Uh, then your belief is that we can only do one thing at once??

Not at all.  But certainly, we do have limited resources.  Quite clearly, the National Guard, for example, has fewer resources in the US right now because so many of their assets are in Iraq.

But that's not the main point.

The main point is the complete logical disconnect of the statement "they will follow us home."  It's not like Al Qaeda guys in, say, Saudi Arabia who want to harm us in the US, don't know how to get to the US and harm us.  And it's not like our presence in Iraq stops them from coming here.

But were they terrorists when they followed us home Jim?

Your question is a nice ploy, and really is so rhetorical that you probably didn't ask it expecting an answer. Let me surprise you.

If you read my comment you would know the answer is, no. But that isn't what's important. It is what they  become, and not all, just some. And not just here, but globally. The real question is how many and their dedication. Will they be fellow travelers that just support by accepting the claims of the activists involved in politics designed to force Sharia law on the west (See France, see Neatherlands, see Denmark, see Minneapolis, see cartoon riots, see Koran riots....)through protests and politcal pressure, or will they become full fledged terrorists ready to attack and die?

So in a global sense, it is about perceived power. Except for Israel the ME has no history of democracy, but a long history of dictators, usually maintained by terror against the citizens.

I speak of the ME, but it is actually a human condition. People are attracked to power and support leaders who they think can help them, and who can hurt them. If we look weak, the terrorists will look stronger.

If we follow your plan, the true DEBACLE will follow as the various terrorist organizations sort out their issues, and then loosely cooperate in continuing their attacks against the west. The time frame is not specific, but it is real.

You see this as a single issue. I see it on a larger scale. You see it as next month. I see it as ten years from now. You see it as a means to return power to the Democrats. I see it as a conflict that should be outside politics.

You speak of liberals. I don't see liberals. I see Democratic politicans seeking to use a group as their base. I see people who are borderline anarchists, pacifists, libertarian left and, strangely, or at least to me, anti-Israel in their anti-war attacks. In their anger they shout down the opposition when they can, and as Edger said:

Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

I find it humorous that these two commentators who supposedly  treasure debate, dissent and protest are the authors of such statements.

You say that dissent is democracy. That is true. But I say that after debate and after dissent we have elections and should move forward based on what we have collectively decided. That is the essence of a Republic. For it to work, rights must be coupled with responsibility. The individual must agree to accept the group decision or else we  have anarchy. And while anarchists shout power to the people, their destruction of the existing structures usually lead to dictatorships.

You speak of facts, and blame the Right. I see little respect for "facts" from either side. (See Squeaky's comment.) The one thing I treasure about the Internet is that it is full of "facts." Some of them are actually true.

Finally, you close with:

But that should not be the end of the debate. But these acknowledgements are important beginnings.

You opened with a rhetorical questioned designed to place me into the position of answering a question that is essentially meaningless. You close with a statement that seeks to establish the framework of the debate.

As I did at your beginning, I reject your closing. The debate must support not only why, or why not we should leave Iraq, but what will be the resuts of our doing so on a global basis.

I doubt that anyone incompetent has a chance of becoming president, unless they are so unbelieveably stupid that they really can be just a hand puppet.

It think it would show publicly more than it does, and I doubt he'd be able to carry off his deceptive 'just a dumb good ole boy' act if he was that stupid.

Bush is a clown definitely, but I think stupid clown is a simplification.

Owning the World - The Great Illusion:

In the sixties and seventies, a group of right-wingers in the United States formed a society of vindictive and power hungry men who thought they could reinvent reality. Initially they received little notice and operated inside the American Enterprise Institute; that think tank became the womb for these megalomaniacs and their monstrous ambition of remaking the world. Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz were among them and the movement was to turn into a preposterous beast...

The clown didn't have to do anything other than smirk and occasionally lift his hand in a fist; they knew that would be enough to impress the world and, in particular, the American people. Oh yes, and he would pretend to be one of the people, just like your cousin Dave or your next-door neighbor.

Joshua Muravchik, American Enterprise Institute:

We got lucky with Reagan. He took the path we wanted, and the policies succeeded brilliantly. He left office highly popular. Bush is a different story. He, too, took the path we wanted, but the policies are achieving uncertain success. His popularity has plummeted. It would be pigheaded not to reflect and rethink.

But we ought to do this without backbiting or abandoning Bush. All policies are perfect on paper, none in execution. All politicians are, well, politicians. Bush has embraced so much of what we believe that it would be silly to begrudge his deviations.

Absolutely convinced we possess the right to pursue our "happiness" and "security", regardless of the cost to the Earth and the rest of its sentient inhabitants, we US Americans are in a race to hoard the most toys, to eat the most food, to have the most orgasms, to be the best looking, and to be the biggest winners as we engage in a repugnant orgy of narcissistic and gluttonous hedonism.

We wage war perpetually, strip the world bare like a swarm of locusts, and give virtually nothing in return. Ensuring our "happiness" and "security" extracts a tremendous price from the rest of the Earth.

Since it rose to military and economic hegemony at the close of World War II, the United States, its proxies, an array of US-installed ruthless reactionary tyrants, and the World Bank have worked in concert to slaughter, torture, and impoverish untold millions of human beings in the "developing world" in an endless quest to satiate our plutocracy's insatiable thirst for power and treasure.

Bush, his henchmen, and their multitude of war crimes are not anomalies.

As I noted, I give you France, Denmark, Netherlands,  the cartoon riots, the Koran riots, taxi cabs in Minneapolis, pork and checkout clerks in Minneapolis, footwashing basins in Minneapolis, El Al ticket counter attacks, 9/11, WTC I, etc., etc.

Plus, I give you OBL's own words from this March '97 interview...

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

OBL....So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

Now you may want to quibble over the meaning of the "aggressive intervention," but I ask you. What were we doing from 3/97 onward that triggered the various attacks.. USS Cole... the attempt on LAX...9/11...

In fact he means simply that we must not try and stop any Muslim from doing what they want, especially in the context of Sharia law vs secular law. And Sharia definitely controls cultural aspects of life.

On that basis your attempt to cherry pick where the enemy is at is utter nonsense.

Mostly because of refuting idiocy hundreds of time and seeing the continually repeated same things brought up time and again, as if they had never been discussed. And seeing repeated, not simple ignorance, but wilful ignorance and simple pretending from them that their 'points' had never been answered or even raised before. As soon as I see those things I switch to rhetorical search and destroy mode.

Marginalizing the segment of the right that does those things really is all I am after, now. It's a kind of weeding out process to find the ones that have enough on the ball to have understand fact and value reasoning and carry on an intelligent discussion.