Isn't that Mike Savage?

Don't think so, but it could be.

Subtract the trillion dollars for the Iraq war and what you get? A surplus.

Remember, Iraq was paying for the hospitality of the inspectors to the tune of $20 million a month.

I am anti-imperialistic but cutting military spending can be dangerous. If we are going to go back to a more anti-interventionist foreign policy, which I support, we have to know who is being cut, who is going to take over when America lowers from number one, and where our technology is going to go.

If we cut military spending, we can turn the military against the administration, which can be bad.

If we lower ourselves from number one, we need to know who, if there is going to be one, will take over our spot. Will they be more or less imperialistic, more or less brutal, etc? As of now, I would think that the EU would take over, meaning that not much would change in terms of imperialism.

Right now, some of the most advanced and dangerous technology is in the hands of the United States military and if we cut some funding, those scientist will go elsewhere and spread our technology. I don't like the people in charge of those weapons, but I can think of people that I would much less rather have their hands on it.


I do not like the American military running the world, but I do realize that taking it completely away could easily make the situation worse. I fully support cutting military spending, but we must know what we are cutting and how will that affect the world if we do first.

I disagree with two parts. First, even though we did have little presence, I think that little presence is still really hated by Saudis and other Muslims.

95% of Saudis agree with al-Qaeda's views. That does not include extremity of those views and actions of al-Qaeda though.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Second, if al-Qaeda and other groups loses support of the local population, see al-Qaeda in Iraq, they become very ineffective. If we do take our presence out of Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda may not be satisfied, but the local population might.

If there is a war going on, have a war economy. The US is not under it yet. That's Bush's biggest mistake, on top of his other ones. Who knows it may solve the housing crisis as well as the deficit.

Hmm, sooooome young Socialist didn't read the phrase "fair example of European leftist opinion" -- at least not as she should have. It was there for a reason, Dana. That reason is hardly obscure. There is a considerable claque over there yammering away at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As you know, I regard that claque as people who don't know their own interest, whose understanding of history reaches no greater depth than their penises, and who are generally moronic fascist-sympathizing vitiated whores for the totalitarians. And boy, how I love them!

Closing my spleen vents for the time being, I'd say you'd understand the war's strategy better if you admitted to yourself and before all of the United Kingdom that these are two theaters of operation in one single war. You want to win? -- then why do the picky-choosie between campaigns? It's this sort of anti-victory thinking I simply am not going to stand. Not yesterday, not today, not ever.

And yes, I view the British Army as more worthy than you are. Not to take anything away from you, it's just that honestly, they are doing more, and working damned hard at doing it. The dead ones have earned their place on the War Memorials.

Vietnam was in part lost because of the failure to go where the enemy was, and empty his home places of him. It is clear certain factions desire this dysfunctional pattern be repeated. Their desire must not be fulfilled, for it is fascist. (I include the communists under the fascist heading, as is easily done.) In other words, anti-democratic. When the fascists lose and the democrats win, you've likely got a better world, and I'm sure you'd rather the world improve, no? You're a political activist, and I know what that means, for I've done some myself.

Make and keep anti-Westernism the province of those who die young and uselessly, without successes. Eventually, the saner folks put a stop to the nonsense, and that's just what we've always wanted.

And there it is, all boiled down to a handy nutshell size. This is to do with Westernism, not democratisation. What you are talking about is cultural imperialism achieved through gunfire and bombs.

The problem with those middle eastern countries, is they are already filled with foreigners.

Bill Clinton tried that, it didn't work. The majority of us were not grand supporters of him.

Maybe the US didn't invade North Vietnam because the US government don't want to confront Chinese and Russian troops directly.

At what point did you come to the conclusion that there are no left wingers serving in our army? In my own local party there are several ex-military people. My own ward colleague ( a solid member of the labour party) served for many years. I am a supporting member of the Royal British Legion and there are several old soldiers there who also proudly count themselves socialists. Socialists who fought the fascist threat in the second world war at that.

The right do not have a monopoly on valour UG. Though they seem intent on achieving a monopoly on pointless and wrong-minded wars.

As usual, UG is talking shit. What could be more democratic than allowing a town to vote to get rid of someone promoting and recruiting for an unconstitutional war of aggression?

The only shame is they backpeddled. They should have stuck to their guns and kept the Marines out.

I'd close each and every single American military base outside of the borders of the United States. I'd reduce military spending by 2/3 and still have a military strong enough to provide a DEFENSE rather than having an offensive force spread all over the globe like the Roman Empire ready to get involved in every petty dispute among other nations.

What military remained would be well-armed, well-trained, and well able to defend America from any attacks.

Anyone who supports the war in Iraq or the violations of civil rights on the part of the Bush administration is a gutless coward, and a scumbag, and is unworthy to call themselves an American.

C'mon Radar, don't beat around the bush, tell us what you really think.

Their shame, of course, was in this pro-fascist move against the Marines in the first place, rather than supporting the destruction of fascism in each and every corner of the world -- which if Berkeley were anything sensible, they would be doing. Instead, Berkeley posts signs at its city limits telling us we really can't bring any W88 nuclear warheads we may happen to have around into town in the car trunk. Or they'll get really really mad.

Anyway, the Republicans are actually doing the advance of democracy, whereas Berkeley isn't, and that's why I'm torqued at the Berkeley City Council.

I used to see a lot of Berkeley when I lived in the Bay Area. I even saw a copy of that dreadful Marxist newspaper some braindead bad example used to print out on one awkwardly-formatted sheet of many foldings. (There were no living ideas present anywhere on the thing. It was like, politics for zombies.)

You, my friend, are the one talking a raft of shit, owing to your absolute and furious determination never to understand either the constitutionality of our war, nor its legality. For that matter, you're not doing very much yourself to remove antilibertarianism from this Earth, are you now?

To call the war on terror unconstitutional and illegal demonstrates in black and white that you aren't a Constitutional scholar, or you would never say such things. You will note that as something of a Constitution reader myself, I for one never have. I think I know more about it than you do, and I also think I understand human nature better, and I apply that understanding when I consider politics.

Repetition, dear fellow, is not persuasion, for you have never even tried to prove unconstitutionality or illegality in this war, and from those with reason to think they've got it better together than you do, it invites a dose of patronizing. We end up thinking Paul's either not too bright or that his blind spots drop him over a stumbling block four times an afternoon.

It doesn't hurt libertarianism if fascism/communism/noxious-ism or any other subdemocratic social order dies, and you seem blind to this concept. This is odd; I regard it as a basic essential. How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?