Jose wrote:
But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

In short (but mindful that real life is never this simple),

When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend ourselves,
to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation attacks our
allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according to the terms of
our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in exchange presumably
they would do the same or some equivalent for us.

When a nation attacks a non-allied nation, we have no moral obligation
to send our children to risk their lives in something that is none of
our business. In fact, we have an obligation to stay out of it.

In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were attacked
by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and moral
obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other countries
just because they "look the same", nor do we have the right to use this
attack as an excuse to the American People to wage war on other
countries not involved.


Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?


Hitler and his allies attacked us (with Japan as the proxy).

Saddam did not. (at least not since 9-11)


Apparently a lot of people believe he did by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

There is a difference between an attack, a threat of attack, and a
threat of threat of attack. Blurring the line risks turning us into the
very demon we claim to fight. It must be done with extreme caution,
because there is no hindsight, and I don't trust our politicians to have
foresight.


Is it just Republican politicians that you do not trust, or do you not
trust any of them?

Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons?

No. But our inaction may not cause it to happen. In fact, our =action=
may hasten it. We are dealing with a differnet kind of enemy.


Well, Iran's president is a Holocaust-denying politician (do you trust
him more than your own politicians?) who has publicly stated on the
floor of the United Nations that he believes it his personal
responsibility to bring about Armageddon. He wants Israel, our ally,
destroyed. He has sent supplies, men, arms, and money to people who use
them to attack our soldiers. By these criteria he has attacked both us
and our allies. Would you suggest attacking him? Or would you wait for
him to acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on Jerusalem or Berlin
before attacking him?

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?


What do
you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
finally stop the killing and find peace?

I don't think they can be appeased. Nor can they be destroyed.


So we just cave into their demands?

I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions...

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.


Obviously. Are you saying that your own philosophy has painted you into
a logical corner?