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.

<I do think the Soviet Union would probably have folded anyway, although I agree it would have been foolish to have counted on that happening. Things would have been different if a progressive Marxist was in charge, which is exactly what happened when we finally got Gorbachev. The trouble is that he wasn't ruthless enough to keep the empire from falling apart. Now instead of communist enemies in Russia and China, we have capitalist enemies. Just what have we gained?>

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 Since the cold-war supposedly is over the need for bases, ships, missiles and nuclear weapons is obsolete and should be promptly pounded into ploughshares and the money spent to build homeless shelters and finance socialized medicine.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.

<Let me be quite blunt. Everyone has used these methods throughout history, when outright conquest was deemed unnecessary or inconvenient, economic and political imperialism was employed. The problem with the Left is that they think the USA invented it and only the USA does it. The problem with the Right is that they think the USA doesn't ever do this because we're such nice guys.>

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.

<Yep, that's what happened.>

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.

<Yep. That's exactly what happened. So what are we arguing about?>

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.

<This is precisely the theory I proposed in my debut post in HabZone, from a purely geopolitical calculation; my only complaint was that the present administration had botched it through incompetence. Remember, we have a president who thinks "nuclear" has 3 syllables and who pronounces the "h" in "vehicle". Yeah, I know. There are stupid liberals, too, but we don't make excuses for them and we don't elect them president.>

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.

<Today, when long-range tactical nuclear weapons can be delivered by naval forces, this no longer matters, although I do concede conventional forces must be based this way if we choose to keep that "keystone" option open.>

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.

<Mutually Assured Destruction may have worked with the Soviets, I don't think it will work in the mideast, for the reasons you mentioned earlier.><br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<History would have pretty much unfolded the way it did anyway because Left and Right have nothing to do with it on the international arena. Nations and their leaders have agendas, economies need markets and raw material, and the world's resources are limited. Until the world admits this openly instead of making ideological rationalizations, the conflicts will continue. Now that Russia and China are fascist instead of communist our relationship with them has not changed a bit. The only difference is that now our businessmen can't wait to buy and sell from them and ship our jobs over there, and we will soon be in hock to them up to our ass. If you feel the need to blame someone, don't blame the lefities, blame the leaders in charge when the changes occured: Nixon and Reagan.>

<This whole right vs left struggle is a sham, the left no longer has any power in this country, not in the state houses, the governorships, the legislature or the presidency. Who is this left you conservatives are so terrified of? A couple of wacko professors in Berkeley? A few rock stars and movie actors? America has been dominated by the right since the late Carter administration, and the left lost its ability to really make things happen when Richard Nixon took office. The world we see today is the legacy of the Reagan years, both the good and bad. Quit bitchin' about the left and DO something.>

<BTW, this is going to be my last political post. It's not that I'm tired of politics, I'm just tired of having to deal with it all the time. I want to talk about other things. I'm tired of having every word I say scrutinized for politically correct content and I'm tired of feeling I have to defend myself every time I make a casual comment. Look at the slant of our posts lately, politics seems to dominate our discussions and I'm fed up with it. I know I'm a newby, and I have no right to dictate to the rest of you and I freely concede I've done my share of political rabble-rousing, so please don't take this as a criticism; you have the right to say anything you want. I'm just stating my preferences.

As Bob Dylan once pointed out, in a totally different context:

"I'd rather design harmonica holders than discuss Aztec anthropology."

Or if you'd like a more detailed explanation---

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Angry-Young-Man-lyrics-Billy-Joel/86A973E0FB610D0A482568700025B91D