Let's imagine for a moment that we're living two years earlier and our government is planning an attack on bin laden and alqida because we suspect they're planning some horrific terrorist act against us.  I'd like the doves opinion on what it is you think we should do?  Should we try and negotiate with them?  Should we just dismiss the whole idea as politics by the bushies to drum up votes?  I'm really curious what you do with this situation. 

Kevin g

__________________________________________

I'll start by saying the ignorance factor of your above statement is through the roof. It is, and you know it, a loaded question designed to make those that support peaceful resolutions look stupid and worse like complacent and therefore willing participants in a heinous terrorist act. You may think I'm being harsh but I think your little hypothetical would be more at home in a sandbox than among a group of free thinking enlightened adults. It draws attention to a shameful and disgusting bit of propaganda that is currently being sold to the masses in this country. The notion that those that will question the decisions of our government and look or hope for a way to solve our problems that does not involve bloodshed are treasonous fools.

     When did it become "unpatriotic" to not want to kill innocent people? When did it become "patriotic" to kill innocent people just because someone else is killing innocent people? When and how did the word "PEACE" become associated with theories of such a negative connotation that uttering it while standing on our soil makes you a communist, a fool, a traitor?  

  Ok, let's get directly to your above scenario. It is prestented in such a way that it is meant to make the party that is answering it look foolish. It is obvious though that the party that has posed this question has not given it much thought. If our government were to plan an attack as you describe above it would in all likelihood be a covert operation and not the grand declaration of war that we got in the aftermath of 9/11. It would be pointless to tell them "We're coming to get you!" before we did so if we were trying avert an impending disaster like 9/11. You see, (and may I call you genius from this stage on Mr. Kevin G.) the idea would be to surprise them and not let them know we're coming so that we might catch them in the act. This would make everybody come out smelling like roses and we could toast the heros and their wisdom all around. 

        That's not what happened though is it. The fact of the matter is it was us, yeah US like the United States, that funded, trained, and armed these terrorists. We had a use for them at one point and we got what we wanted from them. We knew they didn't like us. We knew they were dangerous, we made them so. Ollie North mentioned bin Laden back during Contragate. Spoke of how afraid of him he was. Still we did nothing. Maybe because we thought they may be useful to us again. Maybe back then we thought that they didn't really pose a threat to us on our own soil. Maybe not though because Ollie spent a lot of money on a security system for his home because he said he was afraid of bin Laden. Then on 9/11 we were treated to what the C.I.A. refers to as blowback. The bad guys we had help make so bad came back to bite us on the ass in a big way. So I know you probably think you're being real cute with you're little hypothetical but the fact of the matter is it's stupid.

      Oh, I know based on the media coverage and political rhetoric they make it sound as if it took Bush and his ilk to finally ride in on the big white horse and declare "War On Terror". What a stupid and seductive turn of phrase that is. "War On Terror", how wonderful that is rolling off the tongue. How could anybody be against a "War On Terror"? Ahh, there's the rub. There's the heart of the propaganda. There's the slogan to sell it to the public...to sell it to you Kevin...you'd have to be a moron not to want to fight terror right?

   That's the goddamn key to Pandora's Box that now stands so obscenely wide open. Just like your above scenario it paints those who question it into a corner. Make no mistake that's intentional. That's the rhetoric isn't it? "You're either with us or against us", it's that black and white right? Except it's all just hot air, smoke and mirrors. They are using 9/11 as tool, a pry bar if you will, to open up whatever door they wish to peek behind. That's sick isn't it? They are using the deaths of all those innocent people as leverage to do as they please.

      We've known all along about what an awful man Saddam is so why didn't we do something about him a long time ago? We've had our chances, we've had him right in the crosshairs but the first Bush did not pull the trigger did he? Now, we can't find bin Laden, that's a bit of an embarrasment, and we can only kill terrorists in small batches, that doesn't really raise approval ratings. They're a slippery and elusive lot. Iraq though is a great big stationary target with a big bad ol' beast that's easy to demonize at the helm. Even his own people loath and fear him. Problem is though they don't pose much of a threat to us here.

      North Korea is far more dangerous and yet we're just going to chat with them. There's a reason for that too. It would be one hell of a fight to go to war with North Korea, a fight that would kill a lot of our own soldiers, our own people, and we'd more than likely come out of it looking bad. Real bad. Iraq is weak. They pose no great military threat. You may have noticed no one is really arguing that fact. They just keep telling us how bad Saddam is and what he "might be hiding" and what he "might do with it" if we leave him alone. It'd be a quick fight, a stunning victory. Sort of like watching Tyson early in his career. They are selling with all their might though aren't they. This administration is like Don King getting us all pumped up for the main event, selling us all the reasons we need to see this happen. It's the easiest possible war to sell to the American public. They know the players, it's already well established that Saddam is a big ol' bad guy. How many Americans do you think know the name of they guy in charge of North Korea? If you think for one second they have not calculated that fact, well, then you really are a genius.

Let's alter your brilliant little scenario a bit: Why didn't you ask if Bush decided to plan an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11, how many "doves" would support it?  

Isn't that what we're really talking about? Would you have just jumped in with both feet at that suggestion then? Would you have backed us attacking Iraq prior to 9/11? Because if Iraq is a threat to us now, they sure as shit were then, and if we just did it then we wouldn't have to worry about it now. Right? As a matter of fact why don't we just go out and nuke any potential future threat to the United States right now. You'd support that wouldn't you? That's so patriotic I don't know what the hell we're waiting for. There are loads of countries we could make a case against. Hey, and let's not forget those traitors here in the US that don't support this idea. Let's stage a pay-per-view event where we publically execute them for high treason. It'll be a Don Rumsfield-Don King production. That would teach those foolish "doves" now wouldn't it? 

    Yeah, it was them and Clinton did this to us right! It was their peace loving complacent politcally correct nonsense that caused 9/11. We're Americans, we're supposed hate and kill people damn it! It's our goddamn God given right! Jesus Christ says so in the freakin' bible. Right there in Revelations it states "And a great bird shall rise high in the sky from the west and bomb the shit out of any Muslim bastard that gets in our way!"

That's where you're coming from ain't it Kevin?

   Hey, I'd like to see an end to Osama and his boys but I'm not going to put on the blinders and accept whatever they try to sell us. Would I have supported an attempt to kill bin Laden prior to 9/11? Knowing that Ollie North had called him the most dangerous man on the planet during Contragate...yes, I would. Do I think Saddam is better off dead...yes, I do. Do I think Bush the 1st should have offed him during the Gulf war...yes I do.

 I'm sorry if my response to you seems a bit disrespectful Kevin but I think that's appropriate when what you seem to be saying is that only a fool would not wave the flag and follow Bush into a war with Iraq. So I suppose I'm sinking to your level with my response in an effort to make a point.

                                                       Reg

Oh and Dale,

For the record, I did not vote for Clinton and I never liked the man.