"Kind of reminds me of the Kerry "Time" interview, which basically broke down to "I would have done exactly what Bush did, but completely differently."

and:

"Political capital with France, Germany, Russia, and nations that hate us on principle anyway. There are also many nations on our side, but of course they don't count when the term "international" is used. Better hope Kerry wins. He plans on touring Europe and other nations on a great abasement and ring-kissing tour. Like most liberals, he thinks Sirius itself shines out of Europe's ass.

"

Ah Yes: the 'Kerry is Babbadbadbadbad, mommy'! argument. What can I say? The flaws of Kerry don't mitigate the flaws behind your support of, nor the flaws of the policies enacted by Bush.

The fact is that Iran is a real threat to global stability, and we are to overextended to threaten violence, and we wrecked all of our ability to get aid by pissing on our allies and the UN. All we can do now is say: "Oh, PLEASE! Iran, don't build a nuke..."

" assume both of these refer to Pakistan? "

One does, but there are numerous tyrants that have enjoyed our support (hell, even Saddam had it at one point!)

"And during the war with the Taliban, I suppose you would have put sanctions on Pakistan,"

BlibbityBlah- but we are not now at war with the Taliban- and there is more than enough evidence that suggests that elements within the gov't of pakistan are aiding former taliban leaders as well as Al-Qaeda members.

Oh, and this timeless classic:
"Or maybe you have a brilliant idea we haven't thought of yet. There's always the Firm Letters Of Disapproval from the U.N., known to make dictators who kill thousands on a whim quiver in their jackboots. "Oh, dear, not sanctions. However will I get enough for me and my family to eat?"

"Done differently." For the thousandth time, "HOW?" Kerry can't answer this question. Can you? Maybe do the same "dumb" stuff, only with U.N. approval? Like the actions aren't dumb any more if you get enough nations to agree with you? Lord knows a lot of people think like this: "It can't be a stupid idea because all my friends go along with it."

"

Done differently? How about not invade Iraq? How about listen to the numerous experts in numerous fields who discounted and discredited whole swaths of the so-called 'Iraqi WMD' data, and the 'Iraqi terrorist' data.

What you do is you make the assumptions:
1) That Iraq was a threat
2) That everyone KNEW Iraq was a threat

and then try to get me to accept those prremises and debate with you about "what we could have done differently"

The point is: Irtaq was not a threat. The data on the terrorist conections was immenently debunkable and NOT conclusive and bordered on UFOlogy arguments. The Data on WMD was inconclusive and in itself, even if true, did not indicate a clear and present danger.

Notice that you use theatrical handwaves every time you feel sufficiently challenged: "For the thousandth time- HOW!?"- for the thousandth time I have answered you- and for the thousandth time you will come back with an active denial of my answer because it does not take as premises that Iraq was an immenent threat and that 'everyone' knew it. When you are finished wuith your theatrics, and want to go back to evidence, give me a ring tommy boy.

Davin L.