Free Republic

Does someone pay you to do this?

Of course dropping the atomic bombs was terrorisom. The stated purpose was to terrorise the population, military and civilian, into surrender. You can't argue that the US didn't directly target civilians - it's just true. Those corpses weren't collateral damage from an overzealous attempt to blow up a ball bearing factory, the corpses were the goal. Let's see - kill and threaten to kill more civilians until they won't support their government's policies or the government realizes it won't have anything left worth ruling. Yup, terrorism. Terrorism is just a word for a way of waging war. Even granting that the bombing was completely justified to the extent that God would give you pat on the back for doing his work just means it was justified terrorism. The question is whether anything justifies directly targeting civilians. Were ten japenese women and children worth one US Marine? If your answer is yes, and a lot of people's is, and you want to have a moral basis for your position then you can't condem the 9/11 atrocities simply because they were terroristic, you need to show that their cause didn't justify terrorism. And further, you need to show that when the US has used terrorism in the past it was justified. I guess the other choice is to say screw the moral basis - if you f*** with us you and everyone around you is going to be part of the glowing glass landscape. OK, I was wrong - that's a fine pagan moral basis. I'm no liberal peacenik, I design communications equipment for the special forces types, and if any of our gear helps a Marine sniper put some bullets through the heads of certain clowns running around Afghanistan no one will be happier than me. But I am a non-cafeteria Catholic and I will not support indescriminate bombing, nuclear or otherwise, of innocent civilians, Japanese or Afghani. Luckily, Bush seems to be with me so far on Afghanistan. God I can ramble.

What's his problem?

Yeah. He probably voted against National Pickle Week too.

What a crock! Can you imagine these types of restrictions on the first amendment?

Yes. And they'll start on them right after there done with the second.

Let's save time and go right to methodical house to house searches. If you're not doing anything wrong, you won't mind the police looking in your closets and under your beds.

As long as they only did it say every 6 months why not? What are you hiding a PCP lab or something? I can always spot you drug addled libertarians. Remember: Dayton city prosecutor Deirdre Logan says, "These types of checkpoints don't violate the Constitution." She's in the government so she should know - I think they take a class or something. We're only protected from unreasonable searchs and those will always be exactly what the guys with guns courts say they are.

What's with all the hostility to Buchanan? Pat understands what the consequences of imperialism are.

They are hostile to Buchanan because they understand the consequences of imperialism and they like the idea.

I never have understood the inane call for isolationism as if we don't have enough evidence in history that the policy has never worked.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "worked." Certainly no non-iterventionist government has ever achieved empire and if that's what you're after I'll have to agree with you. Big glourious state, making things happen, generating history by the bookful, making the world safe for whatever it needs to be safe for, cane a wog, etc. - its attractive I admit. The Romans liked it, the British liked it, and it worked. But that doesn't mean wanting to be left alone, shooting anyone who bothers you, trying not to give anyone reason to bother you, and getting on with your life without vicarious thrills from being a small cog in the big machine of Destiny doesn't or hasn't worked either. It worked in the US and was still working when we decided it was time for a change. It works in Switzerland. An earlier poster commented that it is impossible for the most powerful nation on earth to persue a Swiss-like foreign policy. Well, duh, that's just true by definition. The point is that it is perfectly possible for Joe Citizen to have a happy and fulfilling life without being a member of the most powerful nation on earth. And frankly, I don't care if the FrontPage/National Review Napoleon wannabes are bored.

"Modern weapons" to the taliban would be sat radios, GPS, laser designators and other high tech gear

Those would be modern weapons to the US forces also.

We looked at this thing for last minute ship defense. It's practically useless - the rounds go everywhere.

Yeah, and if Judas Priest would just shut up there'd be no teen suicide and if we took Larry Flynt's camera there's be no rape. Normal people could never think of these things on their own; we need extra smart people to tell us about them.

Aren't they in the we have enough problems of our own without worrying about Afghanistan category?