No one said they were not. Least of all me.

If they are, they're getting a lesson in how to get their ass handed to them and slink away. Recent dispatches have indicated that foreign fighters have had it... without the means or opportunity to off a few dozen infidels, they are going home disgusted.

Philosophy is not action.

Right, action produces results, philosophy produces hot air.

OHRLY... give us all a friggin break on that one already. 9/11 was philosophy in action and the perps have had their asses handed to them one at a time.

You're right, it was philosophy in action...

...and the only freedoms that it threatened were the freedoms Bush took away when it happened.

What about the close to 3,000 people that had their freedom permanently taken away on 9/11 due to philosophy in action?

We had a very limited presence in the 'holy land' (Saudi Arabia) prior to 9/11. Mostly a small squadron out of Prince Sultan Air Base. Very little interaction with local population. Although there was/is the presence of western businessmen and their families. Even if the US had removed the small military presence in Saudi, that would not have been enough. Furthermore, stated aims of al-Qaeda :
1. To drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations (especially Saudi Arabia) - the US government cannot control the influence of American media and businessmen in the Middle East;
2. Destroy Israel - were not going to allow that to happen;
3. Topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East - again, not going to allow this.
Osama Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs. At a minimum, he wants the 'traditional' Islamic nations (those that were under Islamic control in the 8th century) to become one - to include north Africa and portions of southern Europe, such as portions of Spain.

I do believe there will be some diminishment of their recruiting if we get the military out of the Middle East. But that still does not solve American influence (political, economic, social) on the region. They attacked us with a handful of faithful believers, causing immense damage, when our military presence was minimal. So how will removing our military presence now change the mindset of the extremists?

Why did they repeatedly attack the U.S. again? Did they really think we would let them attack us, especially here on our soil, and not respond?
It is very clear that they want everyone and anyone who is not "like them," dead and gone.

a) It is terribly obvious. Without any disrespect, this is not even worth asking, let alone answering.

b) Dana - You have got to be drunk, high or kidding.

In other words, no freedoms removed at all. I've been living right here, in these United States since September 2001, and can you say the same? Not one freedom have I lost, nor am I likely to lose one. Same thing for you, particularly once you come to man's estate. Even Bill Clinton, great friend of the Bill of Rights that he was, couldn't manage taking freedoms and rights away -- though not for want of effort.

I'm beginning to think that if DanaC is a fair example of European leftist opinion on the matter, then Dick Cheney was right about Old Europe: they really are exhausted, vitiated, and quite helpless in this clash, and we ought not to expect much help from that quarter winning the war against a lot of shitheaded antidemocratic bigots.

How about the freedom not to have a recession and a war simultaneously? He sure took that away for all Americans. Wars usually solve recessions, not trigger them.

BS. recessions are part of the economic cycle that is constantly in motion. concurrent existence is not evidence of cause and effect.

Fuck you UG, tell that to the many British soldiers who've lost their lives during this war and who continue to fight in Afghanistan. I might add that the action in Afghanistan is something I can genuinely see the point of, since that's where the terrorists who attacked America were/are based.

And I'm beginning to think that the 'Old America' thinking you seem to be promoting is going to get my son killed in the future.

I think it was very nice of the British to help out in Afghanistan and very stupid of them to help us in Iraq. Personally, if our positions were reversed, I would have had no problem with an American president contributing a small portion of the forces in Afghanistan. Heck, we did it in the Balkans. But if Blair had made the arguments that Bush had made and asked us to back a British invasion of Iraq, I'd like to think any US president other than GWB would have been smart enough to decline.

Sometimes I think there should be an IgNobel prize, a kind of anti-Nobel prize similar to the Razzies versus the Oscars. Someplace to recognize the truly worst accomplishments in politics, arts, science, etc.

I have a few suggestions for charter recipients.

Not all of Berkeley agrees with the city council.

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?

Or rather, how can it possibly be wrong for the Free to kill the Unfree?

Shush gal, the battle royale is about to begin

What if we apply the Bobby McGee Principle, IE that freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose?

Or...is it possible that if freedom killing unfreedom is wrong, we don't wanna be right?

Because...it hurts so good?

It's a hard habit to break?

Freedom, I can't quit you.

And this from some tax doging pussy who couldn't hack it in the military, more than likely you got your ass kicked out anyway.. Good stuff, carry on. :rattat: HA!

I propose that this execution of an isolationist stance is not relevant to our times, because of the way the economy works. Resources, which represent our interests, aren't geographically located within our borders, so therefore protecting our own interests within our borders means doing some work outside our borders.

Something like "lining our troops up around our borders" would now be more like "lining up our troops around the oil fields in the middle east" which is...what we're doing isn't it? More accurately, establishing a military presence in the region.

Except we would never admit that. Instead we talk about "spreading freedom" and other such nonsense that we really don't give a crap about, or else we'd be doing it in the places where it's really needed most. Instead, we're doing it where our own interests lie, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Except we're too dishonest to admit it, and prefer to lie to ourselves about the reasons for war.

People don't support the war because they don't like being lied to, and they're not stupid.

No one doubts the presence of any of the overseas bases are to project power for our national interests, including preserving the free flow of oil. The sooner we break the bondage from oil the sooner we can worry less about oil.

I'm not talking about established military outposts, I'm talking about having our whole damn military stationed over there...indefinitely (???)

There's been a long list of bullshit reasons to be in Iraq, each one has been thoroughly shot down, only to be replaced by a more ridiculous flim-flam reason. At this point, we're down to pure idealistic fantasies. Yet, a good, valid reason is staring us right in the face...

Why has not one person had the balls to say we're there to be close to the oil our economy depends on?

A mental midget like you are in no position to judge the intellect of his intellectual superiors like me.

How hilarious that a shitbird like you who has absolutely zero understanding of the Constitution would question someone like me who knows it better than any Supreme Court Justice in the last century.

The war in Iraq is 100% unconstitutional. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, a complete idiot, or an asshole. This includes you.

I have proven many times the unconstitutionality of this war.

1. The U.S. Constitution defines the scope of our military as being a DEFENSIVE one. This means America doesn't start wars or attack first. It means all "pre-emptive" military action is unconstitutional.

2. Only Congress has war making powers and only when it is in the defense of American ships or soil and then only when a formal declaration of war is made and voted upon by Congress.

3. Congress does not have the authority to distribute its powers to other branches of government so it may not "authorize" the president to make war.

4. The invasion of Iraq was not in the defense of America in 1991, in 2002, or at any time in history. Iraq never posed even the slightest threat to America.

5. The war powers act is unconstitutional in its face and the Supreme Court itself said that all laws which contradict the Constitution are automatically null and void without the requirement of judicial review.

6. Each and every single war that the United States has entered into in which America was not defending American soil or ships is unconstitutional. Each and every single war the United States has entered into where a formal declaration of war was not made by CONGRESS, is unconstitutional.

I've stated these indisputable facts many times over. You are just too stupid to read them or too dishonest or morally bankrupt to admit they are true.

Dont' ever try to take the moral or intellectual high ground with me. You will lose every time.

You ask "How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?" The question itself proves your ignorance and I'm not just talking about your use of a fictional word.

Freedom doesn't kill anything. Freedom is about living the way you want to live your life without being molested, forced, coerced, or cajoled into doing what others want you to do. Democracy and freedom are not synonymous .

America's authority ends at our own borders. Neither America, nor the UN has any authority whatsoever to tell another country what weapons it may or may not develop or what system of government it will or won't have. America isn't here to "liberate" the people of other nations or to practice nation building. America's military is for the sole use of defending America.

America's military is here to be a DEFENSIVE force to be used when we are attacked and not otherwise. It's not here to be spread out all over the globe like the Roman Empire bullying other nations or sticking our noses into the disputes of other nations. It's not here for humanitarian aid or peacekeeping missions. It's not here to overthrow or prop up dictators or to spread democracy. It's not even here to kill "unfreedom".

Anyone who would use the U.S. military for any of these reasons is a traitor and an idiot.

This is not an isolationist stance. It's a military non-interventionist stance, and they are not the same thing. We defend ourselves, and we trade freely with other nations. We do not get involved in their political affairs or disputes with other nations.

This works in real life. Switzerland has been surrounded by war for hundreds of years and hasn't been in one for 150. It remains neutral in all disputes. It has a very strong defense. It doesn't go around sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. They are very happy and successful for this stance. This was also America's stance until WWI.

I see the candyassed pussy who couldn't hack it in a ring with me for a minute is running his mouth again. I served with honor and I got an honorable discharge when I was done because I realized the military has too many morons and I could make a lot more money outside the military. I'm making more than 80% of Generals currently serving in the military.

I don't appreciate taking orders from idiots so after my term was done, I got out and went to college, and now I'm the one giving orders. Luckily for those who work for me, they don't have to deal with taking orders from an idiot.

Okay, I used the wrong word. The difference in the two things we're describing is: the specific (stated) reason why the troops are there. Which is highly debatable. We're framing it differently, but as a practical matter the results are the same.

I'm saying there may be a good reason for us to be over there, but, mysteriously we are silent on that point.

As a result, we've barrelled into a war with no hope of sustained political support.

All one needs to avoid military conflict is to become a mountainous nation with few natural resources (that's the hard part), and give the entire nation high-powered rifles and train them to be snipers (the easy part).

Hee hee.

True, but you continue to repeat lies. Also, one can hardly expect to persuade those who are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt and whose minds (what little they have) are not open to be persuaded.

In other words, you can't persuade a rock, or those who have the intellect and/or stubbornness of one.

Or...bankroll the Nazis and Fascists.

Which Switzerland did not do. They were neutral in the disputes surrounding them and allowed the Germans to put the art and valuables they had (from whatever source) to be stored in the bank.

Also, America is harder to attack than Switzerland. They are surrounded by other nations and America has an ocean on either side and only 2 nations bordering ours.

Oh they didn't bankroll, they just stored what the Nazis and Faciscts have stolen, and intend to keep the stuff after the Nazis died off, if it weren't for that pesky guard. I got it.

As I said, they remain neutral. There is no moral ambiguity or wrong in doing this. The reward is in never having to fight a war that you don't belong in....like Iraq.

Switzerland didn't judge the actions of other nations or get involved in their disputes. If someone brought money or art, or something valuable and wants to store it in their bank, they assumed it was gotten legitimately. If it wasn't, the blame is on the person who stole it, not the person who stored it.

Also, banks in America do the same thing. If you die, and nobody comes forward to collect your money, after a certain period of time, the bank gets to keep it. I highly doubt banks leave accounts open that have had no activity for 50 years.

No officer I didn't think anything was wrong with letting some random guy hide a stolen Ferrari in my garage so no one would know. Honest! I didn't steal it, i just helped the guy who did! I'm neutral!

ac·com·plice -noun: a person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing

That sure placated the Jews. No, it didn't. They sued for their forebears' things.

America was attacked.

You can't imagine a war where a nation had to cross an ocean to attack and was successful? Cause that's half of them recently, starting with WW2. You can't imagine asymmetric warfare being an issue?

From what I can tell, Switzerland wasn't attacked because

A) its only strategy was defense, which was made possible by geography (a limited number of passable chokepoints) and the enlistment of 20% of its population into the army;

B) its economic concessions to Germany (why concentrate on taking it when it's giving you all you need anyway?), and

C) its basic aversion to nazism and distrust of the Germans made it a harder pill to swallow.

Hitler would have gotten back to Switzerland. He just moved it down the list and then his list got tore up before he could finish it.

No, it's more like this....

ME: "Yes officer, that person stored a Ferrari in my garage. He paid to store it there."

COP: "Didn't you think it might be stolen?"

ME: "I didn't ask. That's none of my business. If he stole it, he is the one who must deal with the authorities, not me."

Sir, these gentlemen are telling me that they did see a sign on your garage that said "Stolen Ferrari Storage" ...

Nice.

That's the only scene in any movie where I'm not completely disgusted by Quentin Tarantino's acting. Still one of my favorite films of all time.

Me too, Radar.

Switzerland is more open to bombing (WWII) and terrorism (9-11) than the US is. It is within much closer range of many more countries, and has borders (with more countries) that are at least as open.

Their biggest defense is their foreign policy.

If what's not true? Do you think that my narrative is that the Swiss are so good that nothing bad will ever happen to them?

Nothing can prevent all terrorism, but foreign policy is much more important than mountains and military size.

Exactly. And those who are looking to make attacks in Switzerland, aren't trying to attack the Swiss. They are trying to attack Jews who keep their money or diamonds in Switzerland. Although Jihadists tend to be willing to kill hundreds or even thousands of others as long as they get the few they wanted. They don't hold a high value on human life as a rule.

So Switzerland is getting it from both Muslims and Jews. I almost feel sorry for them. Not.