[u-89]

Gee, it's a tough problem, just maybe it would be best to state it accurately instead of ranting against 'neo-conservatives.

What's not accurate? In their own words in print, on TV and radio neocons talk of dominating the world, remaking the entire middle east and bringing liberal democracy to all the dark corners of the globe and using preemptive wars to make sure no one can challange our status. Somehow in my mind that registers diferently than defending our borders or protecting our shipping. Unless of course one concludes that everywhere in the world one can find an American citizen so there must be American military might there just to ensure their safety. I'm not sure but I do not think most Americans would like to be on the recieving side of these equations. If so then it would not be far fetched to conclude that others might not be too keen on it either but I guess their desires don't count when our "national greatness" and "global hegemony" is at stake.

[WOSG]

The neo-cons have correctly pointed out that the forces of repression of the Islamofascist/Baathist/Khoumeni variety or of the eivl-dictator-Castro-Mugabe-Quaddafi variety serve to support terrorists and violence that threatens us directly.

This is just like the Cold War, where we were faced with a large and multi-faceted threat. But unlike the Cold War there is no "center" to it - no Stalin, no Moscow. This is a mnay-headed hydra.

The original author is wrong about American empire. We have create many international organization during the post WWII era and *properly* saw the challenge as global and faced it as such, *before* it came to our shores.

But 9/11 OTOH did come to our shores and reminded us that distant threats can strike home if left unchallenged.

We have enough power and there is enough evidence to show that 'containment' policy used during the Cold War will not work. Containment of Saddam will not stop him from training terrorists, or letting terrorist kill Americans in Jordan and slip back to Baghdad.

To defeat terrorism and its allies, we will need to cut off all its sources of strength: financial, ideological, state sponsorship, etc. This leaves inevitably to a "DRAIN THE SWAMP" strategy: If we want to defeat terrorists, end the regimes of violence, force and anti-western ideology that are the nests of terrorism.

World-wide democratization seems a bold effort, but that does not make it a bad goal. The benefits of such a change would be enormous. Even the selective democratization of those regimes that are terror-sponsors would reap huge dividends.

Pursuing Democratization and doing it proactively is not "Empire"; that is a strategy for global peace and security ... and freedom.

[DreamWeaver]

u-89, Your post # 15, very well said.