Excellent. It's about time somebody had the guts to finally say what needs to be done. Let the Generals work out the details , that's what we pay them to do. But let's _do_ it, and stop grovelling for fear of offending the enemies of our civilzation. I've had it with Bush trying to be so Politically Correct all the time when it comes to our sworn enemies. He's the Commander in Chief, not the Appeaser in Chief.

While what your frined states is right on, the reality of the situation is a tad more complex. Unless your friend thinks we should launch attacks against said nations, like, RIGHT NOW. Which, heck, I'm all for. Dean, your wife isn't so looney. Well, a little but not that much.

As for our "Appeaser in Chief", I feel profoundly sorry for him. The Congress is filled with anti-Israel, pro-Islam sentiment and anything Bush does to the contrary will be lambasted from here to Mecca. He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. Such is the price one must pay when one wants to see the right thing done.

The question I have is, are we strong enough to back the regime's of at least 6 nations into such a corner while we are occupying Iraq?

While I would agree that in a perfect world we should destroy all of the regimes, I don't know that such an action is really the best thing we can do right now.

I have seen many people criticise us for negotiating with Gadhafi, yet what does the alternative look like? If he is fearful enough of us that he is willing to agree to such terms what message would it send if we refused to deal with him at all? It would leave him with no alternatvie to keep power but to oppose us with everything he has, especially if we are committed to capturing and/or killing him.

This also becomes true for every other nation on the list. Taking such a stance removes any peaceful solution from the table and commits us to war with every regime that has supported terrorism. That's a long list and we would be locking ourselves into a commitment for a series of wars that we are not equipped to fight all at once. Our enemies would see that their best chance for success lies in them banding together against us. While I am certain they would be willing to betray each oterh for gain, they would be far more united than they are now. They would also be commited to defeating us in our war of conquest against them.

Given the difference in military capability, there are only two viable tactics they can use:

Attrition - They can attempt to kill large numbers of our people in an attempt to wear down our resolve. Such a tactic would also include the attempt to hit civilian targets whenever possible.

Terrorism - If they have the capability they will attempt to commit atrocities to us from bystander or inocent positions. For example: gund pakastani extremists to commit a terrorist attack on the US in an attempt to get the US to retaliate against Pakistan and bring them, or part of them into a war, or at least to tie up our resources in yet another nation.

Such a prospect doesn't look good to me. Backing people into a corner isn't usually a good idea if you can avoid it. While I agree that it is not a good thing to allow someone like Gadhafi to get away with all he has done, it may be a worse thing not to.

We a rarely able to find the ideal solutions in life, instead we must evaluate the consequences of our actions and decisions and determine which has the most positive or, sometimes, the least negative impact.

We don't need to go after all 6 nations, just the top one, the center of Islam and source of all the terrorism: Saudi Arabia. Destroy Saudi Arabia, not necessarily militarily but economically, and most important of all, psychologically, spiritually. Stop buttering them up with praise. Stop pretending that the men who burned their own schoolgirls to death are "moderates". Stop spouting this "Religion of Peace" crap. Stop the photo ops. Every time the President of the United States shakes hands with or smiles at a Saudi ruler, official, or cleric, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which our Constitution defines as treason. Every time the President consents to be in the same room with a Saudi, he's telling them: "Go ahead and destroy our cities, enslave our people, rape our women. We'll just keep on smiling and turning the other cheek and kissing your posterior because we don't want to offend you."
"It is of such pennies and smiles that the destruction of your world was made." -Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Sounds like a lot of fun to just stand on principle, but as Aaron said, it's not that easy.

Realpolitik. Different circumstances require different approaches. Standing up to the Soviet Union may have worked in the 80s, but it wouldn't have worked in the 60's.

Should we have done it anyway, purely on principle? Depends on whether your goal is to die virtuously, or win.

While it is somehow satisfying to effect a regime change through blowing the hell out of stuff, It is more responsible to work throught diplomatic means. With military response no longer seen as just a bluff this for a change makes our diplomatic efforts stronger. Bush was blasted for not enough diplomatic efforts with Iraq, even though I felt his administration was patient and pretty much exhausted the diplomatic channels. If I actually felt we had the resources to "take on the world" to do this I might be more inclined to the same view as Ara, but I do think that that would lead to the quagmire that the Bush administration is already accused of.

This really could be the next line in the Bush-basher's libretto: Bush failed to start a worldwide cataclysm so he's a miserable failure.

That one ought to resonate with the voters just as much as anything else has.

Seriously, one of the reasons we weren't supposed to attack Afghanistan or Iraq was that we would start a worldwide cataclysm, or the Arab Street would rise up and smite we infidels if we so much as dared to look askance at the murdering thugs in power in so much of the Middle East. But now our failure to do so shows a lack of guts.

Riiiight.

Steven,

I think that the situation with Saudi Arabia is a lot more complicated than that. Part of the problem is oil. The Saudi's control enough of the market on oil that they can have a dramatic impact on worldwide oil prices. We used that power of theirs in the 80s to hurt the Soviet Union(by convincing the Saudi's to reduce oil prices). So whil we are in a position to hurt the Saudi's they are also in a good position to hurt us. I don't think that anyone wants to see oil prices skyrocket, especially with the US economy in the process of recovering from a recession.

A democratic Iraq can go a long way toward reduce that influence that Saudi Arabia has. Once the Iraqi oil fields are able to operate at full capacity again, Iraq can export enough oil to offset any attempt by Saudi Arabia to raise the world oil prices. So as Iraq grows stronger, Saudi Arabia grows weaker.

As to your other points, diplomacy is not treason. International relations are not black and white issues. Again it is a matter of chosing the best path, not the ideal one. How many people would die acroos the world if oil prices hit $50 a barrel? How many if the House of Saud were to be convinced that we are intent upon destroying them and they go to war agaist us?

Sitting in a room with them sends a message that there is a way out, aside from military conflict. The details of what is said in that room define the terms of that way out. The liberation of Iraq sent clear message that Saudi power is being reduced. As our position grows stronger we can apply more pressure and cause greater change.

Jon Henke:
"Sounds like a lot of fun to just stand on principle, but as Aaron said, it's not that easy.

Realpolitik."

Sounds like a lot of fun, and very easy, to just not have any principles and posture as a hard-headed realist.

"Different circumstances require different approaches. Standing up to the Soviet Union may have worked in the 80s, but it wouldn't have worked in the 60's.

Should we have done it anyway, purely on principle? Depends on whether your goal is to die virtuously, or win."

I can't make any sense out of this at all. The Soviet Union had a lot more nukes in the 1980's than in the 1960's. You position sounds exactly like the peaceniks' "Better Red Than Dead." Appeasement, in other words. Abject surrender. I'm glad you weren't President in the 1960's. We'd all be living under Communism then.

"Seriously, one of the reasons we weren't supposed to attack Afghanistan or Iraq was that we would start a worldwide cataclysm, or the Arab Street would rise up and smite we infidels if we so much as dared to look askance at the murdering thugs in power in so much of the Middle East. But now our failure to do so shows a lack of guts.

Riiiight."

That argument doesn't work on me because I'm a consistent hawk. I was a hawk during the Carter administration, during the Reagan administration, and I'm still just as much of a hawk today. Political parties, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, don't matter to me at all. Only the survival of our country and our Western civilization matters to to me, and therefore the destruction of our enemies. I support President Bush wherever he shows strength and oppose him wherever he is weak.

Hey Steven:

I like to consider myself forward-leaning, but I see the validity of Jon's point (and the points of the Realpoliticians above).

The race is a marathon, not a sprint. We have to husband our strength for current fights (Afghanistan and Iraq) as well as what fights may come (Syria, Indonesia, parts of Africa, France). On the other hand, it is a race, not a golf game. If we aren't running (e.g. fighting tyrrany) in some way, be it slowly or quickly, while freedom is yet denied, we're abandoning the principles upon which our country was founded.

This is the essential paradox which Ara's [refreshingly principled] tantrum appears to ignore.

It's never as simple as that, because even with our economic and military strength, we can't force the world to do our bidding.

It would be like trying to keep six dogs in a bathtub, all who are trying to get out.

You can keep one, maybe two - but you can't pacify them forever.

What you can do is try to establish a base line of what you will allow, and educate others as to how it benefits them.

But you never get to an end game.

Aaron Pohle:
"Steven,

I think that the situation with Saudi Arabia is a lot more complicated than that."

No, it's very simple: us or them.
As for the oil, I've said it before too many times: Energy Independence Manhattan Project. Develop our own oil, get oil from everywhere else _except_ Saudi Arabia (and, yes, our invasion of Iraq did help), nuclear power, fusion power, solar, geothermal, everything and anything, whatever it takes. This addiction to Saudi oil is as deadly as an addiction to dope. Or, alternatively, invade Saudi Arabia and seize the oil by force. We may well have to invade anyway, or, if necessary, use our nukes, but cutting their money spigot sounds like a better alternative.

"As to your other points, diplomacy is not treason."

Surrender is treason. Appeasement is treason.

"International relations are not black and white issues."

The mantra of every fuzzy-minded relativist and One-Worlder: "There are no blacks or whites, only shades of gray." I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that.

"How many if the House of Saud were to be convinced that we are intent upon destroying them and they go to war against us?"

They already are at war against us. To the death. That's precisely my point. The question is: How many more of us will die if we keep letting them think we're paper tigers afraid of offending anybody? 3,000 already died in the World Trade Center. What more do you want? The Washington Monument? The Empire State Building? The Sears Tower? The Space Needle?

"Sitting in a room with them sends a message that there is a way out, aside from military conflict."

Surrender.

"The details of what is said in that room define the terms of that way out."

The details of our terms of surrender to Islam.
It's us or them. Either the United States survives as a free nation, and the West as a free civilization (including Israel), or we surrender to Islam. As long as Saudi Arabia exists as an Islam-controlled government, we cannot survive. They will keep on flinging terrorists at us until we submit to Islam. Either we destroy Saudi Arabia or else Saudi Arabia will destroy the United States of America and the West.

Didn't the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba also support terrorism? Come to think of it we probably need to attack all of new Europe and half of Germany as well. (Red Brigades, Baader Meinhof, anyone?) What about Ireland? Did the Afghan rebels commit any terroristic acts? Should we throw Reagan in jail for supporting them?

I think I know why Ara keeps saying 'its above my pay grade'. It really is above his pay grade. Some people are better at criticism than construction, and that's a good thing. Roger Ebert probably can't make a good movie.

Yours,
Wince

Ara is correct about one thing, though. You can'tnegotiate with Arafat, because he is a one trick pony and a miserable leader.

Yours,
Wince

Steven,

There is a lot of room between military invasion and surrender. There are other forms of attack than military ones.

I agree that Saudi Arabia is in many ways our enemy and that our enemies have proven that we cannot coexist. We are at war and we must pursue that war, not surrender.

However, there is much more to war than simply armed conflict. Most of our war with the Soviet Union did not involve armed conflict, yet it was just as much a struggle for the survival of our nation. It was a war of technological and economic attrition. Attacking the Soviets would have not won the more more quickly or more completely, nor would military confilct have assured us victory. So instead we attacked in areas where we were stronger, economy and technology. The result is that we destroyed that regime without armed confict. There was, hoever, a war faught. Our negoations with the Soviets at the time were not teason, they were designed to keep the confilct in areas that we were confident we could win. We made concessions, we lost a few diplomatic battles here and that, but the over purpose and strategy was to win the war and we succeeded.

The war we have now is different in many ways, but it is also similar in the fact that there is more than one aspect of the war. In addition the the military power we employ, we are also using economic and diplomatic power. You seem to have great disdain for the use of diplomacy, but it is a very effective tool. The use of the tool of diplomacy in this war is not necessarily a sign we are weakening in our resolve or that we are planning to surrender and/or appease our enemies.
Instead is is a realization that we cannot use military and/or economic power to win every battle in this war. We must sometimes use diplomacy to avoid battles we are not yet ready to fight, or to end conflicts where we can complete the objectives we seek without military intervention. Don't look at the outcome of a single battle and proclaim it to reflect the outcome of the war.

As to your comment on black and white, I never said there were no black and whites, and I do not believe that. I said that it was not a black an white issue. There are shades in between. White is not always possible to achieve and attempting to achive it a failing can create a far worse situation.

"How many more of us will die if we keep letting them think we're paper tigers afraid of offending anybody?"

Our receint actions have already gone a long way toward eliminating that particular belief. In case you haden't noticed, we did hunt down the terrorists responsible for attacking us and we did conquer a nation that showed itself to be our enemy. We are hardly a paper tiger and I fully supported the military actions we have taken so far. We have used the big stick and now we are demanding that the others surrender to our demands. How is that us being afraid to offend anyone? How is that being a paper tiger? No we are at war and we continue to fight the war, our military strength, however, is not unlimited and to ignore the diplomatic and economic strength that we can apply to the war would be foolish. The House of Saud will be eliminated as a threat against us. As with the Soviet Union we may bring that about by not using military force, but we are still on that path from all that I can see.

As to your comments on reducing oil dependence, that's all fine and good, but it will still have a huge negative economic impact. It doesn't matter if we buy oil from Saudi's or not, if they reduce what they are selling it drives the price up. It is simple supply and demand economics and they control enough of the supply to manage the price. Nuclear power is great and I am all for it. It only addresses part of the problem, however because it is not portable. We cannot run cars, aircraft, etc from nuclear power efficiently as you cannot store electricity effeciently, which greatly raises the cost of operating them. That also discounts the cost of changing infastructure over to a new system. Thees rest of the technologies you mentioned are completely unable to meet our energy needs. There are solutions, certainly but they would all have the same effect as raising the world oil price. It would have a tremendously negative impact on our economy. It's not that we are addicted to oil, is that we have an economy that is largly tied to having a cheap, portable, energy storage medium and oil fits that bill right now. We are working on replacements, but they are nowhere near being ready to take up the role without causing great harm to our economy.

I see no reason that we should hurt ourselves simply to take them out faster. We can use diplomacy to greaty reduce or even nutralize their threat until we are better equiped to take more direct action, such as when Iraq is able to offset their oil influence or when our military is less engaged in Iraq and ready to make another invasion. In the meantime, diplomacy can do a lot of good to help reduce the threat they pose to us.

*tips hat to Ara* Works for me. Kudos.

Let's destroy everything right now and meet for donuts later.. folks think about it, liberty and justice for all is achieved one step at a time. It will take years for the war on terror to complete 50 percent of it's work, life is not a 30 min. sitcom.

It will take the patience and dedication of a united United States to fwin this war, and it is a war, these people, the Islamfacist, want to destroy and KILL anyone who will not give in and give our nation away. If you don't belive this..read what they say.

If by diplomacy you mean hard bargaining backed by force, then good. But if Bush really believes that baloney he's spouting about how the Saudis are our friends and Islam is a Religion of Peace, then we're sunk. They are our enemies and will stop at nothing to destroy our freedoms and force us to bow to Allah. I, for one, would sooner see every Muslim on this planet dead than submit to their rule.

Yes, I would certainly agree that if Bush actually thinks that the Saudi's are our friends and allies and plans to treat them accordingly that we would have huge problems. I don't believe that is the case however. When looking at diplomacy you have to always remember that both sides are often saying things that are not at all a reflection of their true views and beliefs. It is a complex and subtile game. It can also be a very frustrating and confusing one, yet it is one that can provide enormous advantages.

Sometimes, even the President has to utter politically correct but soothing opinions about various subjects. Pay no mind. We'll get to the Saudis soon enough.

Steven, you're scaring me. The Islamists will NOT take over the world and we won't have to kill them all to make sure. I don't know how it will all play out, but Armeggedon will be avoided (as long as H Dean doesn't end up as the President!) Just for the record, I'm quite hawkish myself when it comes to radical Islam. I just don't think that all Islamists must die for there to be world peace.

I don't think we have to kill them all either. All we have to do is stop appeasing them. If President Bush is just fooling them and not being fooled, good, but then I sure wish he wasn't doing such a good job fooling me. As it is, there's no way to tell. We didn't have to kill all the Russians either, and their government had thousands of nukes aimed at us. But President Reagan did call Soviet Communism an Evil Empire and predicted its demise -- a self-fulfilling prophecy. I hope President Bush does the same someday.