Rhetoric
SDAI-Tech1, did you completely miss the fact that Justice Barak is on the Supreme Court of Israel? Would you consider Israel "soft" on terrorism? Israel???
And yet even Israel recognizes some moral constraints, embattled as it's been for so long. Israel hasn't succumbed to its fear in more than half a century, but Bush gave in to his fear at the first sign of danger.
Your response is out-of-context when you realize that I was responding to your call in "The big question is..." for wars of ideological conquest, posed as a rhetorical question:
..shouldn't part of that standard be to spread freedom, protect American interests and promote the US version of western ideals?
The answer is no, not at gunpoint. Which has little to do, I'm afraid, with your intervening post all about standing tall against terrorism. Where did I say we shouldn't defend ourselves? And speaking of motes in one's eye, I was amused at the way you confuse the role of policeman with military proselytization...yeah, it's a crime to not agree with America, QED the policeman must act. How utterly and cluelessly arrogant an attitude!
You advocate non-defensive wars to advance our ideology...are you riffing on Bush's doctrine of preemptive war and defining a possible threat so broadly as to include ideological disagreement with the US as grounds for war?
That's different how from my earlier point?:
[Robert] Hitler thought that way. Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, et al, felt that way. The Crusaders felt that way. The English felt that way when they built their Empire. The Romans felt that way. The Japanese felt that way when the started their half of WWII. Today's Islamic terrorists feel that way.
Quite the little warmonger, there, Techie. You and Dubya, two peas in a pod.
I stand by my principles. You can rationalize betrayal of our ideals on the dual grounds of expediency and messianic mission all you want, but I side with Justice Barak in viewing that attitude as corrosive of democracy and freedom, and a stain on our national honor.