Mr Dunlop -

I did read Mr Byrne post, but did not find it as enlightening as you did.

It is purely opinion as to whether other countries would invade another
country in the face of steadfast US opposition.  Certianly other countries
would consider seriously the position of the US before doing this, as 
should the US when it does likewise.

The 'jingoistic idealogues' who are 'destroying this countries future'
are not alone.  The destruction of this country has been going on for
some time, and it started long before these 'radicalized' people started
doing it.  I submit that people like yourself can only see this when
it is done by those whos political philosophy is opposed to your own.

The 'safeguards' you talk about were broken down long ago largely by 
people of your political persuasion.  Now that it is your ox being
gores, you want 'safeguards'.  I submit the safeguards you want are
only those which constrain people politically opposed to you.  People
who share your world view want no constraints.

Regarding threats to the United States.  That whole area of the world is
a pressure cooker waiting to explode.  As technology advances, the 
capability to threaten the US advances.  We can either disable that
threat now while the stakes are relativly low, or we can wait until
a nuke goes off in Detroit.

I can almost smell the vitriol in the 'wrong war' speech.  I am not
going to try to say that everything was done perfectly in the Iraq
action, but I was unimpressed with the alternative.  I do not think
GWB opponent would have gone to war for any reason, and the situation
regarding Afghanistan demanded a response.

You invoke the name of the founding fathers like it is some kind of
trump card.  I doubt they would be any more impressed with John
Kerry's party either.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *