smooth

I acknowledge that things certainly look like they are going according to plan. I don't agree that this is best for our long-term interests. Who is "we" in this statement?



Forcing a foreign nation to open itself to foreign inspection under threat of invasion is exactly bullying and imposing one's will. I don't know why you listed the examples you did other than to imply that I don't think those behaviors are inappropriate.

I actually do think those two examples that you cited were inappropriate. I also think our behavior is analogous. Regardless, Saddam's actions are irrelevant to our current dealings with Iran and Libya. Your point of posting them in response to my comments is lost on me.



Nice, "ilk"--I started a trend . Anyway, I certainly did call our demands at the bargaining table "bullying" then as I do now. What exactly are you "remembering" that indicates otherwise?

However, once again, the relevance of your points of example are lost on me. Either the government sponsored such attacks (war) or non-government agents did so (terrorism). I don't support either type of behavior, but that doesn't mean I condone analogous acts by my own government to curb theirs.



First of all, we aren't in any position to dictate whether someone else "needs" nuclear energy. Freedom (which you claimed to be in support of) includes the right to do what one pleases, not what one wants.

Also, given the free-market apologist that you are, I'm surprised you would fail to see how one would want to create alternative energy and sell the "old" tech to us while we continue to sit around with our thumbs up our asses, subsidizing the oil companies rather than pursuing alternative energy sources ourselves.




Well, I'm not a gun control advocate in the manner you are using the term. I believe we should use technology to make weapons and their uses more safe.

I also understand the distinction between controlling one's own population and attempting to "control" someone else's. We may argue about gun control in another thread, if you'd like. Personally I think it's ridiculous to keep bringing it up and arguing over it. I also wonder how you make the leap of logic from a perceived right to control the weapons our citizens own and use to the right to control weapons on a global scale.

Oh, and I do believe that felons should be able to possess weapons. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise if they really believe citizens have a fundamentally, deity-given right to possess them. I think that they have as much right to protect their families and selves as much as the next citizen. I haven't ever considered whether mentally ill people should carry weapons--but I haven't ever met one who did want one. I don't see any legitimate reason to deny them--we can't keep them from speaking regardless of how irrational them may sound. I don't think we should be inconsistent with how we establish a criteria for rights--either they are inaliable or they aren't.



Yes, I am for real. But I don't understand how you read my post to mean that we should abandon efforts at creating more peaceful international relations.

Odd how you twisted my statement, now that I've re-read it. Please don't do that anymore or I won't reply to you. I explicitly tied the economic well-being of devleping nations to ours and claim that their leaders are aware of those links. It wouldn't serve their purpose to start a nuclear war. Only one nation has used a nuclear bomb--and it wasn't the freedom hating Nazi's, Commies, Islamic fundies, or any other massive group of people our government often reduces to a caricature.


Interesting shot.

How do you infer that I'm disappointed? Following your logic, I would be pleased if a bomb destroyed my city and everyone in it (including me and my family). That's doesn't even make sense. I was pointing out that terrorists are not acting as irrationally or spontaneously as we are being led to believe.

George Bush does not have my back. The sooner you realize this the better off our country will be. He has never seen nor experienced anything like my lifestyle, and I doubt he has anything in common with you, either. He is set to secure the interests of the ruling party at cost to the people he likely believes to be insignificant to world affairs. He might care, on some level, if LA was nuked because of how that would adversely affect him, but he wouldn't mourn me or my family.

I agree that those in power are achieving their goals. I just don't think that their goals are in line with mine. This shouldn't be surprising since my group isn't in power. The surprising thing is that people like you, those who the group in power doesn't give a shit about, support their actions.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman