| 4-4-2003 ----... You wrote: "You both make a big stink over the twelve year hiatus in the Iraqi project. Where does the fact that eight of those years featured a Democrat in the White House fit into your calculations?" This is a gross misrepresentation of my thought process. I understand the US coming to Kuwait�s aid in the Gulf War, though I have problems with that action because: clearly we were motivated to help because of our interests in Middle East oil (why is this a problem, you will ask�because we always market ourselves as defenders of freedom, when we are really defenders of our economic interests AND because, 25 years after the oil crisis of the 70s, we should not be reliant on fossil fuels); we make much of our support of democracy, but we will accept and deal with harsh regimes when it is in our economic interest; I read in detail a report on what happened in the closing days of the war, when the US killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were in a traffic jam and not interested in fighting. Also, I am no longer a Democrat, mostly because of the drift to the center/right of the party during the Clinton years. The Democratic party no longer represents my point of view. Finally, your reference to the �Iraqi project� is telling. All around the world and throughout this nation�s history, the US has had its hands in such �projects,� playing with the politics of other countries and the lives of their citizens. This is not a 12-year-old project, but one that dates back to British colonization, American meddling, assistance to Saddam by this country when he was definitely using chemical weapons, and training of his military. Just as with Osama bin Laden and many others, when one lies down with dogs, one wakes up with fleas. You wrote: "I think the bottom line is that Bush can't win with you. If you think taking out a fascist, murderous, civilian-gassing thug is the right thing for us to be doing then 1) we're doing it 12 years too late and 2) we're doing it for all the wrong reasons." Bush can win with me. In order to do so, he must: forget about tax cuts for the wealthy; lessen military spending on weapons, but increase it on services to veterans; enforce Kyoto and other environmental initiatives; stop pandering to corporations when it comes to the tax code, or consumer affairs, or white collar crime; stop the US from acting like an arrogant jerk when it comes to international relations, especially among our allies; fire Paul Wolfowitz and put Dick Cheney through a meat grinder. I do want to eliminate fascists, but I�d prefer the use of diplomacy, negotiations, international pressure, etc. You will laugh and call me a left wing, yellow-bellied pansy, so be it. I don�t want to see war, and I don�t want my tax dollars�as few as they are�to pay for bullets that, just yesterday, were shot into the head of a two-year-old because someone, wittingly nor not, drove through a checkpoint. I would like to eliminate right wing religious conservatives from government as well, but you don�t see me storming the White House. You wrote: "You guys need to wake up to realpolitik, with all the attendant spheres of influence and balances of power. Yes, we have an interest in preserving our way of life and protecting our interests. Yes, we're going to take a keener interest in areas of the world (Middle East) that bear on the reality of our lives than those (Rwanda) that don't. Yes, we're going to extract Saddam because we CAN, and we're not going to extract Kim Jong Il because we'd be signing the death notice of 12 million people in Greater Seoul." Realpolitik is the capitalism of international affairs. It is each looking out for their own interests�invariably economic�without regard for principles, without regard for the effects of such actions on millions, even billions, of people. The world is not a game of Risk. It is not wise, or moral, to do things just "because we CAN." The governing principle should be to do something because it is RIGHT. We shouldn�t be "extracting" anyone. Relations between North and South Korea were getting better until the "axis of evil" speech. Bush, the simpleton, really does see the world in comic book terms: good vs. evil. "You are either with us or against us," he said, kind of like "Play the game my way, or I am taking my ball, going home, and blowing you up." You wrote: "Unlike you guys, no one else is perfect. People react to situations as they come up - without the benefit of perfect information or hindsight - and try to live by some moral guiding principles when making decisions." Again, the personal volley. None of us, despite Josh�s remarks, think that we are perfect. However, we do believe that we are right, and we are of the position that those who make war are operating without any moral guiding principles...well, unless you consider "the rich get richer" to be a moral guiding principle. Jim |