You may not have advocated such a stance, but the common denominator sold on the left these days is that the Soviet Union would've folded anyway, was not really that bad and would've been different had a true "progressive" Marxist been in charge - the perpetual Marxist defense.

You still can hear the cries of how unneccessary and bloated our military budget is. After 1990, watching the race to dismantle our cold-war fighting industries and tools was illuminating. Since the cold-war supposedly is over the need for bases, ships, missiles and nuclear weapons is obsolete and should be promptly pounded into ploughshares and the money spent to build homeless shelters and finance socialized medicine.

The nuclear race hasn't even begun. Life was good when we fought an atheistic evil empire. Atheists weren't suicidal. It's when fighting theists with their imagined paradises awaiting their martyrs that the face of conflict drastically changes. A single insane man is much more dangerous than a band of armed robbers. This is why Iraq and Afghanistan have been such difficult spots to quell violence and promote a simulucrum of western civilization- because the natives are inherently violent and their beliefs do not conform to civilized beliefs and behavior.

Let me be quite blunt. The west has used bribery and technology to placate and exploit the primitive minded. The house of Saud still used to ride bands of horses up until the late twenties. US & British corporate interests gave them the technology to develop the oil discovered under their land and the Sauds, like children went on a shopping spree with gold faucets, Rolls Royce's converted to desert use complete with prayer rugs, etcetera. Customized Cadillacs for every favorable member of the clan and for those who were useful, palace building etcetera.

ALL the Middle Eastern leaders followed in this childlike, selfish use of the money and very few used it to build any real infrastructure, until the discontent of the masses jeopardized their non-stop indulgent, spending spree of oil money. We had troops stationed very near the Saudi palaces. We sheltered them from internal revolt from unhappy citizens who would easily be aroused to antipathy and action with the right manipulation. Enter Bin Laden. One of the privileged, spoiled Saudis who wants to overthrow the house of Saud. He turns to terror to try to win public opinion. He uses others, mainly youthful boys, like a spider sucks the life out flies and leaves their carcasses and ashes scattered all over the Middle East and several whose ashes are now mixed with innocents in the dust floating around New York where the WTC used to stand.

And why? Simply, because the US was defending the House of Saud. He's just another Middle East tin-plated, would-be-dictator, who wants power and has no qualms about manipulating others to die for his own ends. As bad as Hitler and probably even worse - more of a Genghis Khan. Bin Laden no more believes in Islam than any atheist does. That's why you don't see him on the front lines with explosives wrapped around him.

The US presence in Iraq is very necessary. Not because I expect it to bring civilization to savages overnight, but it is necessary because it allows us to protect our investment in the Middle East until such time as we no longer need foreign oil. Yes the bases, new airfields and ability to maneuver troops into Iran, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else they are needed is invaluable to the "new cold war" that will develop in this region.

Yes, without a doubt, we will be pointing tactical nuclear weapons at Teheran and key Iranian ports, industrial facilities and creating a "first strike" capability in the region in much the same manner as NATO developed in Europe.

Think about it. This is the ONLY way to insure peace. This is the only way to keep Iranian hands out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia once they build a nuclear arsenal - which is inevitable at this point since Belgium, France, Russia & German interests have practically placed nuclear weapon capability right in the Ayatollah's lap.

Leftist rewriting of history is only a threat inasmuch as it promotes actions and policies that endanger this and future generations by failing to see the big picture. This was true with communism in the first half of the twentieth century. And today, this mile-wide blind spot, is true of the left on immigration, economic policy, governments role in society and foreign policy.