Iconoclastic

I think those that would suggest that our mission in Iraq is an accurate historical example of "Imperialism" are more comfortable with Websters than they are history.

There is a huge difference between the Imperialist practices of the 17th, 18th and 19th century's and our current policy in Iraq, or our former policies in post war Germany and Japan.

For instance, we have not carved out parts of Iraq for colonization, nor have we insisted on specific individuals to head the government. We have not demanded recompense from our liberation efforts, nor have we exacted any form of economic retribution on Iraq.

Nor does anyone take seriously the notion the notion that we intend to make Iraq a territory, protectorate, state, colony, possession, etc.

If one would like to argue the subjective nature of the word "Imperialism", there may in fact be room for minimal debate.

If however we conduct an accurate comparison of our operation in Iraq with the most obvious of historical examples of Imperialism, mercantilism, etc. The intellectually honest person will probably admit that it bares almost no comparison.

With so many legitimate things to debate concerning this war, why must we focus on those claims which are the least worthy.

You hit a home run with this one!

I would agree with Nick that we no longer practice imperialism as European countries once did. I would suggest that we have redefined imperialism just as we have redefined slavery. Why would we need slavery when we have 3rd world countries practicing slavery for us? Isn't that why Wal-Mart is so succesfull? So why would we want to colonize when we can rape a country by sending in CIA "advisors" to help overthrow a government,and then with the help of a propped up regime, get whatever goods we need from that country. I do not believe, however, the war in Iraq is all about oil. I think it has more to do with the transfer of American wealth from the working taxpayer to the corporate elite, although Im sure oil plays a large part in this economic raping of America under the leadership of George Bush. Nick is right, we are not colonizing, nor is it old fashioned imperialism. We have newer and better ways of doing basically the same thing. Now days we call it fighting then there so we don't have to fight them over here....and free trade economy.

Well its nice to see another concerned citizen categorizing what I do as nothing more than modern form of brutal mercantilism.

Of course the problem with your argument is that you are suggesting that we are attempting to achieve the same results through different methods. Interesting, we seem to be doing it as inefficiently as possible. Concerning our military and economic strength, why would we use this "new method" of Imperialism when we clearly have the the forces necessary in order to take out of Iraq whatever we want? Come on Mr. Shaw lets be reasonable. And try to remeber that Free market principles encourage voluntary cooperation between people and countries.

Perhaps, and I'm just spit-balling here, maybe we do these things because there really are genuine threats out there. I can assure you that these threats do exist.

I don't understand how open minded people who insist on having a better understanding of the positions of our foreign advisories can then turn around and declare that their domestic political opponents would gladly rape, pillage, murder, and send soldiers to their death for nothing greater than personal profit. A huge disconnect between the left and the right in this whole debate is the apparent belief by many on the left that free market Republicans are evil, but that many of the worlds terrorists are simply misnamed freedom fighters.

Furthermore, I dont understand how someone can claim that free markets are a bad idea. In principle it is nothing more than allowing consumers the freedom to buy from whomever they want with out being financially punished.

Furthermore trade with foreign nations is a far better way of encouraging local growth and wealth in the countries we deal with. One would have to utterly ignore the economic reality of the third world to insinuate that we are raping it in the name of capitalism. I have had the benefit of going to some of the poorest countries in the world, and they want greater trade with the United States. It only seems to be your anti-World Bank and anti free traders who think that a US economic presence and globalization in general is bad for the third world

As far as slavery, could I have some specifics? Or am I to assume that Mr. Shaw believes that wage levels should be universal across the globe. Quite frankly that doesn't make sense economically.

Kudos though, I had no idea I would have to deal with people redefining "rape", "colonialism", "slavery", "advisors", "Imperialism", etc. to fit their political agenda. Why cant we just sit down like adults and discuss specific policies or positions, their results, and whether or not we think they have a positive effect. Why must we always resort to "redefining" loaded words such as "Imperialism" or "fascist" in order to get our point across.

I would also like to know who exactly represents the "Corporate Elite" and who represents the "Working Taxpayer". Im a working tax payer and I appreciate the tax cuts I have received. Most of the "tax cuts" I hear the left espouse would go to people not paying federal income taxes. Thats not a tax cut that is more government spending. Now if you approve of greater government spending in this area then call it what it is. Greater entitlement spending at the federal level.

If you think free markets and free trade is a bad thing, then show me a better alternative.

All Im hearing right now is loaded rhetoric. If you have genuine concerns, then please articulate your positions with out resorting to "redefining" words beyond their acceptable understanding.

Last but not least I would love to here some facts, analysis, or experience that you can bring to bear to prove your positions Mr. Shaw.

Thanks again,
Nick

Nick,
Your response concerned me on a couple of levels. First, Joe did not even remotely hint that what you do is ‘brutal mercantilism.’ I would hate to speak for Joe, but I think his point is much like mine, the military has been used as a pawn in a game Bush and his cronies are playing with the American people, and more specifically, the American peoples money. As I see it, the members of the armed forces signed up to do a job, part of that job is to go where they are told and do what they are told to do – no question. And most of the time the places they are sent are scary, and the things they are told to do are important and dangerous. So they trust their superiors to keep them safe. Am I wrong here Nick? So I do not blame the people actually over in Iraq doing what they have been told to do, living in, well, hell, and staying committed to the job they signed up for. They have no decision making power, and they are risking their lives to protect our country. The people who are to blame are the higher ups, the generals, and cronies, and commanders in chief who are making decisions which are unmoral, illegal, and illogical. And they should be held responsible for their decisions. In the news today we are hearing reports that Blackwater is going to be offered immunity for killing 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians by our government – dose this sound like a government that is operating effectively? Or with good intention? Or morals?

And Nick, do we really have the military and economic strength to take out Iraq whenever we want? Southern California set ablaze and 500,000 American’s were displaced from their homes, and one of the reasons the fires got so out of control was because our National Guard is deployed in Iraq due to our shortage of military. President Bush is going to congress and demanding more money – to the tune of $46 billon - and current forecasts suggest the cost of this war is going to be close to $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Do you have $8,000 to spare? I don’t think we are in a position to espouse our military and economic strength. I think we are overstretched, and lucky we are facing impoverished countries with little military spending or we would really know what fear is – not the fear mongering that has been shoved into our consciousness by the Bush administration.

I do have to agree with you on one point though Nick, we did not need to find a new definition of Imperialism

• We have extended ourselves into Iraq. The United State is building a massive embassy complex in the heart of Baghdad – which is already a symbol of American Imperialism. Congress approved the spending of $1 billion to build the largest embassy in the world. The embassy complex is on 104 acres, with 21 buildings and facilities. It will eventually house a U.S. staff of 5,000. So now we are going to have to “negotiate” an agreement with the Iraqi government – which will tip off the Iraqi people that their “government” could possibly be more of a puppet organization than a reality.
• We have gained political control over Iraq. MSNBC reported earlier this month that Feisal Amin Istrabadi – a principal architect of Iraq’s interim constitution – said, “there is no Iraqi government.” While the Washington Post reports, “The United States intends to retain firm political control over Iraq until it is satisfied that it can turn over the government to Iraqis from within Iraq, and from among exiles, it can trust to rule the country democratically and retain its territorial integrity.” Which is the same as saying the U.S. will relinquish control with pink elephants fly. We have even gone so far as to place time restrictions on the Iraq government for passing laws and holding elections – proclaiming to the world that we are in charge of that government, and we don’t care who knows it.
• We have gained economic control over Iraq. The United States has put its own private corporations in control of the Iraqi oil. And although recent events have prompted the Iraq government to announce that the next annual renewal of the United Nations Security Council mandate for a multinational force will be the last – at the current moment the oil legislation now pending in Iraqi parliament awards foreign (read United States) coveted long-term contracts (like 25-30 years long) – just the sort of contracts the Iraqi neighbors have rejected for years. This legislation also places the Iraqi oil industry under the control of an appointed body that would include representatives of international oil companies (again read as United States oil companies) as full voting members.

Sounds like a textbook definition of Imperialism to me! And we are not even trying to hide it from the world.

Nick, you constantly come back to the real threat we are facing – and I agree – we are in a very dangerous position. With our troops spread out to high heaven, and our aggressive demeaning offensive foreign policy, we are lucky we have not faced more threat than 9/11. What I disagree with is that continuing to “piss-off” the people of the world – especially the fanatical element with weapons at their disposal – is somehow going to protect us from that threat. Or that using this intangible “threat” as sound reasoning to do anything. You are always asking for facts – where are the facts of this threat, how is this threat any different than things before 9/11, if they are different why, how much power do these non-state threats really pose, is this intangible threat a reality or a devise used to scare and coerce other agendas?

As for the raping, pillaging, murdering etc for personal profit, although this is a harsh way to describe it, how can you deny its truth? For instance, look at this recent news report from AP:

With Gap Inc. under fire for selling clothes made by children in India, activists and police raided a sweatshop in New Delhi where 14 boys were embroidering women's garments Monday, illustrating the widespread problem of child labor in the South Asian country.
The children were as young as 10, came from a poor farming district on the other side of the country, and said they had never been given promised wages for working up to 15 hours a day embroidering sequins onto the flowing saris worn by Indian women.
The working and living conditions in the sweatshop just blocks from where the Gap clothes were being made were grim - the boys were packed into a filthy room, sleeping on the same floor where they sewed all day.
"I don't want my money anymore. Now I want to go home," said a thin 15-year-old boy who gave his name only as Hatiquallah.

Sanjeev, an 11-year-old rescued Monday from the sweatshop, said his parents had sent him off to work in New Delhi two years ago. He had not heard from or seen them since, and was worried they would be upset with him for not sending any money home. "But I never got my wages," he said.

That doesn’t sound like legalized slavery to you? Who is the largest buyer of the GAP brand? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not India. And this goes on all over the world. Sweatshops, people being sold from one tribe to another and forced to work in them, children being sold by their families – this is the result of our “free market”. The United States population accounts for 5% of the world population – and yet we consume over 26% of the worlds resources. We raise our beef in deforested rain forests and pay bottom dollar for it. We export our hazardous garbage to impoverished countries whom we pay to deal with our filth. We buy clothing from dealers who don’t pay children to sew it. And we call it free trade economy. Free trade is like socialism – wonderful in theory – but someone always figures out a way to work the system and take advantage.

I do not agree with our “free trade economy” because the only person it seems to be free for is us. But I am not against US economic presence and globalization – to an extent. McDonald’s saved my life when I was in Europe, so I was thankful. And I am a huge fan of Swiss Chocolate, but don’t often get the chance to travel to Switzerland. Nevertheless, taking advantage of countries who don’t know any better isn’t good economic policy.

Ignoring the fact that Corporate America, and our Government, has participated in shady and underhanded economic policy – while balking at terminology and calling facts rhetoric dose not change what is going on. You asked for some facts, I think I have given you a few – and could probably write a book on the environmental raping and pillaging that has gone on to sustain the United States consumerist mantality. I would love for you to show me examples of it not!

Nick, why is it that republicans just don't quite understand how liberals think? You have placed me into this same imaginary liberal corner that I hear the radio conservatives do all of the time, and it's laughable! (Taking a long breath)....OK, liberals, most liberals anyway, do not despise republicans (only thier opinions...when they blindly follow a liar and expect that the rest of us should too), do support the troops, are not for distribution of the wealth, do believe in the threat of terrorism, do not meander or cuddle up to or give aid and comfort to terrorists, believe in the opportunity to get rich, shop at Wal-Mart, are not for high taxes, believe in free trade, AND we love our country! I don't have time to go into all the details of everything I have mentioned here, however, I have given my thoughts in depth on many of these issues in my blogs and 10 years of writing letters to the editor.

George Bush has supported billions in tax breaks for American corporations to move jobs overseas and to create offshore accounts. Under Bush we have lost almost 3 million jobs in manufacturing. Free trade is fine, it's even necessary, but we are giving it all away! Now as far as slavery goes, no we don't condone slavery, however, we are enjoying our high standard of living, in part, because of the sweat shop industries that exists in many of the 3rd world countries, and many of these workers are working under slave like conditions. I do not know what the answer is to fixing this problem but I do know that supporting corporate outsourcing is the first step in destroying the American middle class. And I will say that the unions are partly responsible for the outsourcing that had been happening. You ask who the "corporate elite" are. They are the large companies that own politicians....think campaign contributions, no bid contracts, war profiteering....do I really have to explain this to you?

Terrorists are a threat, but not to the degree that we have overreacted in going to Iraq. It is a fact that we have created more terrorists than we have killed in Iraq. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. We have spent $8,000 per every American on this war so far. We have given up freedoms that most Americans aren't even aware of yet. We have spread our troops too thin, we have killed too many innocent people in Iraq as well as lost almost 4,000 Americans. You see Nick, I don't think the price of this war is worth the results. I have not bought into the fear and lies this administration has been slapping us in the face with for six years now like many of you republicans have. You talk about my "loaded rhetoric" and your party gives us terms like "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and "they want to kill your families." We can cower and spend and kill and basically ruin this country over our perceived terrorist threats or we can choose other ways to combat what threats do in reality exist. The 911 commission report had a few good ideas about this but Bush didn't like them, so were not using them.

Because of this war and the trillion dollars it will probably cost in the end, we will never be able to enjoy national health care, we may loose our social security benefits down the road, we may very well face economic collapse in the near future. And all this because of a bunch of men in sheets that you say want to kill my family? And you do not think there is a "corporate elite" that is behind much of this trillion dollar mess? Excuse me for being a little upset over my children possibly giving up anything that resembles the once great American dream all because you and your party affiliates have bought into the lies and spin shoved down our collective throats by George Bush and his band of thieves on behalf of their "corporate elite" partners in crime.

The following link will give you some facts and hard numbers on corporate profiteering....http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/corpkilling.pdf

I apologize Joe if you felt that I was trying to label you, but go back and read your original comment, and tell me what I was supposed to think?

CIA "advisors" overthrowing governments so we can benefit economically. I mean can you blame me for assuming that I might be dealing with a more socialist leaning liberal?

How exactly has this war been destroying America?

Taxes are down, we have no draft, the stock market is up, job growth is steady, we've experienced no significant attacks on US soil since we have launched an aggressive response to the terrorist threat.

You talk about losing manufacturing jobs overseas, what is your solution? Higher tariffs? Subsidization of an industry which can no longer compete with overseas competition?

If two manufacturing companies were a count apart in stead of a continent, would you support a county tax in order to subsidize a less efficient plant? I wouldn't.
In a globalized economy we cannot afford to remain stagnant. We have to focus on those industries in which we are competitive and focus our investment capital in those emerging technologies in order to remain competitive in the future.

Its the old buggy whip industry argument. We could have banned vehicles, or subsidized the manufacturing of buggy whips, but all we would have been doing is inefficiently postponed the inevitable.

As far as your comment that we have created more terrorists than we have killed. Sir that is not a "fact". It is your analysis. It very well could be accurate, but it ignores a key point. 100 terrorists fighting the most powerful military in the world in Iraq is preferable to 19 terrorists crashing planes into the world trade center.

As far as killing innocent civilians, I would love it if our enemies would stop using heavily populated areas to carry out terrorist attacks. I would also appreciate it if they would avoid using non-combatants as huaman shields when sniping at coalition forces; but as long as I am unable to dictate to them the tactics they use, I would at least appreciate it if I was not blamed for their very predictable results.

Do you really have to explain large corporate/business contributions to politicians...no. I would like it if you would explain to me how you see this as a Bush administration phenomena.

For instance when Clinton gave Haliburton a no bid contract in Kosovo/Bosnia, did you protest?

Check out opensecrets.org for a good breakdown of campaign contributions. It may surprise you.

My biggest problem with many of the problems that you bring up, is not that they are not valid, but that your analysis of their cause and your suggestions for their resolution do not make sense to me. Sorry. Keep trying and Ill keep reading, but so far I dont get how restricting trade is good for our economy or the economies of the 3rd world.

Slavery type conditions. Again, I asked for an example. Lets take Cambodia. In Cambodia I am quite sure that there is an 8 year old child working for a dollar a day making tennis shoes. And a liberal solution may be to punish that country by raising tariffs on that country. Or perhaps forcing a company to pay a higher wage. What is the result, well in both scenarios the single mother in America now has to decide between a new pair of shoes or school supplies. In the first scenario a Cambodian family goes hungry after losing a valuable source of income that would not have otherwise had been there.
Trying to solve economic problems in a foreign country through domestic legislation is grossly inefficient.

I wouldn't mind debating the key issues driving us to go into Iraq, but you really haven't given me anything except Bush and his cronies lied. (You forgot all of his liberal opponents who gave a variety of reasons for going into Iraq, some that made non mention of WMD)

You have chosen to completely ignore prewar intelligence, and have chosen to judge a decision based completely off of hindsight.

Lastly, at no point did I suggest that liberals do not love their country. I am sure you do, as I know Meagan does. I simply disagree with your analysis on a couple topics, and I think that in your former post you did attempt to redefine certain "hot button" words in an attempt to strengthen your position.

Thanks for responding...look forward to more in the future

Ok Meagan...now my response to your post...you guys are keeping me busy..lol

First of all, I found the tone of Joes initial statement to be suspect. But I think I have a better understanding of his positions now.

Next concerning Imperialism. Meagan you have taken an article form the Washington Post and MSNBC as your sole evidence of Imperialism.

the United States most certainly DOS NOT control the Iraqi oil industry. The fact that private companies are running the oil refinery's is a GOD send. I cannot begin to tell you how much of a mess that industry is over there. But the US government does not have authority over it. Iraqis are responsible for the security, distribution, and refining of oil in Iraq. Believe me, I wish they weren't. Until you have seen the nightmare that the State run oil industry was both economical y and environmentally, you can not fully appreciate the benefit that skilled professionals could have in running that industry.

As far as the US controlling their government, Meagan you CANT be serious. A Iraqi politician bashing the US may be valid, OR it may just be an Iraqi politician playing politics. If we really control their government then why do we continually complain that we are not able to get the government to move on the issues we want them to? In General Patreaus testimony he was constantly badgered by Democrats who were not satisfied with the progress that the Iraqi government was making. To which Patreaus had to remind them that WE DONT CONTROL THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! We can recommend, we can threaten pulling out or withdrawling funds, but we cannot force them to legislate. And that is the very definition of "controlling government", or "controlling the economy".

as far as economics, I am not, nor have I ever suggested that the US has not been involved in shady economic deals, both domestically and internationally. We are also not alone in this area. However, capitalism, and free trade are the correct answers in principle, and I completely believe that. To suggest that a company as big as Gap must be responsible for every person employed internationally is not realistic. In such cases, as the oe you mentioned, there is definitely room for protest and retribution against a particular Indian business. But this is first and foremost an issue for Indian legislation and law enforcement.

And as I mentioned before you cannot completely ignore the economic and cultural reality of the 3rd world. While I find the idea of having a small child work long hours in a plant making baby gap clothes repugnant, I also think the notion of that same small child starving to death on the side of the road hard to take. You cannot look at this as a zero sum game where in one scenario the child is at school playing with friends, and in the other they are working 14 hour days making nike's. That is not the reality. Unfortunately, for many of these kids the choice is 14 hour days in a sweatshop or starvation. But there is an easy way to make you voice heard in this debate and it requires NO Legislation...don't shop at any business which you feel has inappropriate or immoral business practices.

Remember the operative word in free trade...is free. Free trade should be the goal whenever possible, because it is the least intrusive. Nobody is forcing you to sell, no one is forcing you to buy, free trade can ONLY take place if two or more people voluntarily exchange goods or services for other goods and services.

As far as our "free trade economy" only being free for us. Such a statement runs completely contrary to Joe's argument which suggests that this cheap labor is hurting our own industrial sector. Look guys the business world is not an environment where everyone gets to win. The people with the best product for the best price win, their competitors loses. But under this capitalist system the consumer almost ALWAYS wins, and as a result there is less waste of valuable resources which have alternative uses.

Well that was allot of typing for a guy who uses 4 fingers...lol.

I hope its not t jumbled as I only did a cursory proof read.

Take care Meagan and Joe.

Nick, you ask...."How exactly has this war been destroying America? Taxes are down, we have no draft, the stock market is up, job growth is steady, we've experienced no significant attacks on US soil since we have launched an aggressive response to the terrorist threat."

Joe....Yes, taxes are down, but is that a good thing? Our national debt is escalating out of control. Republicans label democrats as "tax and spend" when in reality republicans are "barrow and spend." Doesn't tax and spend really mean "pay as you go?" Job growth is steady....in the fast food industry. We are creating more minimum wage jobs as we loose middle class manufacturing jobs. We all know how misleading statistics can be. I'm glad we have no draft, but one could make the argument that if we did, if senators and wealthy American kids were going to Iraq, this war would have been over long ago. It's true that we have not had any terrorist attacks on our soil since 911, and I will give credit to Bush for that. On the other hand, what have we sacrificed for this to be? If we are safe because we allow the government to spy on us, to know everything that we are saying and writing, to have better access to personal bank records, to torture in the name of freedom, one has to ask if the end justifies the means. In Saudi Arabia they have "chop block" every week in the town squares. Families are encouraged to bring their kids to watch. People loose limbs for stealing. My sister, who worked over there for years, said that you could set your purse down on a crowded sidewalk and come back hours later and it would still be there. Is that price worth having a "thief proof" society? If we executed people for drinking and driving, we would put an end real quick to drinking and driving. If this sounds good to somebody, all I can say is that they are living in the wrong country. This is not what freedom is about....being safe at any means. If we are willing to torture, do away with habeas corpus, and eventually allow the government total access to our homes as well as all private records in the name of safety, we have then lost our heart and soul. We would be no better than the countries in the mid east that we are now at odds with. So again, I say, yes, terrorist attacks are down, but is it worth the cost? Personally, I would rather see some of the ideas put forth that were suggested in the 911 commission report....such as guarding and checking our ports better.

You have challenged me to address many other issues, but the fact of the matter is, I just don't have the time. I have a blog of my own that needs more attention, not to mention 4 guitars that need new strings, and I hate to string guitars. I have a new grandson born last night at midnight (yes, on Halloween!) and I need to get over to the hospital to meet him. I have 9 guys out working on jobs that I have to check on....well, you get the picture. It's good to know there are some of us that are concerned enough about the problems our country is facing to take the time to write, to question, and yes, to even argue. This is what keeps us strong, alive, and vital. We may have different solutions and we may see different problems, but at least we care. My main concern is that we are at a point in history, a crossroads really, where we need to be really careful about the decisions we make concerning our safety as well as our future financially and economically. Our fore fathers had wisdom when they set this whole thing up and we should not abandon wisdom and principals in over reacting to fear and threats. Take care, Joe

Well Joe, Ive got to tell you that I will not argue you one bit on many of the republicans now in office who are doing exactly what you have said....borrow and spend.

But on the other hand, lowering taxes has led to greater tax revenue, and it has every time we've done it sine JFK. At the same time it has added growth and jobs to our economy.

we have added jobs in many sectors, not just fast food. I have addressed the manufacturing jobs. Again, you cannot subsidize and industry, or enact tariffs to avoid competition without hurting Americans. this is not a zero sum game, the choice is almost never:
A.Help Americans,
B. Hurt Americans.

All economic policy will result in favorable conditions for some, and unfavorable for others. The key is to ensure that economic policy only favors consumers. If you favor labor, then consumers suffer, if you favor executives, than consumers suffer. Republicans are bad about giving protection and subsidies to certain industries over others. Democrats on the other hand have moved closer and closer to socialism since FDR and I think that posses the greater economic threat. Our economy as a whole and our job market is doing well, especially when compared to the rest of the western world. In fact Im wiling to bet that if Bill Clinton were president right now the media would be falling all over themselves to tell us how great the economy is despite major terrorist attacks, natural disasters, two wars etc.

as far as our morale positions I have two statements.
1. The tactics we are using in this war regarding "torture", and general rules of engagement are more restrictive now then they have ever been. So I reject the idea that we have adopted torture as a regular policy.

2.To say that we should not use it at all, suggests to me that you may be unfamiliar with what is considered "torture" in the west. Were not racking anybody, nor are we sticking them in an Iron maiden. It seems like many on the left want to outlaw harsh language as "torture".

As far as our civil liberties, what particular civil liberties have been violated. Let us take wire tapping. If we had found out that on sep 10th 2001 we had been listening to a phone conversation between Osama Bin laden and one of the 9/11 hijackers detailing the event to come. And if we found out that the language expert hung up because one side of the phone call originated in the US. Liberals would have FRIED Bush for an absurd policy, yet here we are debating on whether or not we are permitted to track the phone calls of terrorists in the Middle east if they decide to call the US. this is ridiculous. Lets be honest here. There has not been ONE case of someone bringing a case and winning based off of the idea that the Patriot act has violated their civil liberties. yet we have all kinds of cases where we have intercepted terrorists because of the new efficiency we have because of the patriot act. we should be leary of abuse, but WE ALREADY are leary of abuse. Lets start looking at this practically. there aren't to many people I know with a greater respect four the "way our founders set things up". But we have made changes based off of technology which have been approved by methods our Constitution allows for. I will remind you that as one Supreme court Justice put it... "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". We have a process we use when we want to enact a policy which has the potential to effect the privacy of law abiding citizens. We have used that, and seen huge results while avoiding infringing on peoples civil rights. Lets not scrap a whole program because maybe, someone, somewhere might have their liberties violated. Lets take it a case at a time and determine if there was wrong doing on the part of the government.

As far as Saudi Arabias jurisprudence, I really don't think anyone on the right can be accused of suggesting we follow suit, so where I recognize your point, I think it was a little far fetched to be valid for this debate.

I cant speak for what might have happened in this war had their been a draft, but the bottom line is that there isn't one. We are all volunteers. Informed volunteers. There isn't one person who has enlisted or reenlisted since 2003 who can claim that they didn't realize being deployed to Iraq would be a possibility. believe me, we don't keep reenlisting for the money, most of us believe in what we are doing.

As far as better protection for our ports and borders, im all for it, but not at the expense of an offensive campaign. Wars are never won in the defense, this is just a historical reality. If we redistribute forces and money to check every container coming into this country, were going to find that it is much more costly in lives and treasure then finding our enemy in their own area, and stopping them before they can get to us.

Well....you have kept me thinking.

Congratulations on your new grandchild. I hear they are a reward for not killing your own kids when you thought about it.

Take care Joe, and i hope we can debate again in the future.

Take care
nick