[JimWayne]

They get around foreign military involvement by saying that it's ok if we get attacked first. Of course, the nature of modern warfare is that it may be impossible to tell exactly where the attack came from, and it may be in our best interest to attack preemptively. Those last two are simple facts. If you chose to debate them with me...

You as well as I know that the real debate is your insistence that the above right to preemptively attack anyone they please extends to people who belong to the Islamic faith and to every individual. This is implicit in your defense of Gadhafi et al and the argument that Islam is a Religion of Peace because you conducted a survey and found that 999.999 million members of Islam are purveyors of peace.

The least you could do is not pretend to be a conservative. As far as I am concerned, Islam is a violent religion and is the cause of terrorism.

[presidio9]

You as well as I know that the real debate is your insistence that the above right to preemptively attack anyone they please extends to people who belong to the Islamic faith and to every individual. This is implicit in your defense of Gadhafi et al and the argument that Islam is a Religion of Peace because you conducted a survey and found that 999.999 million members of Islam are purveyors of peace. The least you could do is not pretend to be a conservative. As far as I am concerned, Islam is a violent religion and is the cause of terrorism.

I think we are in agreement with the idea that Islam sucks, so I'm not sure what you're point is here. Do you want to make a specific accusation against George W. Bush or someone else? If so, I would be happy to defend him. If you contend that I somehow defended Muammar al-Gaddafi, I'll let you know that the older sister of a close friend of mine was on Pan Am Flight 103. I went to her funeral. You're barking up the wrong tree my friend.

You libertarians seem to forget that war once made a bedfellow of Joseph Stalin for us.