it didn't "Surface first in the US Media" you bloody fool.... Do you honestly think Iraquis weren't well aware what was happening to thier own people... in thier own communities... long .. long ago? I damned well knew about... ( I'm white, european, and Christian) ... months and months ago... all you had to do was look at Amnesty International ... the International Red cross etc... Fact is... YOU were the LAST to know ... what was being done in your name... with your money. DaveGood

fdbjr.... For starters..... You have made the usual.... and somewhat arrogant assumption.... that if it hasn't taken place on US TV... it doesn't matter. "No-one gave a damn"? True.... perhaps.... and only perhaps... in the US.... but 95 per cent of Humanity isn't American..... and the rest of us don't wait on what the US Media finally gets round to deciding it can't bury any longer before we have informed ourselves and come to some decisions. As for your views on the interest New Yorkers take in Sing Sing and Londoners of Dartmoor....You are undoubtedly, and sadly, right....But they would be damned unhappy to learn torture and rape were inbuilt in a sytem that they were paying for..... or would you argue otherwise? As for the beheading.... you want my comments? Opinions? They are what you would expect them to be... the poor sod did nothing to deserve it.... There is enough misery in this world without that. But at the back of your question is a sub-arguement that is saying "See? That is why we have killed 50,000 Iraqi's in the last year and a bit and THAT is why we torture! To STOP that!" Bullshit......tens of thousands of human beings are dead and more die each day.....in Iraq. I will seek out your posting on De Ja Vu soon as I have time... I note with interest your reference to Cambodia though.... would this be the same Cambodia that was entirely nuetral?.... wanted nothing whatsoever to do with America's disasterous (and loseing) war in Vietnam? The same Nuetral Cambodia, America secretly bombed to Oblivion ( A war Crime by the way).... thereby so traumatiseing and brutaliseing that peaceful harmless mation it set up the country for Pol Pot and the Killing Fields? Is that the Cambodia we are talking about? Are you about to make any serious attempt to argue that what America did there, thirty years ago.... In any way whatsoever .... benefited those people?... If so .... please go ahead and post it. In these dark and grim times I'm sure I'm not the only one in need of a good belly laugh. As for What Amnesty International... Or I might or might not be around to comment on.... I'll tell you this... In 1988 I was one of tens of thousands of people who wanted to see Saddam brought to trial before an International Court for his Crimes... includeing that of gassing his own people.... I took part... as best as I could in campaigns to bring this about... I wrote to your government.. and mine ( Conservative and right wing.. at the time.. both countries) I got replies.... I've kept them.... You want to discuss "Hypocrisy"?.... try this... my own government wrote back to me saying there was "No credible evidence"...Saddam ever gassed his own people.... they then sold him a shed load of weapons a few months later. As for what YOUR Country did at the time.... well... for starters.... the fact that he had access to such weapons in the first place was because it had been sanctioned by Dubya's Daddy in the first place.... The US GAVE him tax payers money to buy them.. ( I still have the video of Rumsfeld in Basghdad gladhanding Saddam and handing over a billion dollar cheque..... I'd be happy to send you the video) Then there is the fact that Saddam has been a CIA Asset since 1958.... ( Saddam met the CIA in Cairo in 1958... where he was handed a list of 800 Iraqi communists... who he had murdered less then two years later... to the squirming joy of the boys at Langley I have no doubt). Fact is... Saddam... and what he did to Iraq...was largely a US foriegn policy action..... Which is why you will not see Saddam brought to "Trial" any time soon. He was doing Americas dirty work... and can say so if ever brought before a genuinely open court He's been in custody for weeks now if not months... the case against him is pretty open and shut wouldn't you say? So why isn't he answering to a court before the world right now? Expect him to have a fatal heart attack before he can be brought to trial. As for your dismmissive attitude to Insurgents ( "We have bigger street gangs in our cities").... well..frankly.... that is not something to be proud of.. and I wouldn't broadcast that fact if I were you. " Come to America! Our Street Gangs are bigger, better and meaner then those guys killing Marines in Fallijah!" Is not a slogan America's tourist board would welcome...nor a sign that America is a healthy, sane society that any rational person would want to replicate within his own society and cities. As for my " Judgement Values"... On this subject I made mine long long ago... back in the eighties... I have not wavered since. DaveGood

DG, (1) If you do not believe that rape is a fact of life at Dartmoor and the others, guess again. (2) My point re the prison scandal is about the use of the scandal as a paradigm for the US involvement. Every government in the world, should the media choose to do so, is open to such a scandal. The reason has to do, alas, with the sociopathic nature of the prison population and the personalities who end up in custodial positions. Promise reform, clean 'em up on Monday, and by Friday you have the exact same milieu recreated. (To the best of my knowledge, there is no claim whatsoever that there were any 'political' prisoners in the population, but the 'normal' collection of felons.) Change the practices by all means (although the result will almost certainly be a different form of misery). It IS scandalous. But the claim that this is somehow emblematic of US policy in the general population is absurd. Prtisons are prisons. The general populationof Bagdhad no more gives a damn absolute this than other general populations. (3) You misunderstand California's three strikes law, which is understandable, as the propaganda about that is relentless and intellectually dishonest. I could clarify it, but it would take too long. Suffice it to say that the key lies in the nature of the FIRST two convictions, which must be of 'deadly and dangerous' felonies - murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, and the like. Only an offender who has TWICE been convicted of offenses of this type is on thin ice for a long term for the third. Since violent crimes are usually preceded by a number of less serious offenses, the notion that society doesn't have to wait around for a third victim when a two-time murderer starts to reoffend, has struck both the legislature and the courts as sensible. (4) I don't know whether Saddam was used during the Cold War by the CIA or not. But there WAS a Cold War (which most Europeans seem to have forgotten), and - based on what emerged from the Kremlin vaults afterward, it is a good thing that the West (and the US) won. In short, more power to Langley. In any case, why that ancient history should have any bearing on the present situation is beyond me. (5) I do not find the beheading representative of Islamic justice - the condemnations from religious leaders today are apt. But I do find it representative of the depths to which the fscist, fundamentalist element can seek. The homosexuals executed by suffocation under the Taliban (roughly equivalent to beheading)were not the subject of handwringing by any of the sheep bleating about prison indignities. (6) I am not at all pleased about street gangs, but I do not confuse them with the mass of society - which is what a great deal of the media has been doing these last 60 days. It's as if someone had looked at Crip activity in Los Angeles and decided it was civil war. With Falluja quiet and promising, and it now apparent that the mass of Shiite followers are no more enthralled with Sadr than the US, the opposition rushes to declaim about prisons. We are in agreement that this is opportunistic. I stand by my statement that it did not become momentous until the US media picked it up.

Dear maighoussoub :) I cannot have misunerstood anything you have said because I have not read it yet.... I was responding to the person who started this thread... then others who joined it. As far as the anaylysis you have posted above goes ... I agree with it. I ....( And every foriegn ministry around the world)..... have read what "Project for a New American Century" have posted as it's beliefs and aims... in the knowledge that the core Whitehouse Team of Billionaire-thugs, Likudniks and extreme social darwinists all came from there.... And I am well aware what it means. ( I haven't got round to reading up on what the "American Enterprise Institute" have to say yet.... Frankly I think I'll need a copious supply of sick bags when I do.) But don't underestimate the importance Oil holds to these people..... to them it the "Centre Of Empire"... whoever holds it or controls it, holds and controls the economies, destinies and futures of any potential rivals... be it the EU or China... ( They really do believe this) That's why after stealing America with a rigged election organised by Dubya's brother , and getting away with it, thier next target was Venezuala... another oil rich state. To everyones amazement Dubya's coup collapsed in the face of the Venezualans themselves who mounted a counter-coup insisting that they WOULD have thier own president... who they had freely elected.... twice... and not some senile eighty year old "businessman" chosen by Dubya. As for the importance of Images... true enough... but they have to be seen to have an impact. For instance.. on my hard drive right now... and on the computers of tens of thousands of people around the world... is an authenticated gun camera\cockpit video (with Voice) of two US officers in Iraq blowing an unarmed defenceless wounded man to a bloody pulp.... and doing it in coldblood There is no question this is a war-crime... none... and I know that major news outlets in the west... includeing every tv network in the US has had this for weeks... longer then I have.... So far only ABC in America... A canadian station.. and Canal plus in France have shown it. So don't expect officers Nager or Alioto to face a war crimes tribunal any time soon. Now for fdbjr.......... Sir.... First off.... Don't miss the point.... The Coalition ( Let's be honest.... America) has hired ten thousand of the Mukhabarat ..... HIRED them....you know damn well what they are and what they did ..... How do you feel about seeing your taxes paying the salaries of rapists and torturers?.... We may have rapists and killers in our jails.... but to HIRE them, and put them on the civil service payroll is just a tad unusual don't you think? Your point about the three strike law is well-taken... I was not aware of those facts.... Are you aware of these facts? The FBI in it's annual report state that over 80% of drug abuse takes place in leafy middle-class white surburbs.... the Prison system reports that over 90% of inmates held on drug related crime are black\hispanic and from poor inner city urban areas. When there is such a huge mismatch between crime and punishment.... don't you think you should drop the word "justice" from the phrase... "The American Criminal Justice System."? You may not know whether Saddam was used by the CIA during the "Cold War"... But you do know how to use Google.... go do a systemic search.... and while you are at it.... do a search linking the terms "Bush" with "Bin Laden Family"..... lastly... try this.... "Bush" and "Lies".... I get over two million in hits in 0.29 seconds for that one... see if you can do better. fdbjr.... I came here to bait Neo-cons.... those who were crowing a year ago and since have gone real, real quiet.... those that I do run into from that time are mostly muttering things such as "Neo-con was never really my "position" ..... just a tag."..... or " well, I never was a neo-con as such.." etc etc. I had identified you as someone who belonged to that crowd.... I may have been wrong.... read little of what you have had to say so far... what I have read put's you on the opposite side from me.... but I sense a man who believes in what he says and is true to it. But I ever get the sense that you come here willing to act as an apologist for the murder, theft, torture or rape being done in your name and useing your money..... you and me will fall out. One other point... YOU brought up the subject of " Ancient History" (Cambodia) in an attempt to justify YOUR position. When that failed you ( Because you are not even well enough informed about your own history to get it right).. you then argue that " Ancient History" is irrelevant. It is never irrelevant to those who had to live through it.... and millions of them are alive today. DaveGood Message was edited by: DaveGood

Sigh. Better check the videotapes back in 1989-91 and notice which side of the Wall they were dancing on, bub. Then count up the number of free elections in Western Europe vs. the one behind the Iton Curtain. This is the second poster that has mentioned Gaddafi as a long time US ally - I guess because of the change of policy in luibya in 2003. This is the same guy that Reagan bombed in 1986, to universal disapproval. The twenty years that came before that have disappeared, as has the Cold War, the Soviet Union, etc. Rather humorous that the Marxism that was supposed to be based on the science of history has become so unhistorical. The US works steadilu away for its inevitable withdrawal (as in Japan, as in Germany, as in Kuwait, as in Saudi Arabia - some world dominator), and the only obstacle are the fascists who make the streets of Bagdhad unsafe - who you annoint as freedom fighters - an act of faith, not logic. The latest in a long line of murderers and theocrats that the Left is embraced in its disdain for ACTUAL populist government. Face it, dude. The Left lost. You are a useless believer in myth. Message was edited by: fdbjr Message was edited by: fdbjr

Too bad, because I enjoyed our humorous little exchange. I do not recollect who included Qaddaffi (sic), and certainly did not refer to you personally. However, I am also not going to plow through all the posts on this diverse site to find the reference. Some one did, which caused me to roll my eyes. This guy is number 2. My understanding is that inthe 1986 incident, Gaddaffi (sic) lost a treasured daughter, which devastated him. Some CIA stooge. Criticism of US policy is certainly germane, but this sort of half-assed historical revisionism (his, not ours) is abdurd. Message was edited by: fdbjr

Ok fdbjr........ You are prepared to make allegations against people that you don't know, won't name, and can't be bothered to find out anything about... Fair enough. Why the hell should the rest of us pay any attention whatsoever to you? DaveGood

fdbjr..... I am nagged by the feeling I have misunderstood you. I withdraw my referances to "sewing kits" and boredom. Davegood

erm....... Is it just me? Or is the posting above me almost totally incoherent? I'll try and and address what issues I can pick out from within it. Are you saying that the US DoD had a large part to play in establishing the internet? True. But the guys who invented, developed and made it all possible ( largely in thier own time) were based at a large, civilian research facility in Europe. As to your references to someone keeping track of who says what here, and possible "Consequences"..... not sure what you mean exactly.....I do know your government keeps track of it....Your goverment is also keeping track of what books you buy, or what you borrow from your local library.... that's what "The Patriot Act" and "TIA" are all about...... I'll bet a years income my own does too. I don't like it......but what the hell...."consequences" or not......I'll take my information from as many sources as I can reach... and post my views and opinions as I see fit.... Until I am physically stopped from doing so. I have no doubt you will do the same. fdbjr...... Although you and I seem to end up on opposite sides all the time...... I still have this feeling that You and I, on all significant matters, would stand shoulder to shoulder.... if only we understood each other better. I look at the world we live in, this is the only planet we have, the only one we can hand on to the next generation and I'm appalled and angered by what we are doing to it..... a friend of mine signs off every post he makes with the signature tag...... "The world is not dying.... it's being killed... and the people doing it have names and addresses." That's what I feel.... how about you? DaveGood

"This is the second poster that has mentioned Gaddafi as a long time US ally - I guess because of the change of policy in luibya in 2003. This is the same guy that Reagan bombed in 1986, to universal disapproval." You have to go back a little further dude. This rather unpleasant man came to power in a CIA backed coup in 1967 because his predecessor was going to nationalise oil. He lost favour with his new masters almost straight away because he went further and nationalised ALL US interests in Libya. Which rather proves my point - that backing dictators always misfires. The fact that the US ended up trying to kill him is perfectly consistent with the pattern continued by Noriega and Saddam. "Better check the videotapes back in 1989-91 and notice which side of the Wall they were dancing on, bub." More instructive to look at where they're dancing now. In a recent BBC survey, the presenter travelled east from Moscow to Vladivostok and could not find ONE person who believed that they they were better off because of the collapse of communism. It's a boon for gangsters and a small number of entrepreneurs but for the majority it's been a disaster. "Rather humorous that the Marxism that was supposed to be based on the science of history has become so unhistorical. The US works steadilu away for its inevitable withdrawal (as in Japan, as in Germany, as in Kuwait, as in Saudi Arabia - some world dominator)" Well if you're claiming that the US has withdrawn its troops from Japan and Germany you need to re-research your facts. But are you seriously presenting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as examples of the spreading of freedom? These are both hereditary dictatorships where torture, arrest without trial and murderous religious discrimination are commonplace(The penalty for preaching Christianity in Saudi Arabia is death by hanging, possession of the wrong kind of Koran, death by stoning). And in any case, removing your own troops is irrelevant if you've installed a tame regime to do your bidding. Apart from Japan and Germany (now 60 years ago) you can't name one incidence where the US has toppled a dictator and installed democracy. There are several incidences of the opposite taking place. "Then count up the number of free elections in Western Europe vs. the one behind the Iton Curtain." I'm looking forward to the day when I see a free election the US - but not holding my breath. "and the only obstacle are the fascists who make the streets of Bagdhad unsafe - who you annoint as freedom fighters - an act of faith, not logic. The latest in a long line of murderers and theocrats that the Left is embraced in its disdain for ACTUAL populist government." This is a recurring theme in the rantings of the American right. Again, I suppose it's "ancient history" to you but you'll find that the left were opposing Al Qaeda when the US were using them to topple the government of Afghanistan and the UK (under Thatcher) financed them in an attempted coup in Libya in the 1980s. Which again reinforces the point of your own mad dogs coming back to bite you. Do I "annoint" (strange choice of words!) the fighters in Baghdad "freedom fighters"? Well some of them, yes. You're quite right that the Al Qaeda cells which are attempting to foment trouble between Shi'ite and Sunni are fascists. In fact they are curiously close in their intolerance to some people in your own government. (Your Attorney General for example) But the the ordinary Iraqis who are taking up arms against a foreign invader are certainly freedom fighters - certainly more so than Osama Bin Laden was when Ronald Reagan called him a freedom fighter when he was slitting the throats of Afghan women for not wearing a veil. "Face it, dude. The Left lost. You are a useless believer in myth." Now this may seem a little complex to you, but history doesn't actually have a final whistle. It's certainly true that most of the socialist experiments have been swept away. And the last outpost of socialism, Cuba will probably have a fascist government installed by the US before too long. But the same must have been said of Republicanism after Waterloo. The crowned heads of Europe thought they were safe on their thrones and all this talk of popular elections was in the past and that scruffy gang of colonials over the Atlantic would never amount to anything, would they? And you'd have been hard pressed to find anyone who was confident about the future of capitalism in 1917. The see-saw of right and left will keep on tilting this way and that for many lifetimes beyond ours dude. But I guarantee you that any given moment you'll find some ignoramus (from either side) who is adamant that it's all over and his side has won..

"Proves your point? That Gadaffi was a long time US ally? Please remember what your point was." Perhaps you should refer back to what my point was. "Long time ally" was invented by you. I merely said that he was installed by the US: Historical fact not denied by anyone...except you perhaps. "Gee. What don't you contact Hlaveck and LEch Walesa and tell them the bad news?" You'll find that both of these gentlemen have been long been voted out of office. In the many elections since 1989, communists have also been voted in and out of office. The poor will continue to fight back as they recently did in India. "Russia's problems have to do more with the nature of the culture than the political system." Hmmm! Yes but that has always cut both ways. Many of Stalin's nasty habits had more to do with Russian culture than with socialism. "But I am not letting you off the hook that easily. By the nature of the game, it is not possible in a social reaarrangmenet that large to have everyone lose. Some rise, some fall. If your source found 100% disaffection, that's because he was looking for the disaffected. Typical Marxist technique." We're talking about the BBC here dude. They're vetted by MI5. The idea of a Marxist getting a job as a BBC journo is like Eddie Murphy getting into the KKK. "I couldn't agree more with the observations about Kuwait and Saudi. However, you are engaging in first class hypocrisy. You are your ilk would be the ones shouting the loudest if the US tried to effect a regime change - annoint every theorcratic mysoginistic shiek or mullah a People's choice. Or haven't you noticed that is the tenor of the opposition in Iraq?" There you go again! Reducing everything to an absurd simplicity. You'll find that many of the parties in the CPA also have these views. And if you bothered to read my argument you'd see that I agreed that such people are fascists (Do you actually understand the concept of debating?) "US troops were stationed in Japan and Germany as a result of the Cold War. Evcen you do not claim that they have interfered with the political processes of those nations." They would have if they'd needed to. I can recall, when Italian opinion polls were predicting a Communist overall majority, Henry Kissinger went on the record to say that the US would not tolerate such an outcome. The US had backed fascist coups in Greece and Chile and these were then very recent memories. > > And in any case, removing your own troops is > irrelevant if you've installed a tame regime to do > your bidding. Apart from Japan and Germany (now 60 > years ago) you can't name one incidence where the US > has toppled a dictator and installed democracy. > "Er. . . isn't that the objective in Iraq? To which you are violently opposed? " Just how naiive can you get? The object in Iraq is to install a government friendly to to the US. As 80% of Iraqis want the US to leave now, such a government could not possibly be democratically elected. And I've already pointed out (one of the many points you haven't answered) that Rumsfield has said that a government unacceptable to the US will not happen. The US will find another strongman, just like Saddam and support him to the hilt...Until he turns on them that is. Before you can have that point, a democratic regime will have to emerge. You can't claim the point in advance dude! By the way. If anyone does believe that the US intends to create a democracy in Iraq, would they be interested in buying Edinburgh Castle? I can have a document drawn up to prove it's mine and I'll transfer that document for a mere 10 million euros. Bargain! "I'll turn it around. You can't name one regime that the US propped up againsgt a LEGITIMATE deomcratic alternative." Well. That's a wee bit loaded. If the the government being propped up does not allow a democratic process, how can there be a legitimate democratic alternative? I ask again. Do you actually know what a debate is? Even with this incredible piece of double think I can meet your challenge 4 times however: 1 The government of Salvador Allende in Chile was democratically elected and was overthrown by a US backed fascist coup. 2 The CIA backed Greek colonels overthrew a democratically elected government and established a fascist regime backed to the hilt by America. 3 In Vietnam, Eisenhower refused to allow elections because he stated that 90% of the Vietnamese would vote communist. 4 Just last year, the US backed an attempted coup in Venezuela which suspended the constitution, abolished the parliament and judicial system. It was defeated because the people and the lower ranks of the army stood with the LEFT WING government. Now. I've met your challenge. Are you going to meet mine? You only have to name ONE! "By the way. . . notice that Kuewait has just initiated legilslation to give women the vote? A coincidence that it has stong ties to the US? I doubt it." Have a look at the Kuwaiti constitution dude. You'll find that the power of it's parliament is absolutely zilch. Giving women the right to vote in such a parliament is totally meaningless. So no, it's not a coincidence that that it has strong ties to the US. The Al Sabahs still call the shots and the Al Sabahs do what they're told by Washington. "And the conservatism in Saudi Arfabia is due to its tolerance of the Wahabi sect, which is as violently anti-US as it is anti-feminine." Again (yawn) If you bother to make any historical enquiries at all, you'll find that Wahabism was once a minority (in fact nut-case) sect in Saudi Arabia but was encouraged by the British as a bulwark against communism. It was exported to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1980s by the Reagan administration in order to destroy a left wing Afghan government. Back to my original point. Train a mad dog and it will end up biting you. > > I'm looking forward to the day when I see a free > election the US - but not holding my breath. "Ahhhhhhhhhhhh - you walk into this pollin place, and you vote. Kinda simple, actually. " Tell that to the 40,000 Florida black people who had their vote taken away from them in 2000 by being wrongly accused of having committed a felony. Tell that to the black people in Jim Crow states who found police road blocks on their way to polling stations. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who will be disenfranchised as the Help America Vote Act forces all states to employ the gerrymandering that was done in Florida. "Hate to break more bad news, but there wasno Al-Quaeda back then. Formed up in 1991-3 when there was nothingleft to do in Afghanistan." Al Qaeda came into existence in the late 1970s. When the US (under Carter) failed to ignite a popular rebellion in Afghanistan it started importing jihadists from all over the middle east, but particularly Saudi Arabia. What exactly do think it was that prompted the Russians to invade Afghanistan in 1980? By this time OBL and his crew of "freedom fighters" had been slitting the throats of teachers and social workers for two years. You've only got to look up the speeches of Zbigniew Brzezinsky to check this. He was proud of this achievement. "Plus - as noted - theymay have been the lesser evil. There was a time when the US armed theSoviet Union agains t the Nazis. Times change." No. There is no greater evil than Al Qaeda. Not even the American right, the mafia, the KKK or the Disney corporation meet that criteria. I would support anyone who genuinely wanted to defeat al Qaeda. I do not believe that the Bush regime does. OBL is on dialysis - which means he has to be hooked up to his machine every few days and is therefor tied to one place. If the US wanted to get him they could. At large, he gives them the excuse to bomb, invade, torture, corrupt, etc. He is Bush and Cheney's best ally and they know it. They will not catch him any time soon. > But the the ordinary Iraqis who are taking up arms > against a foreign invader are certainly freedom > fighters - certainly more so than Osama Bin Laden was > when Ronald Reagan called him a freedom fighter when > he was slitting the throats of Afghan women for not > wearing a veil. "Yup. Those thousand or so teenagers represent the popular will." Look dude. Your soldiers have already killed 10 times that many of them, yet they're still there. A thousand? Do me a favour! You can have your final whistle point if you like. It's not really germaine to this debate anyway. ( Are you getting the hang of the idea of debating now?) Message was edited by: charles_4 Message was edited by: charles_4 Message was edited by: charles_4

charles_4, Your winning every round against fdbjr. Keep it up and maybe he will retire from the contest, for his own sake. With his lack of preparation, he ought never have taken to the ring. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

The Pentagon and White House Neocons cannot slide out of this one. Copy and paste the link below into the "ADDRESS box" in your browser.Take a look at the 1 minute movie Before it is removed by Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld or some other bum arm chair hero from the White House! http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/iraqiwar.wmv Is this a war crime? Did you like it? This movie is what we are! This is what we are training our young kids to enjoy. Let us rid ourselves of the current administration ASAP! lawson

Honesty? In one post, Wahabi is a British invention. In the next, it is a minor sect that the British encouraged. It certainly did begin life as a minor sect, but like other strains of fundamentalism in Christainaity and Judaism, has become popular with a minority who cannot adjust their religious convictions to some of the realities of modern life. (I have an enormous rfespect for religiosity, though no longer Roman Catholic. As for the US in the last 50 years, like so many Leftish posters, you have forgotten the major fact of that era. (In the same manner, the always ridiculous brolly, when he writs of Iraq as a 'sovereign' nation', seems to have forgotten that fourteen months ago it was a savage dictatorship.) The US did not act in a vacuum. It acted - or more accurately, reacted - to the Soviet Union. I cannot do better than re-post a long, long message I posted a few weeks ago. I am not going to edit the olptimism about Iraq, which seemed faintly ridiculolus even a few days ago, but may yet become topical. (This was originally an e-mail to a close friend - please overlook the occasional personal reference.) Heresies Yesterday the Provisional Government of Iraq signed an interim Constitution. Obviously, that is only an early milestone in what is a long, long road, but it is important, and it is not a bad effort. The regionalization of the Kurdish and Sunni areas is an interesting try towards addressing the long-term ethnic wars in the area. We can only hope it works. This is the anniversary of the eve of the Iraqi war for all practical purposes, and by any standard it has not been a bad year. I opposed the war on the ground that the use of WMD was not imminent enough to justify the use of force. But the proof - not that it was any great revelation - of the enormity of the crimes of the Hussein regime, plus the relatively small scale of the casualties has caused me to reconsider. There is little question that the act of removing him was a Good Thing, and the promise of creating another secular Islam state in the Middle East is an even Better Thing. I regret any human cost - I am far more tender about that stuff than you may know - but it is obvious to all but the most purblind that the human cost is way, way less than what Hussein was inflicting on his own people. But it is my impression that the anti-war, anti-Bush fervor has grown, not diminished, as the positive developments have occurred. Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd need rabies tests. And the question to me is . . . why? Not why the disagreement, why the fury, why all the violent emotions? Why - in a word - the hatred? And why does apparent success increase it? The answer to me is that these are not policy objections. They are religious in nature. Bush to these guys is a heretic, and the worst kind, because he exposes the flaws and fallacies of the cherished beliefs, the fallen idols. Let me explain - but before I do, a brief aplogia. Liz and my dad, and - I believe - you, have me down as rock-ribbed conservative. I'm not. I voted for Clinton in 1996 and Perot in 1992. I did cast votes for both Bush's in 1988 and 2000, but on a personality basis in 1988 (did not care for Dukakis) and for the judicial reasons I mentioned in 2000. But I have some real issues with GWB - most notably, the same 'guns and butter' approach that LBJ tried in the 60's, and the environment. This country needs a solid estate tax inthe worst way to avoid the creation of an economic aristocracy, and a real escation in income tax rates for marginal income in excess of $500,000. Unfortunately, the Democrats have nominated John Kerry, whose record of political opportunism over three decades is almost certain to doom him. I will in all likelihood vote for Bush in November, on the ground that a candidate with principles - even some I dislike - beats a candidate with none. But back to the heresy topic. My own world view has been permanently altered by two global events - the end of the Cold War in 1991, and 9/11. (a) What the first of these required was a total reevaluation of world history since 1945. Both the first person history and the documentation that became available after 1991 demonstrated was that this was NOT a struggle between two foes of relative moral equivalency, but between one good and one bad. History really can be that simple. I pooh-poohed the Reagan characterization of the Soviets as the Evil Empire in the 80's along with every one else. But the unambiguous historical verdict is that the description was accurate. This showed up not only in big events, like the tanks in Hungary in 1956 nd the troops in Czechoslovakia in 1968, but in little. Thus, to make one example stand for all, it was widely assumed that the Baader-Meinhof gang, that committed all manner of crimes in West Germany in the 70's, was too wild for the Soviets to back. Not so - it turned out that their mindless bureaucracy provided them with all sorts of support. The lack of Soviet respect for the truth value of statements was even more pronounced. The USSR was corrupt and cynical to its very core. But what, then, does this imply with regard to US actions? This is the revisionism that the Left refuses to undertake. For example, you (among many others) cite US support for corrupt regimes as one of its many sins. Undoubtedly true, but what it overlooks is the Cold War context in which most of this occurred - the fact that liberal opposition was almost invariably corrupted by the Soviets. At the time, it was often assumed that this was US counter-propaganda. Not so. Moreover, there is no question of what was the lesser evil. The most conspicuous example of the US abandoning a corrupt regime - the withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975, accompanied by the enthusiastic applause of Anthony Lewis and the NYT foreign correspondent on the scene (played by Sam Waterson in The Killing Fields) - led directly to the most sickening scenes of mass murder since WWII. The fairlure of my (our) generation to appreciate this as a consequence, and to continue to cite the Vietnam opposition as some sort of cultural high point, is an on-going instance of moral cowardice. (With regard to 'the corrupt regime' comment made by so many, let me note two other cases. The first is the Ins and the Outs. Iraq is a perfect example. No matter which faction becomes the Ins - Kurds, Sunnis, or Shiites - most likely the Shiites as of this writing - the US is going to end up in economic relations with them. No help for it - that's what comes of trading internationally. The business relationship leads to its own commercial infrastructure and presto! support for a corrupt regime. The Outs and the ditsy Left then condemn the US for its unavoidable support - even though the Outs would be every bit as corrupt and oppressive were they the Ins and the Left would have no hesitation on sympathizing with the former Ins. The real villain here is the nature of the tribal society, although you will never hear the Left admit that. The other is the Our Guy problem. Pakistan will do as an illustration. There is no doubt that Musharraf is an odious militarist, and that the US is supporting him. But it is not as if there is a liberal, democratic alternative available. All the others are odious militarists as well. So we should be supporting some candidate who has all the negatives of Musharraf, PLUS he is anti-US? Gimme a break. There is a role for real