[mburbank]

Kevin, you are a puzzlement.

"What might compell Saudi Arabia to stop being the largest purveyor of hatred ad intolerance in the world???"

A the dreaded question mark storm, which implies that I have made not just a questionable statement, but one that is mind boggling, unheard of, possibly even outside the laws of space and time. The USA and particularly the Bush presiencies are deeply emeshed with the Saudi Royal family. No conspiracy theory, just bidness. Saudi Arabia obviously values our alliance. Whhile you may find the idea that might give us some leverare debatable, but I hardly think it's outlandish enough to warrant so many question marks. You act as if I said we could reduce their contribution to terrorism by dressing as fish and eating coloring books. eel free to disagreee, but stop slapping your hands against your face like a E-Cauly McKulkin. They LIKE buying our weapons. we make the best ones. They want them. What if we tied the sales of those weapons systems to changes in their text books and support of 'charities'? It might not work, but it could be funny to try. Instead our foreign policy is to pretend the Saudi Royal family has nothing at al to do with state sponsored terrorism. Of course, we could just invade them and introduce democracy. That sometimes works, too.

"Cute, let's try to have an honest conversation though and post my full statement, k? Super:

"I think the Bush plan has been pretty clear, and it actually makes more sense than some random WOT that looks more like a "criminal investigation" (which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."


I'm not sure how posting the full statement changes anything. My objection was to your idea of 'liberals' and the implication that associtting the word 'Liberal' with something somehow automatically discredits it. Something I've noted a lot of 'chowderheads' are fond of doing.

"So the next time you're going to accuse me of being too general, try not being so predictable."

Sorry, I'm not getting you. You said I hadn't answered your question, I pointed out I had. It must be something stylistic your objecting to but I don't follow you.

"And since we're on that topic, let's look at your global Carmen San Diego version of the WOT."

I don't have a global anything, Johnny Condecension. Tell you what, why don't you look at 'your' global Stratego version, 'kay'?

"What the hell does a "police effort" look like? Are you on the same page as Ziggy, who seems to think that bumping off random people will stop radial Islam? "

No, I like his magic Ninja approach. You're right, theres no such thing as a police effort. There's no FBI, there's no CIA, there are no special forces, and if we ever acknowledge international law I'm sure that would vanish as well. That's why when the Libyans destroyed the plane over Lockerbee the only option we had was to invade Libya and introduce Democracy, Just as we did in Somalia after the Cole. Yes, yes, I know they are a mess, you can save up your question marks. What we have now is also a mess and it has a larger body count. IF it all works out in the end and does not lead directly to your Great War, I promise to admit you were right. I don't mind that you think I'm wrong, but I find your insistence that any other line of thought is bizarre to the point of stupification troubling. Such entrenchment in one so young!

"okay, so you support economic actions, too. Does that mean sanctions? You do realize that we had sanctions on Iraq for years, and it certainly didn't democratize Iraq. it did however provide Saddam with the means to demonize us and blame all of their suffering on us. Is that how you'd combat Islamic extremism, Max?"

Yes. Sanctions are horrible, but less horrible than war. AND they contained Iraq pretty well. Do you think sanctions gave the Iraqis more reason to think we were demons than invasion and occupation and Ahbu Garib? No, it did not 'democratize Iraq'. I don't think this has either. I know you think that the act of voting alone is Democracy, but if what you vote for is powerless, paralyzed and unable to function without a foreign army, it isn't democracy. Maybe it will become one, n'shallah. I don't think you can bring people democracy at gun point, I don't think we should be in the forceable distribution of Democracy business, and I don't even think that's what we're doing. At very best it might happen as a bi-product. Going there was a mistake and we are staying there because we cannot figure a way out that the administration can live with. I think you are much closer to the mark talking about preparing for a Great War than when you talk about spreading Democracy. When the great war comes, do we want Democracies in the midle ast who's people might legitimately choose to stand against us?

"We should invade Saudi Arabia, only the site of the most holy religious site in the islamic world. We should also invade pakistan, a nation with a 97% muslim population. "

No, we shouldn't invade and occupy anyone unless their is absolutely no option and if there is absolutely no option we should have an exit strategy.

"President Bush never said the best solution was to invade every muslim nation."

No, he said we should invade Iraq, he said we had no choice, and at best he was totally wrong about why and at worst he was lying. I know we don't have a time machine and we can't undo what we did, but while you say you don't like Bush et al, you think it's good we're their and what we've brought is an unquestionable improvement. Should we only 'improve' the nations we can get away with on account of their lack of holy sites? Personally, I think we've used up all our free invasion cards.

" The Saudi regime has made steps in the right direction, but the fact that they still have so far to go only proves how far the Middle East in general has to go."

And SO... we use sanctions, leverage, and police actions (which we are doing in Iran right now, so don't say there's no such thing). And no, it does not bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. THAT's what the War on Terror looks like to me. Slow, dogged, unsatisfying, sometimes inaffective, not at all sexy country song patriotic. They keep their women in bags, they teeter on the edge of slavery with their guest worker program, they are totally not a democracy, and yet we have decided there are ways to fight terror without invading them. Now I think we should pressure them a lot more, hold them a lot more accountable, but we can do it without invading. I also think we could do it without inviting them to Crawford and Kennybunkport.

"I know you can't acknowledge these successes, mainly due to your Bush blinders, but these are monumental things that are directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states. "

I acknowledge this progress. I think though you absolute certainty that these things are 'directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states. ' while certainly arguable, is something you take as a matter of faith. I would challenge you to support it without saying "Isn't it totally obvious??????"

I'm not going to quote your whole next paragraph in the interests of space, but let me see if I can paraphrase it without sarcasm or jokes. W and company lied to us about the real reason for invading Iraq. The secret reason they chose Iraq was to topple a middle eastern country they thought they could bring democracy to.

Tell me if that's approximately what you are saying, and I'll get my huge bag of question marks ready. I don't want to waste them if that isn't what you are saying.

"Can you honestly not set your Bush hatred aside for a moment and objectively look at the obvious, exponential improvement in Iraq?"

Can you honestly not think anyone could object to the war apart from hating W? Because wether you believe it of me or not, a LOT of people who voted for W and believed in him don't like the war, don't think it's an "obvious, Exponential improvement in Iraq" and if they hate W now, it's because of the war. Fine, Kev, the only reason I disagree with your unasailable, impeccable direct knowledge of truth is my tragic flaw, my SCARY LIBERAL BUSH HATRED. But what about everybody else? I know, a stupid caveman like me, ruled as I am by my primitive passions can't think good, and if I could think good, I would certainly agree with you. But I bet smarterer people with less raging hatreds than mine also might think, possibly, that we have not improved the lives of the Iraqi people. I bet some of them are good folks nd not just blind, liberal, Bush Haters.

All the brookings institute stuff is interesting. Each of those points can be discussed and debated. To me some of those things don't accurately measure much. GDP is up, but what about access to things to buy with your money, and what about prices? Scales of political freedoms are meaningless in the absence of the ability to practice those freedoms. The Iraqi parliment could make Gay Marriage legal. It's a start, but it's paper. I'm not arguing that no good is being done in Iraq and that our soldiers are Orcs. I just think expecting a think tank to tell you what living in Ira is like via statistics only says so much. I think for instance, the cable recently written by our own ambassador is also a valid picture.

"Even if Iraq doesn't become America's 51st state, even if they struggle for another 20 years to build a functioning republic, we will STILL have enacted clear and definite progressive change in Iraq"

How can you possibly know that in twenty years Iraq might not be a democracy (or some other form of decent government) without our intervention? Not every country in human history that has undergone progressive growth required an invasion and occupation.

"We removed an evil man from power, one who tortured his people and threatened his bordering neighbors with force. "

Absolutely. And I hope that the balance in the end is on the side of good. If 20 years from now we have Iraqi democracy, it may well have been worth it. How about if Iraq spirals into civil war, drags neighboring countries in and is ground zero for your Great War? 'Cause that could be the outcome of our actions, too. Bush the edler pointed out a lot of solid reasons for not invading Iraq when he had the chance, and then we had a lot of the world backing us up. Maybe the Father was wrong and the Son was right. But it isn't bizarre to think the reverse. And I hates 'em both, Kev. I hate Barb even more.

""HELP ME! I'M MELTING IN MY OWN WHITE, LIBERAL GUILT,AND I CAN'T RESIST MY INITIAL IMPULSE TO ALWAYS BLAME MY OWN COUNTRY FOR EVERYTHING! AHH!!"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "I'm Kev and I'm so blinded by my own arrogance and superiority that I'm certain anyone who thinks different must be some kind of congenital idiot and if only they would stop taking their stupid liberal pills they have the same opinion as me because MY opinion is the physical truth." Again, my apologies for being such a lesser being. I could ascribe your beliefs to jingoist war lust and race hatred, but I think you're more complex than that. That's why I continue to respect you even when you get the vapors.

"Despite all of the talk, radical muslims do NOT want a real war."

With your superhuman ability to peer directly into the sould of message board posters, political and religous forces and entire countries, it's a wonder the Justice League hasn't invited you to join.

"It's a war, if truly provoked, that I believe would awaken sleeping gians in places like Europe and Asia. Hell, I almost wish it would happen so that we weren't fighting this fight by ourselves. "

Almost, Kev? I'm not a soul peerer, but I'd say you're treating that 'almost' line like a runner itching to steal Second. Tell me, if the Great War comes, will you fight in it, or would you prefer to be one of those guys in suits with other priorities? I myself would really like to see us work harder on NOT having that war. I know, I'm an isolationist and the only way I can prove I'm not is to kill some people.

"They count on folks like you to inflate the power of the insurgency, to blame all innocent life lost on us, and to constantly scream about how our own soldiers are only ruining Iraq. "

OH NO!! I'M IN LEAGUE WITH THE TERRORISTS! I'M THEIR UNWITTING, LIBERAL DUPE!!

I don't know, I think they still count on W more than they count on me. Why, I bet not one single guy was radicalized on account of my quarrel with my countries foreign policy, and I bet our invasion of Iraq created, like, at least five new terrorists. So our foreign policy is at east five times more to blame than me. Just so you know, Kev, I don't think you radicalized anybody either. I disagree with you, but I do not think your view is a product of being duped by the terrorists, or even the administration. I think you have a supple, lovely, atheletic young brain, and while you are somewhat overestimate the truthiness of your own ideas, you came to them all by yourself. I, sadly, am too passionate to do that. Passionate, blind and liberal. Kudos to you sir.

"Japan is going to reduce their troop levels, and other nations have done the same."

I bet it's because all those Nations are blinded by their hatred of Bush. Otherwise they'd be Kevinists.

"This is precisely what the extremists want in Iraq, and maybe you can help them get it! Go go go! You're entitled to your free speech, Max!"

You know, Kev, you've given me pause, there. Maybe we should reaximine our commitment to free speech. It may be that by allowing folks like me that freedom, we are slowing down our distribution of democracy to others. I think we should change it so the constitution says 'you are entitled to freedom of speech as long as Kevin doesn't think it aids terrorists.' That way, maybe people would show their respect for speech by shutting up.

"Max, can your ideal government multi-task? Can they handle fighting a war against our enemies, while also protecting the enviroment? Mine can. "

I don't have an ideal government, and if recent history is any judge the best government I'm going to get is one that sucks somewhat less than this one. Maybe the next administration will be able to multi-task, but this one isn't. You're off in La-La land dreaming about all the good shit we could do if we had a dream government. I'm angry about the things our current government is fucking up, and I think being concerned about those fuck ups could be constructive in getting a better administration.

"maybe a "police effort" would also stop global warming, I dunno."

That's kind of dumb and apropos of nothing. Gee, there, Kev, maybe we could invade global warming and occupy it, a hyuk a hyuck.

"Retreating from the world has never served us well, Max."

So, that's the full range of your politcial thought? Binary politics. Avoiding war = isolationist = retreat, OR enaged = war. Can't your ideal government multi task? Your ideal government has no chance whatsoever of threading the needle, the only way to address the problem of Islamic extremism is to go to war because not going to war is Isolationsim is retreat? I'm praying that whoever sits in the hotseat next can do it. 'Cause I don't think anyone is coming home from the next Great War.