I don't find it difficult to understand why they want to get rid of the US in Iraq. But this is war. And if we're going to do war, then LET'S DO WAR!

Not some half-assed police action, but brutal, violent and EFFECTIVE.

Then, when they give up, we can be nice.

They haven't given up yet.

As you say, they're just starting.

but brutal, violent and EFFECTIVE.

Contradiction there, Zan Lynx. There has never been -- in the history of the world -- a "brutal, violent, and EFFECTIVE" way of Democratic nation-building. Nation-building is hard. Really, really hard. Conservatives hate it and George Bush ran against it in his campaign. What were we removing from Iraq? A brutal regime? Yes. A violent regime? Yes. An effective regime? I suppose so. So how would a brutal, violent, American regime be any better?

Extremism festers when people stop seeing each other as people. When the terrorists flew their planes into the World Trade Center, they didn't see people in there -- living things of the same species -- no, they saw an enemy. Nothing more. Middle Easterners do have very legitimate grievances against the United States. We created, funded, and gave weapons of mass destruction to Saddam's government in the 1980s. (See who that is shaking hands with Saddam?) Us doing that is one of the legitimate grievances they have against us.

The problem is, that they decided not to air those grievances in a legitimate way. They began to see America as the "great satan" and Americans as less than human. Therefor, the moral objection that any human would have of pointlessly slaughtering another was quelled. If we too seek vengence, not justice, we will be no better.

I'll close by observing words like "It must be a bloody response, a thrust that leaves bodies dangling from gibbets and houses in flames" sound a terrible lot like "It must be a bloody response, a thrust that leaves bodies dangling from biggets and tall office buildings in flames."

If the Iraqi people won't help us track down the attackers, then we're still at war, and it isn't a nation building problem.

War _is_ brutal and violent. That's what it's all about. And if we're going to do it, it should be effective or it's a waste of time.

Violence can be very effective. Inside the nation, police use it, and it works. Outside the nation, the military uses it, and it works.

It all comes down to the simple policy of "keep hurting them until they do what you want." It works on everybody unless they're willing to die. It even works then, because they're dead and not bothering you anymore.

The attack on the towers wasn't very effective, was it? It destroyed the towers, but I doubt they got whatever AQ expected to get out of it.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of hanging random people from gibbets on the streets. Hanging the guilty people would be okay.

I certainly wouldn't see anything wrong with announcing a deadline to leave the city, then destroying the whole thing. Much more effective than house to house fighting with ambushes all the way.

That's what I meant by violent and effective.

Anyway, my whole point is, "If we're going to do war, then let's do war. Serious war."

I agree with you in principal in terms of not mixing war and none-war. First a few observations: No declaration of war has been made. But we're at war, now? Who with? The Iraqi people?

As for the "keep hurting them until they do what you want" system. That has not worked to well for Israel, has it? As for the "because they dead and not bothering you anymore" -- the 9/11 hijackers are dead, but I think they continue to bother us. If we try to kill terrorists as fast as we create them, we'll be committing genocide.

The reality is, if we're in a BRUTAL, VIOLENT war with a specific insurgency in Iraq which has growing minority support, that's a very unpleasant place to be. It's where we were in Vietnam.

I think the reason we're so critical of the war effort is, we're mostly bitter that the Bush administration outright lied. It's a quagmire. We said it would be a quagmire. No one listened. Now, the easy transition to Democracy the Bush administration promised, has turned out to be a pipe dream. Rumsfeld's assertion that Iraqis would forever greet us with open arms as we occupy them hasn't turned out to be true.

No WMD's found. No nuclear program found. No terrorists found. Valuable resources have been taken from the real war on terror. Al Quada's recruiting has gotten a lot easier. Iraq is now, because of our invasion, a haven for terrorists. The Israel-Palistine conflict has gotten worse. On each and every point, the pre-war justification has turned out false. Even Don Rumsfeld now has admitted that we're creating terrorists faster than we can kill them.

So now that we're in this quagmire, we're saying we should escelate the war? We're no longer fighting an ideology or institution, just a growing minority of people who want us dead. Bush said major combat operations is over. But if our intention is to beat the civilian resistance down until they see things our way, I fear we'll be in Iraq longer than we were in Vietnam.

Saying "We told you so" carries a lot less satisfaction when people's lives are at stake. Hence the anger at Bush.

You don't mince words, do you? :)

That pretty much sums up the exact reasons why I was against this war from the beginning. I don't believe in effective, brutal violence unless it is used for defensive purposes. That pretty much rules out wars on foreign soil, except in cases of defending allies against agression, such as World War 2.

If using violence to bring the rest of the world under our thumb is what this country is now about, then let us not kid ourselves with words of propaganda. This war is not about "liberating" anybody, nor does it have anything to do with "freedom" or "democracy". It is about use of violence to bring the entire population of a foreign nation into submission. "Keep hurting them until they do what you want," as you say.

If Bush had openly used your line of reasoning last year when he was trying to convince people to go to war, at least that would have been honest, but I doubt he would have received nearly as much support as he did.

The war was originally purported to be purely against the regime of Saddam Hussein, from whom we were "saving" the Iraqi people. Now we are forced to admit that we are at war with the people themselves. Not a pretty picture.

I'll give you this: At least you don't try to sugarcoat it.

I don't believe most of them. Some sound pretty plausible, but the good ones all do.

I find your comment about conspiracy theories really funny when I consider some of the things you've claimed about Bush and Ashcroft. :-)

What have I claimed about Bush and Ashcroft that isn't already widely known? Does strong disagreement with their policies, methods, and increasingly apparent falsehoods make me a conspiracy theorist?

I know there have been some wild conspiracy theories about the history of the Bush family floating around, but I don't use those as a basis for my criticisms.

If what I say is funny, I'm glad somebody is entertained, even if I'm not sure what the joke is.

Maybe it wasn't you. I'm speaking of the people who claim Bush allowed 9/11 to happen in order to take away civil liberties.

That's not the only one, but theories like that count as conspiracy theories. I thought I remembered you speculating in that direction once or twice.

I do recall linking to an article that presented such a theory at one point, although I'm feeling too lazy to dig it up right now.

Without seeing some strong evidence, I'm inclined not to believe it though. I do find it conceivable that there would be motive for Bush and his people to do something like that (in pursuit of more power), but the appearance of motive by itself is not enough to draw a firm conclusion. I say give him the benefit of the doubt on that count.

Regardless of whether Bush was complicit in allowing 9/11 to happen, there's no doubt that his administration took full advantage after it happened to take away American liberties and drive people into a state of greater fear. The Patriot Act is evidence of that. (I can't put the all the blame for that on Bush though. Most of Congress, including many Democrats who have since changed their tunes, voted Yes to enact it.)

I believe that politicians, as a rule, want more power, and are willing to go to great lengths to gain it. Most wouldn't go to such an extreme as to intentionally cause or allow an event like 9/11. Exceptional cases like Hitler or Stalin might though. Would someone who claimed that Hitler orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 been branded a conspiracy theorist?

But Bush? I don't think so. He's evil, but not that evil. :)

Iraq is proving that Bush is probably more inept than he is sinister. If he had known beforehand that Iraq would turn into such a mess as to jeopordize his re-election chances, I suspect his actions last year might have been different. But he can't admit it now without losing face.

Well, that's enough wandering commentary from me for now. I shall now conspire to get something useful done. Well, maybe.