[Austin Willard Wright]

I supported the Afghan war which was in the fine and honorable American tradition of national defense. If emulating Tojo is your idea of being "modern," count me out.

The war against Al Qaeda should be fought but what in God's name does that have to do with a campaign to conquer and occupy a country run by a secularist, wannabe Mussolini (who spurns Islamic law) have to do with that goal? Your national defense arguments ring allow. This war is being waged for a mixture of Wilsonian goals and regional goals which have nothing to do with home defense and everything to do with spreading ourselves thin.

World policing in Iraq is hopelessly utopian and unrealistic as the sad list of failures in international social engineering demonstrate: Kosovo, Somalia, Gulf War I, Haiti, etc.....but nothing seems to succeed like failure eh?

Instead of being "modern," your proposal takes us back to outmoded policies of the Cold War.

[VaBthang4]

Huh?

You open with...

"I supported the Afghan war which was in the fine and honorable American tradition of national defense."

And close with...

"Instead of being "modern," your proposal takes us back to outmoded policies of the Cold War."

???

The Cold War is a supreme example of American National Defense.

Are you positive that you're competent in what you're talking about?

[kidd]

Your entire reply does not make any sense. Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify it for me.

1) How is cutting off the financing and weapons of terrorists an emulation of Tojo?

2) How is cutting off the financing and weapons of terrorists Wilsonian?

3) While I agree that Kosovo, Somalia and Haiti are social engineering failures, why do you think that the Gulf War was social engineering and do you believe it was a failure?

4) I'm suggesting that pro-active strikes are the most effective mode of combating terrorism. The Cold War was a series of re-active strikes as a method of containing communism. How in the world do you equate the two?