Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And if
>>>>> the US or the world ever become satisfyingly safe,
>>>>
>>>> Is such a thing possible?
>>>
>>> It's what Bush is spending future generations' money for,
>>
>> Really?
>
> You do not see the price on homeland security, the military or war?

Yes, I do.

> Is all that spending to continue living in fear?

No, but it is not to make any place "satisfyingly safe". There is no such
thing.

>>> as well as attacking other nations for.
>>
>> Really?
>
> War with other nations and the tough talk against such as Iran are
> not about US security?

Yes, they are, but they are not to make any place "satisfyingly safe". There
is no such thing.

>>> Or was that a lie, too?
>>
>> What was the first lie?
>
> Who can remember?

Not you, apparently.

> I'm just asking if it is another lie that Bush is
> trying to make the US safe.

I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is. What was one of
the previous lies?

>>> It could be that
>>> Bush will spend just enough money on security, or stir up just
>>> enough trouble around the world, as before the UN in Iraq, or in
>>> sound bites
>>> on the news, for the US always to be viewed with distrust and
>>> suspicion by even traditional post WWII allies.
>>
>> Yes, like the UK.
>
> You will note that Blair's enthusiasm and support are not
> representative, nor are the UK or Japan tagging along with the US
> enough to maintain the US' role or image in the rest of the world.

I see. States that side with us are tagging along while states that oppose
us are taking some noble stand. Gotcha.

>>>>> then people will
>>>>> remember the economy and deficit, or foreign relations again.
>>>>
>>>> That's all that gets talked about now.
>>>
>>> No, they are brainwashed into thinking that incarcerating people for
>>> being Middle Eastern or Muslim for no good reason,
>>
>> Give me the name of one person who has been incarcerated for no good
>> reason but simply because they were Middle Eastern/Muslim.
>
> I didn't say it was simply because they were so.

Then you wish to retract? I accept.

> All the ones who have been freed after being imprisoned, perhaps even
> brought over from halfway around the world blindfolded and bound, and
> not subject to due process or the Geneva Convention, and who have not
> been prosecuted and convicted.

That isn't a sentence. It conveys no thought.

> We're still waiting to see for what
> purpose the military and US government are holding other foreigners
> and citizens of Middle Eastern descent.

Name one of them.

> As an aspiring attorney, who appears to put the law over personal
> feelings, I believed you might take an interest in such as that. Or
> are the government's claims good enough for you?

What law has been violated?

> I didn't say it's never been contemplated or done. Even Japan is
> considering what can be done about North Korea without giving them a
> chance to attack Japan with missiles or nuclear weapons.

That's a good start.

>>> After Iraq, Americans responded to survey saying they did not want
>>> further military action.
>>
>> For the rest of time?
>
> Not at that time.

What time is "that time"?

> But the Adminstration will come up with reasons and
> evidence for further actions, which people will be dumb enough to
> accept.

Yes. People like the UN Security Council. For being such a dumb guy, Bush
sure has duped a lot of people.

> Perhaps we will see another Colin Powell show at the UNSC
> before the US goes to try to kick another developing nation's ass,
> and makes more enemies around the world.

We do not try to kick another developing nation's ass. We do kick the ass.
There is no try.

>>> But if it is in the Administration's agenda
>>> to fight a war against Iran, Syria, or North Korea, then they will
>>> find a way to do it,
>>
>> Yes, administrations generally seek to further their agendas. It's a
>> quirk.
>
> That does not make it acceptable.

*yawn*

>>> and justify it as surely as the war against Iraq
>>> was justified.
>>
>> At least you concede that the war in Iraq was justified.
>
> I did not say the allegations were true or the war acceptable.

"the war against Iraq was justified."
    - Eric Takabayashi

> I said
> the Administration came up with their alleged reasons for it.

Where did you say that?

> But
> even commanders in Iraq can recognize the claims about Iraqi WMD or
> its ability to be readily used, was bad intelligence at best.

Which claims were the bad ones? If it was bad intelligence, it was bad
intelligence on the part of the US, UK, UN, Germany, Russia, etc. You might
be interested in the following:

http://kevingowen.webhop.org/letter.jpg

"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some
ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop
this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that
the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he
can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating
destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the
rsenal."  - Bill Clinton, 1998

History has shown who failed to act and who did not.

-- 
Kevin Gowen