Replies

Other factions of the Right wish to close the borders to all, remove the Akbars in the intelligence and military services, and punish the incompetents who allowed 9/11 to happen.

I agree with this. That is part that must be done too. The fact that its not, is wrong.

Our argument with you is more on the scope of US engagement in the world. In my turn, I believe that you misinterpret Pipes, Harris and Co (I'd include there at least Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn). Again, the fact that actions you listed are not getting done inside of US, do not negate the fact that outside actions are finally (!!) getting handled better (at least from my point of view). The Framers did an unbelievable job of setting up this country. They combined idealism (all men are created equal...) with pragmatism. I think its an unrealistic to suspect that Founders, the most talented group of politicians ever combined together with single purpose, would not apply their wisdom to the world as it is now. The world today is much smaller thanks to advances in communications, transportation and so on. Weapons exist that can do in small quantities damage unthinkable 200+ years ago. I can't pretend to know what exactly they would proscribe, but I can't believe they would not see the dangers that do exist outside of our borders, that must be dealt with, well, outside of our borders.

Allow rogue states to continue developing nasty weapons is dangerous.

Not realizing that such rogue states are supporting fanatical groups willing to do previously unthinkable deeds (and quite possible without leaving a trace of responsibility) is dangerous.

Not realizing that current technologies combined with openness that is essential for democracies function provides these fanatical groups with means to do unthinkable harm is dangerous.

Not projecting strength is dangerous.

Allow the vacuum of power in the world to be grabbed by hostile forces is dangerous.

So, what is your solution in dealing with these dangers, or do you think I cooked them up just for the argument's sake?

First, you use 'our' to your discredit unless Pipes is a friend of yours our at least an acquaintance.

Second, boiled down, and no one seems to be disputing this, Pipes analysis is support of Mssr.Harris theory that we should 'become more like them.'

You present your case in rational or pragmatic terms, while ignoring the clear absurdity of Pipes article (as many did as well.)

VDH thought Serbia was a threat to the United States so I am not sure I can take him seriously, though granted he is a public and powerful intellectual.

"Weapons exist that can do in small quantities damage unthinkable 200+ years ago."

The Left uses the same argument in regards to judicial activism, but you seem to be aware you are debating from a center right position. That said, if you cannot see that Daniel Pipes is to the extreme Right of you, than their is a sickness in your school of thought-- fanaticism.