Donald Sensing thinks that there's only one issue in this election.

Despite how pathetic the Republicans are on most other issues*, I agree.

On terrorism, novelist Roger L. Simon quoted Leon Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” So to all the sleepwalkers out there, or those who simply swim in the Egyptian river about the nature of Islamism and its jihadis, undertand this: You may not be interested in al Qaeda, but al Qaeda is interested in you.

No, not me? you reply. Not me, I’m a peace-loving, non-iedological, live-and-let-live, hyper-tolerant citizen of the world, they don’t hate me or wish me ill!

But are you Muslim? More accurately, are you a radicalized, reactionary Muslim? Because Islamists who bomb and murder don’t care about your gentle, organic-foods lifestyle and your self-congratulatory tolerance culture or your identity politics and they don’t care whether you think Muslims are oppressed or misunderstood or whether you think that Islam itself is the paradigm of religious practice, if religion must be practiced at all. They don’t care whether you oppose the Religious Right, what candidates you vote for or the kind of car you drive.

*and yet, there will always be anonymous moron trolls in comments who claim that I'm a "Republican stooge."

Simple Question Simberg.

How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi?
How many were Indonesian? How many were
Sudanese? How many were Saudi's?

Next question. What connection did Iraq have to 9/11?
Please cite any source other then that pimple Mylorie
in your answer. I've had to breathe the same air as her,
it was more then i ever wish to do again.

I'm not going to answer your idiotic and irrelevant questions, Anonymous Moron, other than with a question of my own. What did the Tunisians have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Not sure what Donald Sensing thinks, but I think there's something wrong with the post in IE...

Simberg want's the US to invade Iraq, to
Invade Iran and to Invade Iran, meanwhile,
Saudi Arabia home to the Wehabist movement
of radical islam is left alone

there will always be anonymous moron trolls in comments who claim that I'm a "Republican stooge."

I have to agree that it's off the mark. You have taken in so much Republican ideology that you are disgusted that the Republicans don't go far enough. You're not a Republican just like Noam Chom.sky isn't a Democrat.

Oh, goodie. Another troll. Well, at least this one attaches his (or at least a) name to his graffiti.

> What connection did Iraq have to 9/11?
OK, I'll bite.

First, consider the government that carried out 9/11. (al Qaeda was officially part of the Taliban's Ministry of Defence. They provided the backbone of the Taliban - foreign fighters from arab countries. Bin Laden was married to the daughter of Mullah Omar - the leader of the Taliban - in a land where blood ties are *everything*. In return they got safe haven, money from the opium crops etc.)

This government was not merely calling for the destruction of Western countries, they were backing it up by carrying out bombings and supporting other that did the same.

In return, the US supplied 80% of thier aid, and tried to be friends.

Now, look at Saddam's Iraq. He was openly calling for the destruction of the US and other countries. He was openly supporting bombings in other countries. Carry a bomb onto a bus in Israel, and Saddam would send your family some money (to pass on to your fellow bombers.) He provided safe haven to Abu Nidal and other terrorists. He had invaded two countries and launched missiles at another.

9/11 taught the US to take calls for it's destruction seriously, when the calls come from governments - governments with terrorist connections, and with a history of backing up such calls with action. And this describes Iraq.

Mr Strong:

So let's get this right. We invaded Iraq, because they
don't like us, reward people who blow up Israeli's,
and had been to war with his neighbors.

Is that Simberg's reasoning as well?

Anonymous:
If it were merely that, it wouldn't be enough justification for invasion.

Add:
a) They call for OUR (*1) destruction.
b) They have a history of bombing countries who's destruction they call for.
c) One of those countries they're bombing is an ally. (The importance of this is directly proportional to your sense of honor.)
d) They've given to safe haven to terrorists (Abu Nidal, etc.) who have murdered Americans.

Etc., etc. As Afghanistan proved on 9/11, when a government does all that, you can't ignore them and you can't appease them.

*1: Actually I'm Canadian, but this still applies.

Mr Strong:

1) How many countries have had leadership who have called for
our destruction?

2) How many countries have a history of bombing their neighbors?

3) How much of an Ally is Israel?

Is "anonymous" arguing that the US can't do anything about anyone who advocates its destruction unless it does something about everyone who advocates its destruction?

Or, is he just quibbling about the order in which we're doing something?

Iraq wasn't much different from the Soviets who were
calling for our destruction between 1925-1990,
who had invaded their neighbors and had the total capability
to make war on us.

Iraq wasn't much different from China who called for our
destruction, had invaded their neighbors, and had the
capabilit to make war on us.

Iraq wasn't much different from most of the middle east.

The approach to handling the russians and chinese was
vigours pursuit of regional alliances, strong engaged
diplomacy, insightful intelligence, detente and containment.

The neocon's decided to launch a war in Iraq, with
a wild misunderstanding of what war is capable of,
and what war costs, for reasons that were poorly thought out,
and now they are discovering the army is badly strained,
the middle east is on fire, and oil prices are significantly
higher.

if we want to fight terrorism, or islamic radicals, it's a
long slow, knife fight in the dark, with much patience and
much skill. mass bombing is highly ineffective, just ask the
israeli's.

meanwhile china is building up to a real security challenge,
and instead of taking a decade to prepare for this,
we will find ourselves in 2009, with an aggressive asian
power, a damaged military, and a bankrupt treasury.

I'd really like to know what the neocon's will be saying then.

anonymous:
1) Plenty, I'm sure. But the number of countries with a recent history of following through on such threats with attacks is far less.

2) Plenty. But that was only my point b) in my list of criteria, above. Add a), c) and d), and you're pretty much limited to Afghanistan and Iraq, with Iran being the closest next contender.

3) More than any country in the region. More than the majority of countries on the planet. How are they NOT an ally? (And take note: There's a difference between being an ally and a puppet state.)

Everyone run for your lives! There's a terrorist behind every bush! And remember only terrorists vote Democrat. You're not a terrorist are you??

2) you're pretty much limited to Afghanistan and Iraq, with Iran being the closest next contender.

Roger, what's your opinion of North Korea?

My understanding is that the citizenry (through control of Dear Leader) still believes a state of war exists with the US (in many ways it does, since a ceasefire is not a peace treaty). The nuclear test is alarming, but really is just another sign of their continuing attempt to build up a force powerful enough to force conditions on the US. IMHO, the real aggression is shown with the launching of missiles over foreign territories without adequate warning and with the stated intention of testing range to target (target being the country the missile flies over).

Leland,
His missile launch direction is dictated by geography - I doubt the US would have hesitated to do the same, if they were in the same position. After initial complaints about Sputnik overflying US territory, the US launched it's own satellites, including military satellites. (Not quite the same thing, but Korea could claim it was a failed launch to orbit.) (Didn't they make the dubious claim that it was a *successful* launch to orbit?)

One could also claim that any country has the same right to have thermonukes that the US has. Even (sadly) the ones ruled by dangerous crackpots. Would the US have signed the NNPT *before* it had nuclear weapons, if other countries had them?

The difference between Afghanistan and North Korea is that while Dear Leader treats the US as an wartime enemy, he hasn't followed it up with attacks, even by proxy. (Japan has far more cause for complaint, but they haven't asked for major US military help.)

On the other hand....

Wars have often been used by dictators and wanna-be dictators to get the population to rally around them. I don't think that Dear Leader would hesitate for a second to do this.

Nor do I believe that he'd hesitate to sell thermonukes to anyone with money. His missile program seems to be more for retail purposes than security - selling them to Iran, etc.

Alas, there's a difference between what he MIGHT do and what he HAS done. You know damn well he's dangerous, but until he does something it would be hard to defend a preemptive attack in court.