RoR: Forum

Isolationists think it's never in our interests to use our military outside of American soil unless American soil is directly attacked.

-- I tend to agree with them. I don't believe in simply aiding another nation on whim and fancy. --

I would hardly call that a waste of money or a needless alliance (have you seen how close together these countries in Europe are? If one is attacked the whole continent suffers). If that alliance is needless, why do you think that? Is our military itself needless because no one poses a credible threat of taking and occupying American soil?

-- Then why don't they pay for the majority of the installations? We pay for our bases and listening posts. --

But I'm not sure how you would propose the Iraqi people depose a dictator who has a military that has squashed all freedom in that country and has turned it into a prison? How do the Iraqis in this condition depose Saddam?

-- How did we depose Parliement? We fought and were lucky enough to win on certain gambles. We did have allies such as Spain and France, but I don't believe either gave us boots on the ground to 'liberate' us, we fought and won our own independence on our own effort. --

That's simply not true.

-- The evidence is sparse and questionable at best. --

I would suggest reading Christopher Hitchens for that.

-- I'll read what the experts in weapons development have to say instead. --

Post 41

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 8:39am

Steve: �But, I'll tell you what, lets propose that we enter into arrangements with nations where they agree to let the soil under American owned factories be treated for purposes of jurisdiction AS American [�] we get our sovereignty extended in a legitimate fashion, through an alliance that lets us treat that AS American soil for purposes of jurisdiction and then any attempt to take it over would be a case of self-defense to defend - moral justification of military force.�

OK, sounds good to me. Our embassy in Iran fits the above criteria. Since the Iranians took it over in 1979, we have a case of self-defense since our soil was invaded�and moral justification for war against the Iranian regime.

Post 42

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 9:13am

Jon,

I agree.

Carter was wrong not to push harder - much, much harder. That was an attack on America. Not just because it was technically American soil, but it was the representative of our government in such a clear way that I can't see it as anything less than a declaration of war by Iran.

I suspect they saw a weakness in Carter and played it. As people have pointed out, they quickly turned around when Reagan came into office.

Post 43

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 9:17am

Bridgett said:

Plus, on the Iraq invasion itself, why didn't we just let those people depose Saddam themselves? Sure, he was a monster, no doubt, but is it our moral 'duty' to fight others battles?

No one has ever suggested it is our moral duty to fight other's battles. It is only when it is in our long term rational self interest that we should assist an ally in fighting a common enemy. It is the isolationist that insist we should NEVER assist an ally in fighting a common enemy, even when it is in our on self interest.

The last time I checked Saddam had no WMDs per the reports given,

Knowledge which required an invasion for certainty, which means you can't use that as proof that the invasion was unecessary. The certainty would have never resulted. Regardless, Saddam had hundreds of thousands of tons of biological and chemical weapons which he had repeatedly used in the past. The fact that they are now MISSING is of great concern. You should not trumpet this as a great thing proving the foolishness of the US led invasion, we, and the entire world, knows he had them, he used them, and we gave most of them to him in the first place. I seriously doubt Saddam grew a concsience and destroyed them, so the fact that they are gone is troubling.

and all claims to either him having the components for WMDs or supposedly funding a terrorist organization were found to be fraudulent.

Completely un true, he did try to acquire enriched uranium from nigeria in previous instances, it was only the latest instance which was found fradulent. Saddam routinely paid cash tributes to hamas and hezbollah, and would reward the families of suicide victims.

In the end, any attempt to justify the Iraq invasion is hypocritical and nonsensical.

In the end, burying our head in the sand and letting a murderous tyrant use one of the worlds largest energy supplies for murder and tyranny, to breed and fund murderous terrorism, and to play machivallian power games with nations full of people, and to start wars and promulgate instability in an age of nuclear and biological terrorism is naively stupid and suicidal.

I think in this regard, your definition of interventionism and isolationism are pretty weak in that they're not rigorously defined as total isolationism or total interventionism

Talk about nonsensical, so you think instead of making a judgement call about the benefits and costs of a particular engagement, we should ALWAYS be COMPLETELY isolationist or ALWAYS INTERVENE (in everything?)

For me, I do believe in avoiding alliances with nations of the military sort when they are unneeded, ... And there better be a damn good reason to make a military alliance with some other nation

We completely agree then, I have perpetually advocated alliances only be formed when they are in our long term rational self interest, non sacrificial, and / or in defense of a common enemy with an ally who shares many of our values.

In 1967, a dozen nations of the middle east all banded together and invaded Israel. Israel was on the verge of complete destruction until Nixon airlifted 500,000 tons of military supplies. That would have been paid for by *your* tax dollars if you were alive. Obviously current military aide to Israel is paid for partly by your taxes.

Do you think we should have let Israel, the only representative democracy in the middle east, a clear ally with shared values, and our frontline defense against murderous anti-west terrorism, fall to a sea of murderous arab tyrannies who routinly murder and imprison hundreds of thousands of their own people, whose political power struggeles waver between meniacal tyrants and religious zealots who wish to conver the world forcibly to islam, and, who, incidently would put you to death without a moments hesistation.

I don't believe in simply aiding another nation on whim and fancy.

Nor do we, who are you arguing against, our position, or what you think our position might be after 5 seconds of thought?

-- How did we depose Parliement? We fought and were lucky enough to win on certain gambles. We did have allies such as Spain and France, but I don't believe either gave us boots on the ground to 'liberate' us, we fought and won our own independence on our own effort.

Ever heard of Lafayette!?! Your understanding of American history is shallow. There is absolutely no way we could have won the revolutionary war without France's assistance.

From Wikipedia

The Siege of Yorktown or Battle of Yorktown in 1781 was a decisive victory by a combined assault of American forces led by General George Washington and French forces led by General Comte de Rochambeau over a British Army commanded by General Lord Cornwallis. It proved to be the last major land battle of the American Revolutionary War, as the surrender of Cornwallis�s army (the second major surrender of the war) prompted the British government to eventually negotiate an end to the conflict.

The Battle of the Chesapeake, also known as the Battle of the Virginia Capes or simply the Battle of the Capes, was a crucial naval battle in the American Revolutionary War which took place near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay on September 5, 1781, between a British fleet led by Rear-Admiral Sir Thomas Graves and a French fleet led by Rear-Admiral the Comte de Grasse. It was, in strategic terms, a major defeat for the Royal Navy.

The Battle of Ushant (or First Battle of Ushant) took place on July 27, 1778, during the American War of Independence, fought between French and British fleets 100 miles (160 km) west of Ushant, a French island at the mouth of the English Channel off the north-westernmost point of France.

The French intervention was initially maritime in nature and indecisive but was turned absolute when in 1780, 6,000 soldiers of Rochambeau were sent to America. In 1779, 6,000 French had already faced 3,000 British in the Battle of Savannah, but the French attack was too precipitated and badly prepared, which led to its eventual failure. ... Cornwallis was trapped between American and French forces on land and the French fleet on the sea. The French alliance was crucial in the decisive victory of the Patriots at Yorktown (October 17, 1781), which could not have been achieved if not for the French Navy under Admiral Fran�ois Joseph Paul de Grasse

About 90% of the gunpowder used by American forces in the first 2 years of the war was from France. Indeed a tremendous amount of the supplies and arms came from France. The battle of Yorktown had more French 'boots' on the ground than American. Without Frances participation we would not have won the revolutionary war.

Post 44

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:40am

Bridget:

We did have allies such as Spain and France, but I don't believe either gave us boots on the ground to 'liberate' us, we fought and won our own independence on our own effort. --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown

Come back and post on this thread after you've picked up a book on American history.

Post 45

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 11:12am

Regardless, Saddam had hundreds of thousands of tons of biological and chemical weapons which he had repeatedly used in the past. The fact that they are now MISSING is of great concern.

-- Yet, many experts on such weapons have concluded the vast majority of the stockpile was created in the late 1980s, which means they're innert at this time. --

Completely un true, he did try to acquire enriched uranium from nigeria in previous instances, it was only the latest instance which was found fradulent.

-- The Nigerian Yellowcake report was proven false if I remember correctly. --

Saddam routinely paid cash tributes to hamas and hezbollah, and would reward the families of suicide victims.

-- There's one thing you should know, tyrants boast to cover their impotencies. --

In the end, burying our head in the sand and letting a murderous tyrant use one of the worlds largest energy supplies...

-- Actually, there's probably more fossil fuels off the Gulf of Mexico than there is in Iraq. Take the gloves off oil exploration , then you'll have more oil closer to home with relatively more friendly neighbors to suffer. --

Talk about nonsensical, so you think instead of making a judgement call about the benefits and costs of a particular engagement, we should ALWAYS be COMPLETELY isolationist or ALWAYS INTERVENE (in everything?)

-- It might be nonsensical, but I have to wonder, if it's okay to intervene when it's not a threat to my person, then why is okay to intervene when it is? I'm not trying to goad you, but I'm trying to see what exactly you're selling, because you see the current trend in DC is to shape the course of other nations whether they're beligerent(sp?) or not (especially when they're not). One example of this is our attempts to stop other nations from electing socialists to office such as in the case of Chile. Now, I'm no socialist, but I don't believe in trying to save others from their stupidity. If they want to be idiots and go socialist, let them. One cannot learn until one makes a mistake, yes? If folks like yourself were in DC, I'm betting intervention would go way down and would be codified in a manner that I would even approve. But there's not many folks like you in DC, so until that happens, I want the beast of the State chained down, beaten, and drugged. --

Do you think we should have let Israel, the only representative democracy in the middle east, a clear ally with shared values, and our frontline defense against murderous anti-west terrorism, fall to a sea of murderous arab tyrannies who routinly murder and imprison hundreds of thousands of their own people, whose political power struggeles waver between meniacal tyrants and religious zealots who wish to conver the world forcibly to islam, and, who, incidently would put you to death without a moments hesistation.

-- I don't support any State in any form. --

The Siege of Yorktown or Battle of Yorktown in 1781 was a decisive victory by a combined assault of American forces led by General George Washington and French forces led by General Comte de Rochambeau over a British Army commanded by General Lord Cornwallis. It proved to be the last major land battle of the American Revolutionary War, as the surrender of Cornwallis� army (the second major surrender of the war) prompted the British government to eventually negotiate an end to the conflict.

-- This was largely designed by Washington as part of the Southern campaign in which colonial armed forces engaged the armies in the south to goad them into pursuit. Effectively, this exhausted supplies and forced them into the position at Yorktown when supplies were nearly gone. --

The French intervention was initially maritime in nature and indecisive but was turned absolute when in 1780, 6,000 soldiers of Rochambeau were sent to America. In 1779, 6,000 French had already faced 3,000 British in the Battle of Savannah, but the French attack was too precipitated and badly prepared, which led to its eventual failure. ... Cornwallis was trapped between American and French forces on land and the French fleet on the sea. The French alliance was crucial in the decisive victory of the Patriots at Yorktown (October 17, 1781), which could not have been achieved if not for the French Navy under Admiral Fran�ois Joseph Paul de Grasse

-- Interesting fact, but that doesn't refute my point. Name how many Iraqi regiments were mustered in the deposition of Saddam and the Baathists, and you'll have a point. Otherwise, you're tryin to shoe horn as hard as you can. --

About 90% of the gunpowder used by American forces in the first 2 years of the war was from France. Indeed a tremendous amount of the supplies and arms came from France. The battle of Yorktown had more French 'boots' on the ground than American. Without Frances participation we would not have won the revolutionary war.

-- Then why didn't we do the same for the Iraqi resistance fighters?

Come back and post on this thread after you've picked up a book on American history.

-- I did, it still doesn't show me where the colonials didn't muster their own armies and engage the British regulars more often than not. Show me the Iraqi resistance regulars and their armies. --

--
Edit:

I also would like to point out that the argument from history in any case is pointless in regards to the fact that there will be significant differences either based on logistics or other factors that will make any attempt to 1-to-1 one event to another very weak at best.

For me, treaties of mutual defense are natural among States which share common cause(s), but such treaties should be tempered by the freedom of the citizens to dissolve them should they find the government in power to be unwanted/unneeded. And that it should be the imperative of citizens to limit these treaties and the designs of politicians have for them. As to not restrict them or impede their growth leads to agencies being born with motives unlike that of the citizenry for their own State, and for the given government that is duly elected. Simply put, treaties and alliances should never trump the individual power(s) of the citizenry.

(Edited by Bridget Armozel on 8/19, 11:48am)

Post 46

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 11:58am

Steve's intellectual dishonesty continues:

I point out that the interventionist attack on Iraq had horrendous costs and that the costs should be a consideration, a point also made by Jeff, but John calls that request "emotionalism."

No, your response that "So, 'conditions' related to the UN allow the rationalization for what has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, so that interventionists can attempt to build a democratic republic. I'll keep typing it the ends of my fingers are bloody" is not taking costs into consideration, it's an emotionalist rant because you don't take the benefits into consideration and you evade the context of what those resolutions were, and evading the fact the Middle East is the breeding ground for Islamic terrorism and what the benefit of having a pro-western Iraqi government would mean. You would have us do nothing to depose the shitty dictatorships that help breed this terrorism. You would have us continue an impossible arrangement with Saddam Hussein with a no-fly zone and a corrupt oil for food program. YOU can't look at the costs and evade what the costs of inaction would be or what the benefits of action would be and still be considered honest. The fact is since you emotionally rant about the cost of lives in the absence of any other consideration (like the possibility of more lives lost with inaction) means you are an intellectual fraud.

I point out that Saudi Arabia would be a more logical target after 9/11, which he acknowledged, and that it leaves us with a legitimate reason to question the intervention into Iraq. No response.

When were you calling for an invasion of Saudi Arabia? Because that's news to me. Can I put your name down for a petition for the US to invade Saudi Arabia?

I point out that HIS rationalization for Iraq was that 'conditions' related to the UN made it more logical to target Iraq rather than whoever might have been guilty. No response.

Yes, well when you quote "conditions" and then ignore what those conditions are, I can see how you think that means I make no "response". I've already stated those conditions, you just continue to ignore me.

I point out that the principle of self-defense should be used to determine when to go to war. John responds by saying, "Steve's argument against war in Iraq is because people die. Well no shit sherlock, wars tend to do that. I guess that would mean you are against ALL WARS since people tend to die in them." I am on record all over the place as being favor of war as a moral response when self-defense is the issue. John ignores that.

When you talk about the casualties of going to Iraq while ignoring the benefits of action and the costs of inaction is nothing but emotionalism. It's not a rational assessment of a benefit-cost analysis. Your argument then boils down to "the costs are too high because people died". That is precisely an argument against war because people died. You can't continue to evade that but that is precisely what you mean to say.

John states, "I have continuously argued any foreign policy should take into account a benefit-cost analysis." That's true, but he leaves out two important points - 1) He has yet to actually do that... I mean, come on, John - explain the cost/benefits for Iraq.

I have, go back and re-read my posts.

2) My point has been all along that cost-benefits matter,

Bullshit! You don't think they matter in this case. You only talk about the casualties of the war, not what the benefits of deposing Saddam were or what the costs of inaction would have been.

the moral justification has to start with self-defense. John ignores that and says that I have no integrity or honesty.

Agreed. And it was self-defense. Saddam Hussein organized a plot to assassinate George H. Bush. Saddam Hussein gave money Palestinian jihadists (sorry I guess I got my jihadist organizations confused, big deal, and no it wasn't just a "one time donation"). Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had shown a propensity for aiding terrorists. Saddam Hussein had routinely shot at American aircraft circling the agreed upon no-fly zone. Saddam Hussein if left alone, would've have continued to invade the rest of the Middle East in his quest for a pan-Arab state with himself as dictator over one of the largest oil reserves in the world, with the ability to cripple western economies. Stopping a dictator from having that power is in our self-defense. But no doubt you will ignore everything here, and continue to have an asinine narrowly viewed definition of self-defense that only includes direct attacks on American soil or attacks on commercial ships in international waters.

John keeps using the examples from WW II - what is his problem? I've said again and again that WW II was a justified war because we were attacked.

And I said over and over again that it was because of moronic isolationists like yourselves that allowed the situation to get so bad before taking action. If Europe and America had stood up to Hitler's belligerence early on, do you think we would have experienced the worst war in human history? Do you think we could have avoided an expansion of the Soviet empire? Do you think 6 million Jews would've been saved from Nazi extermination? I mean what sick individual would think taking on Nazi Germany early on and not appeasing him thinks that would have been immoral? You isolationists prove my point. You would have done nothing to stop Hitler or Japan until it gets to the point that death and destruction is so atrociously high. What did you say to that? No response.

John says, "The fact is you obviously support AMERICAN INTERVENTION in DEFENDING TRADE INTERESTS, particularly DEFENDING AMERICAN COMMERCIAL SHIPS FROM PIRACY." Wrong. Read what I wrote. Defense is based upon self-defense not trade interests - read my remarks on fuzzy logic.

You love saying that. What do you call the defense of your trade interests from the initiation of force?

John says, "But now you don't defend an alliance with our economic trading partners in Europe through alliances like NATO, because that's altruism, and not the self-defense of American businessmen having a relationship with them." I said again and again that I don't support continuing with NATO or expanding it because it doesn't rest on rational self-interest or self-defense -

And this is the moronic view of the isolationist. NATO is helping us in Afghanistan. NATO as an organization of free democratic republics is a pooling of military resources, just as the 50 states of this country pools its resources for a military. NATO provides for a strong defense in response to what is the reality of having limited resources. NATO is what PROJECTS a strong defense against tyrants.

we are no longer in a cold war (but I'm sure John can get us into if his policies are pursued)

I'm sure if your moronic isolationist policies of pulling out of NATO were pursued we would become weak cowards in the eyes of our enemies and embolden them to attack and risk another world war (like your moronic isolationist policies for Nazi Germany resulted in a world war). According to your moronic argument you could also argue that we don't need a standing military unless someone attacks us otherwise just having this army standing around with a lot of expensive hardware is just not really self-defense. The fact is we prepare ourselves for the potential of attack by having an army ready to respond, and we have alliances like NATO where resources are pooled to project an even stronger military presence against the potential for attack. It would be like getting rid of all the guns in your house because no one is attacking. You take steps to prepare yourself, you arm yourself in case someone tries to break in, you talk with your neighbors and form a neighborhood watch, etc. You take steps to greater enhance your self-defense. This is 100% acting rationally to preserve your way of life. You would do your best to strip ourselves of any resources at our disposal to protect ourselves. You have a moronic view of what defense means.

John says, "Well that's the problem Steve, I don't think we should be in alliances either where our self-defense isn't at issue, I guess you're just too obtuse to understand what a "convergence of interests" means. That would mean it is possible the defense of another nation to be also the defense of ours. That would be called, DUH! a CONVERGENCE OF INTERESTS." Actually, John, you have called for alliances without a mention of self-defense - again and again.

Steve this is what I don't understand why you're having trouble understanding this. If you act against aggression, and it serves our interests to do so, then it meets the definition of self-defense. Self-defense means defending your interests against an act of aggression. I am boiling it down to the essentials of what self-defense means (acting to preserve your interests in response to aggression) but you do your damnedest to twist my words into something else that means altruism. Self-defense describes an action one takes to preserve your interests in response to an attack or threat to those interests. So an alliance like NATO is a particular action one takes to preserve your interests in response to an attack or threat of attack to those interests.

A convergence of interests covers an enormous range of things, including a cultural exchange of ballet companies, and self-defense is only one of the possible interests that might converge.

Well what the hell did you think I was talking about? Did you really think I meant a cultural exchange of ballet companies? Are you seriously that obtuse?

Is there anyone else here who's read my essay that thinks I meant a cultural exchange of ballet companies and not a convergence of interests for shared defense?

In other posts I've pointed out that alliances are possible and desirable when they are based upon self-defense and rational self-interest. NATO during the cold war days for example.

And why was NATO important during the Cold War? For a pooling of resources to provide a strong defense against Soviet aggression. And why would you think NATO members face no new threats in the 21st century? What do you think of a missile interceptor defense system and early warning radar installations being installed throughout NATO countries that will have the capability of intercepting and destroying ICBMS? Is it also altruistic that this alliance is helping to stop the threat of any missile attack on NATO countries?

Post 47

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 12:01pm

Bridget responding to my request she read a history book:

-- I did, it still doesn't show me where the colonials didn't muster their own armies and engage the British regulars more often than not.

And I quote from Bridget: "We did have allies such as ... France, but I don't believe [they] gave us boots on the ground to 'liberate' us, we fought and won our own independence on our own effort."

Post 48

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 12:06pm

John: And I quote from Bridget: "We did have allies such as ... France, but I don't believe [they] gave us boots on the ground to 'liberate' us, we fought and won our own independence on our own effort."

Me: Again, that doesn't refute my point, you seem to be quite the dense one on this issue.

Show me that we did not have our own forces engaging the British, instigating a rebellion, and so on. By comparison, the Iraqi people did not have a rebel army, or resistance aiding us. They may have had rebels aiding us in other capacities, but none to my knowledge actively assaulted the Baathist strongholds or attempted to put pressure in locations where it would limit the movement of the Iraqi army.

Other than the Kurdish resistance, I do not know of any significant resistance forces in the whole of Iraq. And if they were there, why didn't we simply aide them and not become belligerent aggressors who used false reports to invade?

You seem to like to dodge that problem, and you seem to dodge the fact that there is no moral use for the State in the first place.

(Edited by Bridget Armozel on 8/19, 12:10pm)

Post 49

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 12:14pm

Bridget:

Again, that doesn't refute my point, you seem to be quite the dense one on this issue.

Show me that we did not have our own forces engaging the British,

You said you didn't believe France provided to America any 'boots on the ground'. That was all I was responding to. Either I'm dense or you formed a new version of the English language I'm not aware of, or you just didn't know what you were talking about.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/19, 12:15pm)

Post 50

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 12:28pm

John: You said you didn't believe France provided to America any 'boots on the ground'. That was all I was responding to. Either I'm dense or you formed a new version of the English language I'm not aware of, or you just didn't know what you were talking about.

Me: I have to ask, what is the point or use of pointing out this error in knowledge? Are you suggesting the rest of my argument is invalid based on a minor error which doesn't seem to have any significance to the difference between the American Revolution and the Iraq invasion?

Post 51

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 12:46pm

Bridget:

Me: I have to ask, what is the point or use of pointing out this error in knowledge?

To point out that so many isolationists love to substitute empirical analysis with philosophy. This wasn't a minor error, France significantly contributed to American liberation from Britain. This is at the heart of what I am arguing for. Both sides acted selfishly (France and America, but don't confuse that with meaning I sanction the tyranny of King Louis XVI). The knee-jerk reaction by so many isolationists that the alliances America is in can only mean they are altruistic is absurd because they have a gross ignorance of the empirical analysis. For one to say (x) is altruistic, they have to demonstrate a command of the knowledge necessary to evaluate whether (x) was for sacrificial or for selfish reasons. If you talk about things you don't know about, you can't honestly say you know whether a particular action was altruistic or selfish in the absence or lack of contextual knowledge.

Show me that we did not have our own forces engaging the British, instigating a rebellion, and so on. By comparison, the Iraqi people did not have a rebel army, or resistance aiding us. They may have had rebels aiding us in other capacities, but none to my knowledge actively assaulted the Baathist strongholds or attempted to put pressure in locations where it would limit the movement of the Iraqi army.

Other than the Kurdish resistance, I do not know of any significant resistance forces in the whole of Iraq. And if they were there, why didn't we simply aide them and not become belligerent aggressors who used false reports to invade?

So let me guess this straight "other than the Kurds". Ok, well do you get to just arbitrarily exclude anyone that resisted the Iraqi government? What's the standard for evaluation here? And what are you trying to evaluate? That Iraqi intervention is immoral because it doesn't precisely match detail for detail France's involvement for American independence? You know Iraq also begins with an I, and France begins with an F, so I think America was belligerent. I don't understand what differences you are trying to draw from the American revolution and the Iraqi invasion that proves Iraq intervention was belligerent? Belligerent against whom anyways? Saddam Hussein and his torture squad?

Post 52

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 12:51pm

Regardless, Saddam had hundreds of thousands of tons of biological and chemical weapons which he had repeatedly used in the past. The fact that they are now MISSING is of great concern.

-- Yet, many experts on such weapons have concluded the vast majority of the stockpile was created in the late 1980s, which means they're innert at this time. --

And yet many other experts found it completely reasonable to suspect the madman murderer was stockpiling the weapons for more mass murder. Did you actually read the result of the Iraq Study group? Saddam had an established track record of doing everything he could to ensure the ability to kill as many people as possible with any weapon available.

Conclusion of the ISG on Iraq's WMD programs
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-01.htm

ISG believes that none of these events weakened Saddam�s resolve to possess a robust CW capability. Baghdad believed its need for chemical weapons was justified, based on its fear of hostilities with Iran and Israel. The Regime, we judge, was also motivated by an unstated desire to elevate its status among Arab nations. ISG believes that Saddam deferred but did not abandon his CW ambitions.

* Saddam implied, according to the former Presidential Secretary, that Iraq would resume WMD programs after sanctions in order to restore the �strategic balance� within the region and, particularly, against Israel.
* Saddam was fascinated by science and by the possibilities it offered for enhancing his military power base. He felt that possessing the technological capability to develop WMD conferred the intrinsic right on the country to do so, according to a former senior Iraqi official.
* According to an Iraqi academic scientist, Saddam issued an edict in 1993-1994 that all Iraqi universities address problems encountered in the military and industrial sectors. This marked a departure from past practice where the government denied such work to universities.
* Following this order, Iraqi research universities were required to become self-funding. MIC projects accounted for much of the research funding during this time, according to a leading university scientist.

Following Husayn Kamil�s defection, Saddam took steps to better manage Iraqi industry, and with the creation of the Iraqi Industrial Committee (IIC) in September 1995, the stage was set for a renewal of Iraq�s chemical industry. The IIC coordinated a range of projects aimed at developing an indigenous chemical production capability for strategically important chemicals that were difficult to import under UN sanctions, according to reporting.

* The lack of inspectors allowed further dual-use infrastructure to be developed. The lack of effective monitoring emboldened Saddam and his illicit procurement activities.

Concurrently, Iraq continued to upgrade its indigenous manufacturing capability, pursuing glass-lining technology and manufacturing its own multipurpose controllers.

There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted. All sources suggest that Saddam encouraged compartmentalization and would have discussed something as sensitive as WMD with as few people as possible.

The picture that emerges is that UN Sanctions and the Gulf War seriously derailed Saddam's CW programs, but he instituted significant measures to re-instate it as quickly as possible. Had the Iraq war not occurred, he no doubt would be doing exactly what he was doing for the previous 30 years.

-- The Nigerian Yellowcake report was proven false if I remember correctly.

Like most of your other opinions on this matter, and American history, they are extremely disingenuous, superficial, or completely wrong.

Saddam routinely paid cash tributes to Hamas and Hezbollah, and would reward the families of suicide victims.

-- There's one thing you should know, tyrants boast to cover their impotencies. --

What a horribly offensive brush off. Nice attempt to defer a serious issue with some vague syllogism, but Tyrants also actually kill millions of people, and usually do so with a scary fervor. Id be hard pressed to think victims of Palestinian terrorists in Israel would find your brush off so lighthearted. I wonder what world you live in where you can shrug off murders who would not hesitate to kill YOU.

from BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

Did you catch that? 35 MILLION DOLLARS paid to murderous terrorists specifically in reward to their terrorism This is not 'boasting' oh but you called Saddam impotent, arent you funny. Give yourself a big ol pat on the back.

-- Actually, there's probably more fossil fuels off the Gulf of Mexico than there is in Iraq. Take the gloves off oil exploration , then you'll have more oil closer to home with relatively more friendly neighbors to suffer. --

I don't doubt that, there would be nothing better to do to undermine the power of the middle east tyrannies than to find a huge oil supply outside of the middle east, or to convert to a nuclear powered infrastructure, which we should have done decades ago. But absent a magical historical restructuring, the simple fact is that a murderous tyrant was sitting atop one of the worlds largest energy supplies and was using it for, not surprisingly, murder and tyranny.

It might be nonsensical, but I have to wonder, if it's okay to intervene when it's not a threat to my person, then why is okay to intervene when it is?

Huh? Are you saying that it is NOT ok to act in your own self defense when your well being is threatened? Define 'threatened' and replace 'you' with 'your nation' and you will see the logical rational extension of self defense.

I'm not trying to goad you, but I'm trying to see what exactly you're selling, because you see the current trend in DC is to shape the course of other nations whether they're beligerent(sp?) or not (especially when they're not).

Yeah, like when we invaded the non-belligerent nations of Canada, France, and Luxembourgh. What are you talking about? What non beligerant nations have we tried to 'shape the course of' and what does 'shape the course of' mean?

One example of this is our attempts to stop other nations from electing socialists to office such as in the case of Chile

Are you stuck in the 60's here? What are 'we' doing to stop people from electing socialists in Chile today? Today Chile is the least socialist, and MOST prosperous nation in South America.

If folks like yourself were in DC, I'm betting intervention would go way down and would be codified in a manner that I would even approve. But there's not many folks like you in DC, so until that happens, I want the beast of the State chained down, beaten, and drugged. --

I advocate the creation of an alliance of liberal constitutional democracies, the richest and freest nations of the world, which happen to be the most militarily powerful, enact a '12 step' program of sorts working in the long term on converting every shitty murderous tyranny to first supporting rule of law, and then second representative government. Various tactics of sanctions, blockades, information campaigns, strategic military strikes against critical government or military targets, or in the worst case, an outright military occupation with international monitoring groups. Because of the growing threat that rapid technological advances pose and the clear historical track record of murderous dictatorships, who start all the wars, culture all the pandemics, cause all the famines, and breed all the terrorists, our over arching long term foreign policy position must be one with the clear and focused goal of ridding the world of murderous dictatorships. They are not legitimate nations, they murder millions of their own people, they cause global instabilities, and present numerous existential threats. Given our finite resources and lack of omniscience, we must always deal the best blow we can against our worse enemy in the name of this cause.

I gave a near hour long presentation on this very idea to 12 members of the Strategic Studies Group of the Navy War College, which included 2 retired Admirals. It was not an argument they had heard before and the presentation was given in the context of a non-profit organization I am a staff member on which is working to identify all the existential threats humanity faces and the strategies we need to implement to mitigate those threats. I presented the clear connection between the growing power of these murderous and illegitimate states and the threat they pose as technology rapidly progresses and fewer resources are needed to kill larger numbers of people. The War College approached our organization to try to identify threats we may face that they have not been paying sufficient attention to. Judging from their reactions I think I had significant impact on them. Some of these people are only a few steps removed from the administration.

John McCain explicitly advocates a foreign policy focused on reducing the power of Rogue States and on the creation of an alliance of democracies, contrasting the UN which is full of tyrannies.

Democratic Foreign policy is only humanitarian or altruistic and damaging to our nation, Cold War foreign policy focused only on the containment of communism, and paid little attention to the well being of the nations caught in the cross fire. As Condaleeza Rice said, for 50 years we bought stability at the price of freedom, and got neither. Republican foreign policy orbits around this idea but does not yet explicitly identify it. Libertarian foreign policy is murderously idiotic.

If all the liberal constitutional democracies participated in the Invasion / occupation / stabilization / democratiziation of Iraq it would have gone on with much much fewer problems. Even though the US asked for assistance most of the western nations sat on their morally relativistic assess and chose to do nothing.

-- I don't support any State in any form. --

So you are an anarchist? No wonder you oppose national self defense in any form, you oppose national existence, so something that you don't think should exist obviously should not have people acting to defend it.

-- Interesting fact, but that doesn't refute my point. Name how many Iraqi regiments were mustered in the deposition of Saddam and the Baathists, and you'll have a point. Otherwise, you're tryin to shoe horn as hard as you can. --

Actually it does refute your point, you just tried to change your point. You said

"We did have allies such as Spain and France, but I don't believe either gave us boots on the ground to 'liberate' us, we fought and won our own independence on our own effort."

France gave us thousands of 'boots on the ground' and directly helped to liberate us. The continental Americas would have been blockaded by the British Navy without the ongoing major naval battles the French engaged in. You keep trying to paint this blatantly wrong historical picture that America fought and won it's independence without any significant help. It's complete bullshit, France gave so much assistance that it crippled their economy.

Over 100,000 Shi'ites rose up against Saddam post Gulf War I, and we dropped the ball and abandoned them, and they were all murdered. I don't blame them for not rising up this time either.

About 90% of the gunpowder used by American forces in the first 2 years of the war was from France. Indeed a tremendous amount of the supplies and arms came from France. The battle of Yorktown had more French 'boots' on the ground than American. Without Frances participation we would not have won the revolutionary war.

-- Then why didn't we do the same for the Iraqi resistance fighters? --

Is this attempt to change the question an acknowledgement then that America could not have won the revolutionary war without France's help?

Were are not discussing the appropriate means by which we should assist allies (the Iraqi Resistance) in fighting common enemies (the murderous tyranny of Saddam) we are discussing whether it is ever right AT ALL to every assist an ally in fighting a common enemy. Once you concede the point that at some times it is, then we can discuss the appropriate manner and degree in which it should be carried out.

Post 53

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 1:12pm

Mike quoting BBC source:

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each

Shhhh! Mike you'll shatter Steve's reputation for being an expert on Middle East affairs! Don't say Iraq helped support Hamas and show a source! According to Steve, it was just a one time donation to the ALF. You don't want to ruin his integrity do you?

Post 54

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 1:57pm

John:To point out that so many isolationists love to substitute empirical analysis with philosophy.

Me: Actually, it's similar to the problem of empiricists who try to gain principles from isolated historical accounts.

John:The knee-jerk reaction by so many isolationists that the alliances America is in can only mean they are altruistic is absurd because they have a gross ignorance of the empirical analysis.

Me: I agree as well, but I don't think it follows that intervention on account of France and Spain in the American Revolution happened on its own as the Iraq War by comparison did happen pretty much on its own, save for the Iraqi Kurds. It wasn't like France came in and said, "the British are building a vast fleet to attack us, we must invade the colonies to stop it." It was more like, as you pointed out, an act of selfish regard for the aggressive stance of the British forces. None the less, in both the case of the French and Spanish forces, they were not present at the originally part of the plan to overthrow the British.

"In early 1778, shortly after an American victory at Saratoga resulting in the surrender of an entire British army, France signed treaties of alliance with the new nation, and declared war on Britain that summer; Spain and the Dutch Republic also went to war with Britain over the next two years." -- Wikipedia article

Notice the point in which the foreign forces become significant in the War by the date? We declared independenced in 1776, but if we go by the quote as given the foreign aide and presence doesn't really happen until at least 1778, which according to the article in question considers the War becoming international by that time, but not before.

Consider that issue when trying to assume that the American Revolution can be considered analogous to the Iraq invasion because only in the Kurdish north is it analogous, but on the whole of the territory it is not so.

John: Ok, well do you get to just arbitrarily exclude anyone that resisted the Iraqi government? What's the standard for evaluation here? And what are you trying to evaluate?

Me:

1. Folks resisting either in the form of a government in exile, agency offering some financial aide to the ousting of Saddam (there were a few, but largely it wasn't in the South), or acting as military forces within Iraq or on the borders.

2. see 1.

3. Whether or not intervention is universally acceptable or whether it is something that depends largely on context.

John: I don't understand what differences you are trying to draw from the American revolution and the Iraqi invasion that proves Iraq intervention was belligerent? Belligerent against whom anyways? Saddam Hussein and his torture squad?

Me:

In that the US govt attacking Saddam without just cause per the US Constitution (in retaliation for attacks on US citizens and/or property (and agents)). As for Saddam's tyrannical reign, you're trying to dodge the point by asserting we must help others who are being attacked or assaulted who are not in contract with us. Show me the contract that binds me to the life of a stranger and his/her safety not on my property, then you have an argument.

Michael: The picture that emerges is that UN Sanctions and the Gulf War seriously derailed Saddam's CW programs, but he instituted significant measures to re-instate it as quickly as possible. Had the Iraq war not occurred, he no doubt would be doing exactly what he was doing for the previous 30 years.

Me: That is true, but I don't think that's enough for me to support going to war.

Michael: Like most of your other opinions on this matter, and American history, they are extremely disingenuous, superficial, or completely wrong.

Me: Oh really? Please consider the following and tell me what you think.

Michael: This is not 'boasting' oh but you called Saddam impotent, arent you funny. Give yourself a big ol pat on the back.

Me: And how many US citizens or agents were involved in these attacks in which the families were paid as reward?

Michael: But absent a magical historical restructuring, the simple fact is that a murderous tyrant was sitting atop one of the worlds largest energy supplies and was using it for, not surprisingly, murder and tyranny.

Me: And is it our property? If not, then are you suggesting you support theft?

Michael: Are you saying that it is NOT ok to act in your own self defense when your well being is threatened? Define 'threatened' and replace 'you' with 'your nation' and you will see the logical rational extension of self defense.

Me: When I defend myself it's clear and evident. As for nation, this nation thing, nope I have no allegiance nor any debt to this mythical thing called a nation. Nor do I owe to others to fund or support such constructs. And I will do everything in my power to keep such constructs from harming my person and property, and that of my friends.

Michael: Yeah, like when we invaded the non-belligerent nations of Canada, France, and Luxembourgh. What are you talking about? What non beligerant nations have we tried to 'shape the course of' and what does 'shape the course of' mean?

Me: Canada in the American Revolutionary War? I have no opinion other than we got our asses kicked if I remember right.

As for France and the other nations, those I assume you're refering to the second world war, and I believe at least for France there was a government in exile, correct? And we did make a treaty to help them, correct? So, that wasn't belligerant in my opinion.

Michael: So you are an anarchist? No wonder you oppose national self defense in any form, you oppose national existence, so something that you don't think should exist obviously should not have people acting to defend it.

Me: I have no issue with folks forming contract complexes in which they defend their property and persons, but if they extort from me my property and my person to aide it by force then I will be more than happy to respond with an equal force to negate it.

Simply put, this is not part of the argument, so I think I'll leave it at that.

Michael: Actually it does refute your point, you just tried to change your point.

Me: No it doesn't and I never changed my point, you just didn't grasp it.

Michael: Over 100,000 Shi'ites rose up against Saddam post Gulf War I, and we dropped the ball and abandoned them, and they were all murdered. I don't blame them for not rising up this time either.

Me: I hate to be rude, but too bad for them. I, personally, do not owe them anything.

Michael: Were are not discussing the appropriate means by which we should assist allies (the Iraqi Resistance) in fighting common enemies (the murderous tyranny of Saddam) we are discussing whether it is ever right AT ALL to every assist an ally in fighting a common enemy.

Me: Only when we're in contract with them, and only by consent of everyone involved.

Post 55

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 3:03pm

Bridget:

ohn:To point out that so many isolationists love to substitute empirical analysis with philosophy.

Me: Actually, it's similar to the problem of empiricists who try to gain principles from isolated historical accounts.

It's also similar to the problem of being too concrete-bound and not making any meaningful abstractions from empirical data.

John:The knee-jerk reaction by so many isolationists that the alliances America is in can only mean they are altruistic is absurd because they have a gross ignorance of the empirical analysis.

Me: I agree as well, but I don't think it follows that intervention on account of France and Spain in the American Revolution happened on its own as the Iraq War by comparison did happen pretty much on its own, save for the Iraqi Kurds.

Don't forget the Shiite rebellion in the 90's that was brutally crushed.

None the less, in both the case of the French and Spanish forces, they were not present at the originally part of the plan to overthrow the British.

But you're ignoring instances where there was attempts at rebellion against Saddam. The Kurds, the Shiite rebellion, Saddam's own brothers who were Generals in his army defected to Jordan and called for his overthrow. There was clearly a resistance. And I'm sorry but I don't measure individuals' right to live in a free society by how effective they are at fighting against their tyrants. It's not at all comparable to the level of resistance in America where a colonial government is fighting for independence from a mother country across the Atlantic ocean in an era of primitive technologies compared to today. In 1776 the British had muskets, not a fleet of Hind attack helicopters armed to the teeth with rockets and machine guns.

1. Folks resisting either in the form of a government in exile, agency offering some financial aide to the ousting of Saddam (there were a few, but largely it wasn't in the South)

Well actually you're wrong. There was a Shiite rebellion against Saddam in the South that was crushed.

.John: I don't understand what differences you are trying to draw from the American revolution and the Iraqi invasion that proves Iraq intervention was belligerent? Belligerent against whom anyways? Saddam Hussein and his torture squad?

Me:

In that the US govt attacking Saddam without just cause per the US Constitution (in retaliation for attacks on US citizens and/or property (and agents)).

The argument that it's in the Constitution doesn't negate a moral action. The Constitution also gives the government the power to tax our income and I'd hardly call that moral. But also the Constitution gives Congress the power to enter into international treaties. So if you want to go the legal route then I don't understand how it's meaningful to a philosophical argument for what is moral.

As for Saddam's tyrannical reign, you're trying to dodge the point by asserting we must help others who are being attacked or assaulted who are not in contract with us. Show me the contract that binds me to the life of a stranger and his/her safety not on my property

And this is a solipsistic view of morality. As long as I'm not immediately hurt, what interest is it of mine to help a neighbor fight an aggressor? Well failing to recognize existential threats to your existence, is suicidal. Failing to recognize and act against an aggressor's actions, and if left unchecked will not abate the aggression, it will instead continue to grow to an even more dangerous threat than before. Failing to take early action to stand-up to aggression succeeds in putting your own life at a greater risk of assault.

Post 56

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 3:25pm

John: But you're ignoring instances where there was attempts at rebellion against Saddam. The Kurds, the Shiite rebellion, Saddam's own brothers who were Generals in his army defected to Jordan and called for his overthrow. There was clearly a resistance. And I'm sorry but I don't measure individuals' right to live in a free society by how effective they are at fighting against their tyrants.

Me: They have a right to live free, but it must be done by their own power as at most we can do is fuel that power (but not where it is directed). And we must act responsibly as to not confuse tribal or ethnic conflicts for wars for liberation.

John: Well actually you're wrong. There was a Shiite rebellion against Saddam in the South that was crushed.

Me: You stated it clearly at crushed. Still, I don't believe you when you say it as if it was final and sure in regards to the whole people of that region as neither you or me could know whether there weren't any others willing to take the chance. I think the issue as to why further resistance was not offered was because of at least two potential reasons: lack of willingness to fight and the lack of faith in the fight. I'm not sure either are worth examining, but I think they're worth noting as after the rebellion was crushed no one else seemed to want to replace those that were lost for whatever reason.

My point on this is that despite the rebellion's defeat there were still people well alive that could have chosen to resist further as they wished, but these people must have had other reasons for not doing so, and that past rebellions are not invitations for help in a fight for liberation. If a resistance came forth from those will within Southern Iraq at that time that asked for our aide, I wouldn't have much issue offering it even if it meant troop deployment of some kind. But that's the issue, no one really came forth save for the Kurds. I point out the Kurds because they actually mustered up a real resistance for years even after getting gassed, beatened, and brutalized for decades under Saddam. They never surrendered the hope for freedom, thus they showed they had true intentions in the search for aide (even though we play doublespeak with them to keep the Turkish government happy...).

John: So if you want to go the legal route then I don't understand how it's meaningful to a philosophical argument for what is moral.

Me: Great point, but I think I should point out that there's more to it than that because you assert it's moral, but how do you justify the means of taxiation which supports such military interventions? I'll leave that question for another discussion because it's a thought that I believe is not the focus of the argument, which I think you're making pretty good points for it.

John: And this is a solipsistic view of morality. As long as I'm not immediately hurt, what interest is it of mine to help a neighbor fight an aggressor?

Me: Bullshit on the solipist claim, because solipsism is specifically about the flawed belief that all that exists is one's mind. You're making quite a stretcher of a redefinition there, John. I never said my mind is all that existed, I stated all that I have obligation to was my person and those contracts in which I agreed to.

If you want to help a neighbor against an aggressor that is real and true, but can you point to a nation? What is its body, its limbs, its blood. Where is its mother and father? Its friends? Does it have a spouse and children?

What I'm driving at here is that you want to collectivize the identity of hundreds of thousands of individuals to which you want to call 'friend' or member to something which they never explicitly signed nor gave any consent. Conversely, you're thinking that the only means by which individuals can defend themselves is by accepting the tyranny of the State in one form (a liberal democratic republic) but arbitrarily stating that the tyranny of the State in another form (a mad dog thug and his pals) is morally wrong. The initiation of force is always wrong, be it by a liberal democratic republic or by a dictator and his armies. They fall from the same tree that individuals do not exist or at least do not exist on an equal footing as the collections they compose (be it family, neighborhood, city, state, nation, or world/planet). That is the root error of all this talk about intervention at the level of State or nation: it's one evil fighting another evil.

Here's what I think is right with your argument for intervention: it's right that individuals have the moral right to defend the lives of other individuals. That sort of intervention will always follow. And other forms of intervention follow when contracts/agreements are made, because these are formed based on good will between the members of the contracts (I don't see the State as a valid contract as I never signed such a contract giving my consent or that others have given such consent by signing any contract in kind, nor can others be party to the contract for which they never signed...). Anything else is morally wrong.

Post 57

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 3:35pm

Btw, I'm conceding the historical points to John and Michael, but as for the points on the principle of whether or not the State even has the moral validity to act on behalf of others is where I'm at so far. Sorry for any confusion.
(Edited by Bridget Armozel on 8/19, 3:37pm)

Post 58

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 3:47pm

Bridget:

John: But you're ignoring instances where there was attempts at rebellion against Saddam. The Kurds, the Shiite rebellion, Saddam's own brothers who were Generals in his army defected to Jordan and called for his overthrow. There was clearly a resistance. And I'm sorry but I don't measure individuals' right to live in a free society by how effective they are at fighting against their tyrants.

Me: They have a right to live free, but it must be done by their own power

This whole argument is undermined by the fact the United States did not gain her independence from Britain on its own power. It relied significantly on French arms, the French navy, and French troops. You are de-legitimizing the founding of America by making this argument.

John: Well actually you're wrong. There was a Shiite rebellion against Saddam in the South that was crushed.

Me: You stated it clearly at crushed.

I don't know what to say to that. So a people's aspirations to be free from their tormentors is only legitimate if they succeed? And only if they do it without outside assistance? And in the absence of this assistance, as soon as that rebellion is crushed, it gives their tormentors the right to torment them? I don't understand the moral principle here? That brute force is a higher virtue than freedom? Perhaps that's not what you mean here, but I have hard time following the moral significance of failing in a rebellion against a tyranny. The cause for freedom from torment is not diminished by the capacity to attain that freedom. If we gave them a little help since our military was already sitting in Kuwait, perhaps they would have succeeded.

John: So if you want to go the legal route then I don't understand how it's meaningful to a philosophical argument for what is moral.

Me: Great point, but I think I should point out that there's more to it than that because you assert it's moral, but how do you justify the means of taxiation which supports such military interventions? I'll leave that question for another discussion because it's a thought that I believe is not the focus of the argument, which I think you're making pretty good points for it.

Well I appreciate that. But just to make my position clear I don't justify forcible taxation for any reason. But in the absence of a government that doesn't do this, it shouldn't negate all the actions it does as purely for altruistic reasons and never in our self-interests.

John: And this is a solipsistic view of morality. As long as I'm not immediately hurt, what interest is it of mine to help a neighbor fight an aggressor?

Me: Bullshit on the solipist claim, because solipsism is specifically about the flawed belief that all that exists is one's mind. You're making quite a stretcher of a redefinition there, John. I never said my mind is all that existed, I stated all that I have obligation to was my person and those contracts in which I agreed to.

Solipsism as in the belief that reality is only yourself. So what I meant by not recognizing that someone else who is assaulted as not effecting you is a moral view that says any aspect of reality outside of your own existence (a stranger assaulted) cannot be a threat to it and is of no importance to it.

Post 59

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 4:01pm