Merely for the sake of being devil's advocate (don't flame me), I'd like to point out that there is someone else arguing the opposing point of view.

And he does it with quotes. Care to rebute him?

I wouldn't flame you for being reasonable.

"Captain Normal" is, however, famous for these kinds of out-of-context far-left-wing rant, not to mention generally trollish behavior around here, so I'm loath to give him a lot of attention. Indeed, in looking at his latest screed, I see the worst sort of vile hatemongering--a willingness to beleive, even assume, that what's been going on has been normal behavior for Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. And to spread taht message. That's just sick.

Someone recently put up a list of links to refute this horrible lie. I don't have one handy and am too revolted to put one together now, but spend some time at Chief Wiggels' blog, since the man was a professional interrogator in Iraq. Go visit Black Five, Sgt. Stryker, Lt Smash, or any of the other well-known milbloggers who've served over there and ask them if they believe that crap.

All I see, as mentioned yesterday, is lefty bloggers like "Captain Normal" spreading this vile hateful crap, and using it as a pretext to attack the administration (so predictably, it's all these guys ever do in response to any bad news of any sort), while the actual military people, the actual anti-Saddam, pro-War On Terror folks are expressing revulsion, shame, sadness, and a desire for justice. Draw your own conclusions, man.

I'm skeptical of the notion that the reason for the murder of Nick Berg was revenge for the maltreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison by the U. S. military. Muslim extremists are murdering civilians on a daily basis, frequently by beheading, and have been for years. This includes the murders of as many as a million fellow Muslims in the Sudan. It's a pretext, nothing more.

You've also got to remember that its easy to get a series of quotes from the "arab street" showing revulsion and hatred of Americans...its especially easy when the person being quoted was slipped some money by the terrorists to do precisely this, with the back-up threat to his family in case he goes off message....

Dean, this is the reply I posted to Captain abNormal:
---
Two words; one name: Nick Berg.

Are there any other questions?

Brought to you by the lovely people who produced that huge Arab hit, "The Murder of Daniel Pearl," "Feed Daddy to the Plastic Shredder," and "Rape Momma In Front of the Kids."
---

Actually, Dean, if you haven't read abNormal's post yet, the "quotes" are just statements that the American who escaped wasn't tortured, and that the Iraqis were nice to Pvt. Lynch. I think the latter can be disputed, but it's probably not worth the trouble. That's all of abNormal's "quotes."

I believe Greyhawk has several links to Iraq bloggers who are either not-negative, or actually positive about the situation. But since Greyhawk is military I'm sure abNormal will dismiss him as a "Bush apologist."

Dean expresses disgust over my far-left viewpoint (guilty as charged) while I'm stunned by his ability---nay, his desire---to swallow any offical government press release as gospel truth.

My immediate point is that there are plenty of atrocities on both sides in Iraq, and that I do not believe we're making things much better by occupying this territory. The body count is just going to rise and rise with no end in sight.

The larger point is that the Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not have WMDs, and we shouldn't be there in the first place. We should be fighting al Queda and the nations that finance al Queda, including Saudi Arabia

Hey Don, if you don't trust the government, how come you want them to totally control gun ownership in this country? Seems like one hell of a contradiction.

Iraq had WMD's, Saddam was required to prove they had been disposed of, he did not. That case is closed regardless of when or where those weapons turn up (who borders Iraq to the West, is also a Ba'athist state, and has had a sudden increase in chemical and biological weapons they're busy trying to find a spot for? I'll take Syria for $1000 Alex). Saddam was the only world leader to express approval for 9/11, and funding and equipment transfer to Al Qaeda have already been demonstrated. So your larger point comes out to be very very small.
As for Saudi Arabia, look for the pressure on them to increase after the election. Right now an escalation in hostilities would only feed the conspiracy-theorist moonbat left into increasing their support for John Kerry, and the nation doesn't need that.

Hey John, why are you changing the subject and misrepresenting my position on the repeal of that dangerous anachronism, the 2nd Amendment? Seems like one hell of a diversionary tactic.

"That case is closed" only in the sense that offical denials have been made and the right-wing media no longer reports on it. Al Qaeda considered Saddam a secular infidel, John. The only ties between them exist in the fantasies of the bloodthirsty right.

As for Saudi Arabia, pressure on them will only increase after a Kerry victory. The Bush family has business ties with the Saudi royal family that go back three generations! Don't take my word for it (not that you would), read Craig Unger's excellent HOUSE OF BUSH, HOUSE OF SAUD: THE SECRET RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WORLD'S TWO MOST POWERFUL DYNASTIES, available now wherever finer books are sold.

Nope, if I was changing the subject I wouldnt have included the rest of the post. How am I misrepresenting your position? You state you wish to have the 2nd Amendment repealed. This means our right to "keep and bear arms" COULD be infringed, more so than it is now, by the same government YOU say we cannot trust. Unless of course, at the same time it is repealed you're agenda involves a permanent change in the government. . .But you still fail to answer why, if in your opinion we cannot trust the government, we should trust it by surrendering a basic American right. I've asked you this on multiple occasions, and you dodge and weave. You will keep being asked until you provide an answer.

As for Al Qaeda and Iraq, one good link (thanks for the info Dean and the rest of the WarWiki gang) http://windsofchange.net/archives/004954.php

Read the whole thing, links and all. The idea that Al Qaeda would NOT ally itself with Iraq (or any other enemy of the US) is a leftist fantasy. Even recently, Al Qaeda offered a truce to Europe if they sided against the US, and Europe is even more "secular" and full of infidels than Iraq was!

John:

RE: the 2nd Amendment. One of these days I'm going to have to write about this at some length, but here is my position in a nutshell:

**The 2nd Amendment was written to pertain to citizen militia's fighting a colonial superpower, armed with muzzle-loaders---not assault weapons sold over the counter to criminals and schizophrenics. It is a dangerous anachronism, just as the "3/5 of a person clause" was and it should be repealled.

**Repeal of the 2nd Amdendment does NOT, I repeat, does NOT equal a government monopoly on guns. It simply opens the door to common-sense gun regulations.

**"Common-sense gun regulations" means (very, VERY broadly) three things: 1) licencing requirements and adequate background checks, so that people who are too young/violent criminals/insane/etc cannot own a gun. 2) reasonable paperwork and registration requirements so that IF that gun is used in a crime, law enforcement has a paper trail to follow, and 3) minimum safety standards to protect the owner and the community at large.

**The obvious model is they way we currently licience and regulate car ownership

**Reasonable people can and should disagree about the specific implementation of these three proposals.

Of course I don't trust the government completely---do you? But it's possible to accept regulation without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'll check out windsofwar later, but now I have to go to work. (I suspect it's the same collection of Bush lies we've all seen before, but I could be wrong)

In regards to your points:
** The 1st Amendment was written to cover public speaking and 18th century printing presses. Therefore it was not meant to and does not cover radio, television, modern printing presses, and specifically the Internet. It also only protects those words and forms existing in the English language as of the end of the 18th century. The first amendment is a good rebuttal to your claim, as it defines other rights (en masse, whereas the right to bear arms is important enough to have its own heading). The 3/5's clause was a compromise with the slave states rgarding proportional representation, over the objections of the consciences of many of the authors, NOT a right and therefore an invalid comparison.

In addition, you seem to have the common lefist misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment to begin with. The Founding Fathers own papers state that the individual right to bear arms is specific to counterbalance the 'well-regulated militia.' The right to bear arms in self-defense is the right that gives teeth to all the others, else they exist merely at the whim of federal power.

**We have enough "common sense" gun regulation now, thank you. The crime rate with firearms in countries without a right to bear arms is comparable or exceeds that in the US. Criminals don't obey laws.

**Again, your "very broad" regulations are already in place, from local concealed-carry permits to Brady. So either you are unaware of this, or have another agenda unstated.

**being licensed to drive a car is a responsibility and a privilege, not a right. Ownership of the means of self-defense is a principal right on which this country was founded. The ability of each and every American to fight for his or her country, freedom, and life itself protects the Constitution and the institution it establishes. As an example, should the Communists (as one example of a heinous culture opposed to the American way, Islamism and Nazism being two others) have succeeded (or in future succeed) in infiltrating or coercing the American government into discarding the Constitution in favor of Marxism, you can rest assured those who supported and enforced such a decision would not be long for this Earth, in any era. On a smaller scale, when some Orc decides he wishes to invade an Americans home and commit violence upon their persons and possessions, he should do so with full fear that he will face an American citizen fully willing and able to defend himself.

As for "more of Bush's lies" it appears you have placed blinders upon yourself such that no truth can penetrate. Anything that runs contrary to your inner vision of the world must be false, despite the evidence.

John:

**Nope, the 1st Amendment has held up just fine, allowing (among other things) you and I to talk past each other on the Internet. But the Constitution was designed to be changed over time, and I think that this is a long-needed change. It may have been appropriate in the 17th century, but not in the 21st.

**We most certainly do NOT have common-sense gun control today. Gun show sales, a lack of record keeping, and the out-and-out obstruction of the Justice Dept have prevented any serious sattempt at gun control.

**I'm well-aware of the piecemeal, ineffective sham that is gun regulation in the US---I just think it is woefully inadequate.

**John, my agenda isn't unstated at all. I've stated over and over and over again that I support repealing the 2nd Amendment because I don't believe high-powered assault weapons are or should be "right," but should rather be a "responsibility and a privilege."

I've printed out the Winds of Change post (jesus, it's a long one!) and will read it on the way home. At first glance it seems well-researched, but very one-sided. For example, he admits that Saudi Arabia has more ties to al Qaeda than Iraq, but doesn't feel it lets Iraq off the hook. I agree, but I still think it's backwards logic. It would be like attacking Switzerland after Pearl Harbor---if you look hard enough you could find ties to the Axis, but shouldn't you retaliate against Japan first? But let me read the whole thing first...

Ah, but there is where unfortunate realpolitic comes into play. . . the Saudi government has not declared itself hostile to the US (yet, and their time is coming, much sooner should Bush be re-elected than John Kerry I am quite sure), therefore an attack against them would come with even more outcry from the left (alternate world headlines easily pictured, maximum font front page of the NYT "Bush Carries Out 'Pre-emptive' Attack Against American Ally, Ignores Threatening Dictator Next Door" sub-heading "vote democrat.") Again a better version of your comparison would be WW2 US ignoring Hitlers declaration of war against us as Japan was the direct attacker and Germany had no way to actually harm America. Also evidence not only has firmly linked Saddam with al Qaeda, there is very substantial evidence that Mohammed Atta (emember him?) met with top officials of Iraqi intelligence shortly before 9/11. So while Saudi Arabia may have provided the deluded fanatics, Iraq almost certainly provided the ways and means.

As for your gun control mantra, you are apparently either unfortunately or willfully ignorant of the fact that fully automatic weapons are controlled items in the U.S. So-called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic firearms that look threatening, but are less potent generally then Civil War Era Winchester rifles.

I grew up in the South, among extremely responsible gun owners, both family and friends thereof. I have personally handled and fired, although not expert with by far, everything from .22 rifles, various gauges of shotguns, pistols and revolvers ranging from 9mm to the .44 S&W and the M19A1 .45, the whole gamut of hunting rifles, and both American and Soviet-style military rifles. So long as they did not violate federal statutes on fully-automatic fire, they are my birthright as an American citizen and I don't give a damn what your fears are when you attempt to deprive me of that right. But since you keep mentioning the buzzword "assault weapon" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just presume you are completely ignorant (or duped) of the realities of firearms rather than having a secret agenda.

Whoa whoa whoa, I'm slipping, because I just noticed you compared Iraq to SWITZERLAND?? Whatthehell? You cannot be serious.

"No more drugs for this man."
Appropriate quote from Face-Off

Dude, your "realpolitic" is woefully, laughably wrongheaded. Bush wil NEVER attack Saudi Arabia! Where in the goddesses name would you ever get such an idea? The Royal Family are business partners and major campaign contributors of the Bush family for 3 generations! Bush would launch an air strike on Vermont before he would sneeze in the Saudi's direction.

Seriously, man---where did you get that idea?

And the Switzerland thing was argument by analogy, dude, so let me have my drugs back.

Yep, you compared Iraqi to Switzerland, no messin'. You even admit you were drawing an analogy between the two. What flavor of crack allows someone to find any point of comparison between the two other than the presence of human beings? As for Saudi Arabia, I think they are going to face pressure of a different kind. Of course it would be easier if we could eliminate any of our dependence on Saudi oil, by opening up more oil fields here for instance (a stance the left is opposed to), or develop alternative fuels (a stance the left admirably supported, at least until Bush endorsed it and funded it).

Here's your drugs back, hope you're high on election day.