aren't actually going to. What happened on September 11 was real. It happened and we were attacked. That was our wakeup call that there are people out to kill us. It's not paranoia when there's a terrorist on videotape who's constantly telling us he will kill us.

I would like to bring up a television show that many may have or may not have seen, 24.

If you don't like spoilers for the sixth season, proceed no further.

In season six, the United States was facing the ultimate nightmare scenario. Terrorists had infiltrated the country to the degree that shopping mall bombs and mass shootings were taking place every day with hundreds dying with each attack, making what happens in Israel look tame.

Even worse, three ex-Soviet nuclear warheads had been stolen from the Russian arsenal and were in the hands of a mythical Middle Eastern terrorist organization.

It's Jack Bauer to the rescue. But in the process of finding those suitcase nukes, one of them goes off in Valencia, California, instantly vaporizing 70,000 people. Even Jack couldn't save them.

President Wayne Palmer, having just survived an assassination attempt, tries to get information from the ambassador of the country known to be harboring and financially supporting the terrorists. The ambassador refuses to cooperate, basically saying they knew nothing and were completely innocent.

President Palmer then orders the launch of a nuclear-tipped missile at the capital of that country with the deadline that he would not abort the missile without hard information that would lead to the terrorists. With the imminent destruction of his capital, the ambassador finally gave in and provided the name of the Russian general who had obtained the three nukes and the location of where the bombs would be.

Of course, after the missile was aborted, we found that the missile was a dud and would not have done any damage, but the point was that we never want to get into any situation similar to the one depicted on that fictional TV show. The policy of preemption is designed to keep us from ever getting to the point where we need a Jack Bauer to save 70,000 people or more from being murdered.

September 11 was just a taste of what could happen in the future. The next attack could likely be chemical, biological, or nuclear in form, as opposed to the airplanes used as missiles. We are not talking about saving 3,000. We are talking about saving millions from a potential devastating attack. That kind of nightmare scenarios is what we are trying to keep from ever happening. I certainly hope you're not saying that 3,000 is an acceptable loss or even 300,000 if it will maintain good will in the international community because it sure seemed that way. I don't know about you but I don't consider 300,000 to be an acceptable loss just to make Europeans like us.

I hope that makes it clear. I was not saying that 100 Swedes were worth 1 American. I was putting it closer to home for you as opposed to using a remote city like Washington D.C.

And you were wrong about WMD. There were WMD found. Over 500 warheads to be precise and who knows how many weren't found in the desert or were moved to Syria as has been hypothesized in the fourteen months we spent convincing the UN Security Council. Just because CNN and CNN International didn't cover it doesn't mean it wasn't true. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report indicated full resumption of WMD production would be started as soon as France helped to remove the UN sanctions. While not an imminent threat, President Bush stated on several occasions that to wait for a threat to become imminent would be too late because then a single attack could slip through causing devastating results. In that nightmare scenario, only a mythical person like Jack Bauer could save us.

Oh, and do you know what else was found in Iraq? In military bases around the country, large stockpiles of 55-gallon drums were found, all filled with pesticides that made many American soldiers ill. It's interesting to note that the pre-cursor to mustard gas before it is processed is... drumroll please... a pesticide-like material. So only two conclusions could be made about that discovery. Either Iraqi military bases had huge insect problems or they were the base materials from which future WMD would be made.

So even though there has been disagreement in this thread on various principles and events, up until now people have been giving civilized, well-reasoned out and thoughtful responses to both "sides". TEEEJ, however, has just laid it all out that conservatives think and use facts, whereas the liberals just feel and say things with no factual grounding whatsoever.

Thanks a lot, TEEEEJ. Your tolerance and understanding overwhelms me.

Kathy

It all depends on the country. Tell me, would you personally rather have Sweden get the bomb or Iran? Would you rather Switzerland get the bomb or Syria? Americans wouldn't blink an eye if Sweden or Switzerland got the bomb. We wouldn't care because we know Swedes or Swiss aren't out to destroy western civilization. In our eyes, they're the good guys. We would certainly take notice if Syria or Iran got the bomb, countries that have both expressed the willingness and desire to do harm to us or our friends. That chant of, "Death to America! Death to the Great Satan!" certainly makes for a great slogan to make us raise an eyebrow and wonder at their intentions. The Swedish government would certainly take notice and start sweating if Iran suddenly set off a test bomb even if they are far down the list of potential attackees.

Britain and France have nuclear weapons. We don't have a problem with that. They're allies. No matter our disagreements of the day or whether we like each other or not at the moment, we always know that deep down we're friends. We'd prefer Russia and China not have the bomb but there's not much we could do about it. At the moment they are both considered partially allied and partially adversarial, not necessarily friends but not enemies.

From the tone of fear in your posts, it seems you think Americans can't tell the difference between friends and enemies and are frothing at the mouth just hoping to attack somebody. Are you really frightened that America would attack Sweden if they got the bomb? If I were a Swede I wouldn't. I certainly doubt the Swedish Prime Minister loses any sleep at night worrying about a B-2 bomber strafing Stockholm.

I don't see how my calling a duck, a duck is intolerant or inconsiderate and it's fairly amazing that of all the logic I presented, this was the only item you took note of...did I hurt your feelings?

TJ

TEEJ, no, you didn't hurt my feelings, but I do admit to feeling somewhat insulted by your blanket statement. You say you're calling a duck a duck. What facts are you using to establish this? An anatomical description of a duck is established - where is the equivalent for the indisputed definition of the true basis for the thinking of liberals vs. conservatives? I'd like to see this data.

It's one thing not to agree with someone, but quite another to make generalized statements that seem intended simply to say something insulting about the other "side". If that's the way you feel, fine, but why make a demeaning comment to your "friends" on the mbs?

And no, I chose not to respond to anything else that you had posted, nor have I responded to comments made by Roger, Ann, Paul, or anyone else who has posted in this thread. I do not relish political discussions and usually do not get involved. But quite frankly, I was dismayed enough by your generalization that I felt the need to voice my concern.

Kathy

TEEEJ also said, in response to Ann:

Believe me. We're not. We're so very not.

America has a lot of great things going for it. There are wonderful people in America. You have beautiful countryside and national parks and coastline and monuments. You also have things - just as any other country does - that people from other countries don't like. Every country has its good and bad points. When your country is torn apart by war or brutality, then you want to get out, and America is one of a few countries worldwide with a reputation for welcoming immigrants... though less so these days. I see many people fleeing from persecution or fear of terrorism whose asylum application was rejected in the US but granted in Canada.

My main point, though, TEEEJ, is that - as Paul and Roger have commented - this discussion has been very polite so far. People are disagreeing, but not getting personal about it. Your posts seem to me to be starting to verge on the personal, and that's not so nice - as well as the point KathyM quoted back to you, which I think you'd be pretty darned offended at if a liberal had made it about conservatives, you said:

So let's chill and agree to respect differences, okay, thanks?


Wendy

I guess I'm the polar opposite of Kathy here in that I love to discuss politics and history, and most especially with someone who disagrees with me. It's more interesting that way. Think I was born a political junkie. (and I'm not at all interested in rehab <g>)

Still, I can see that this stuff is not everyone's cup of tea.

All this about liberals and conservatives reminded me of a man who died last week - Bill Buckley. This tells you how old I am, but years ago I used to watch his show - a frequent guest was John Kenneth Galbraith. So there they were: two old men, brilliant and completely in disagreement with each other , exploring issues - expanding them, raising questions, providing back up facts and arguments. Listening to each other. The respect the two had for each other, affection even, was always evident. A conservative's conservative and a liberal's liberal.

What debate and discussion should be.

c. (who understands that most people would rather be watching hockey. )