IS RUSH A CONSERVATIVE?? WHAT DOES HE CONSERVE?

Surviving nazis must have gotten a good chuckle out of THAT !

They got an even bigger chuckle out of being brought
into the employ of the US government.

The US sure didn't want to waste all that talent, Dave.
Think of all the US learned from those Nazis.

Were the odd events of 9/11/1 a paranoid fantasy?

No, not the odds of it.

But paranoid fantasies definitely fed into Americans' perception of how great an atrocity 9/11 was.

To be sure, those 3,000 murders were terrible, but they were a fraction of the murders that Americans
committed on each other in 2001. They were a fraction of how many Americans were killed in accidents that year.

Accordingly, preventing future Al-Quaeda killings deserves a fraction of the priority that's appropriate for crime prevention, traffic safety, and safety regulations for swimming pools and firearms.

A similar picture emerges from an international perspective. The 9/11 atacks killed a fraction of the number of foreigners America routinely kills in the pursuit of its wars abroad. So a once-off atrocity killing 3,000 Americans is no more than what the US government bargained for by choosing its interventionist foreign policy over George Washington's avoidance of foreign entanglements. If America doesn't want such atrocities, it should withdraw from its interventionist foreign policy.

I am not a Republican, but I have to hand it to Ron Paul: He is the only US politician who's setting the right priorities on terror prevention. Everybody else, including his Republican competitors and the Democratic incumbent, have promised more of the same. I expect more of the same results from them.

U think its a paranoid fantasy that the Moslems wanna do it AGAIN, with a bigger "BANG!"?????

Yes. "THE" Muslims dislike terror as much as "THE" Christians and "THE" Jews do.
That is to say, they generally dislike it, but some of them dislike some people even less,
and accordingly approve of terror against them.

Because of this mindset, some Americans---including you I suspect---happily supported
various death squads in Central America.

Similarly, some Muslims are currently supporting terrorist attacks against oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia's, and against the chief supporter of the Saudi oppressors, the United States of America. If you were a freed0m-loving citizen of Saudi Arabia, you'd probably support Al-Quaida against the United States.

I thawt we were only discussing the Moslems getting fission boms.

Pakistan already has fission bombs, and Pakistan is a Muslim country. This horse is out of the barn.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

American interests r purely defensive.
We just don 't wanna get nuked by fanatical Moslems
who detest the great satan and who only regret
that 9/11/1 lacked a nuclear component.

That's a paranoid fantasy in America without a basis in the economics of terrorism. The 9/11 attacks proved that low-tech weapons such as box cutters are incredibly effective at achieving the terrorists' goals. (Al Quaida's Madrid train bombings of 3/11/2004 proved the same thing again.) Why would they trade that for thermonuclear weapons?

OmSigDavid wrote:

(Witness the fact that we have no problem with
the English, possessing nukes.)

The English aren't a good counterpoint because they were America's allies. There's no obligation on the nuclear powers of the world to be allies of America. A better statistical control would be the Soviets. They were homicidal bastards but not suicidal bastards, just as Iran's leadership is today. America didn't attack them. It was the right decision.

oralloy wrote:

There is no moral equivalence between the US and a rogue nation like Iran.

Yes there is.

An American attack on Iran would be exactly as bad as an Iranian attack on the US.

And if preventive war is a legitimate way act of prevention for the US, it also is for Iran.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Were the odd events of 9/11/1 a paranoid fantasy?

No, not the odds of it. But paranoid fantasies definitely fed into Americans' perception of how great an atrocity 9/11 was. To be sure, those 3,000 murders were terrible, but they were a fraction of the murders that Americans committed on each other in 2001. They were a fraction of how many Americans were killed in accidents that year. Accordingly, preventing future Al-Quaeda killings deserves a fraction of the priority that's appropriate for crime prevention, traffic safety, and safety regulations for swimming pools and firearms.

A similar picture emerges from an international perspective. The 9/11 atacks killed a fraction of the number of foreigners America routinely kills in the pursuit of its wars abroad.

So a once-off atrocity killing 3,000 Americans is no more than what the US government bargained for by choosing its interventionist foreign policy over George Washington's avoidance of foreign entanglements.

If America doesn't want such atrocities, it should withdraw from its interventionist foreign policy.

I am not a Republican, but I have to hand it to Ron Paul: He is the only US politician who's setting the right priorities on terror prevention. Everybody else, including his Republican competitors and the Democratic incumbent, have promised more of the same. I expect more of the same results from them.

OmSigDavid wrote:

U think its a paranoid fantasy that the Moslems wanna do it AGAIN, with a bigger "BANG!"?????

Yes. "THE" Muslims dislike terror as much as "THE" Christians and "THE" Jews do. That is to say, they generally dislike it, but some of them dislike some people even less, and accordingly approve of terror against them. Because of this mindset, some Americans---including you I suspect---happily supported various death squads in Central America.

Similarly, some Muslims are currently supporting terrorist attacks against oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia's, and against the chief supporter of the Saudi oppressors, the United States of America. If you were a freed0m-loving citizen of Saudi Arabia, you'd probably support Al-Quaida against the United States.

Quote:

I think one should focus on that the U.S. embassy hostages back in 1979 has not had closure yet.

You are such a stupid piece of ****, Foofie...

What happened to Jews 70 years ago is justly forgotten, because most people alive today don't know that history.

However, people of today see what injustices the Palestinians live every day in Israel;

their land is taken at will for expanded settlements,

and they can't travel freely in their "own" country where generations have lived.

That's not a democracy by any sense of that word.

Hardly an "injustice" to tell a Palestinian he isn't allowed to run around murdering people.

Get it? Let's not have a double standard.[/quote

The only one with a double standard is you, Foofie. And you are dumb and ignorant, kinda equivalent to a sack of hoe handles.

[quote]I am concerned though about the loss of power of white Protestant America, since it was that demographic, prior to 1850, that made the culture that allowed America to be a superpower.

It is against the law for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

oralloy wrote:

It is against the law for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Which law is that oralloy?

Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran can withdraw by simply giving a 3 month notice. So, I am not really clear which law you are talking about oralloy.

While signing a treaty should obligate the signatory to abide by it, there certainly is no law enforcement that can ensure they do.

I'm sure JTT could give us a lot of instances of the US failing to abide by treaties they signed.

I'm sure JTT could give us a lot of instances
of the US failing to abide by treaties they signed.

Gentiles may have short memories, but Jews have none. What happened to Jews 70 years ago is justly forgotten, because most people alive today don't know that history. However, people of today see what injustices the Palestinians live every day in Israel; their land is taken at will for expanded settlements, and they can't travel freely in their "own" country where generations have lived.

That's not a democracy by any sense of that word.