Your loutish behavior in hi-jacking this particular post lays bare the depths of depravity to which some will go to stifle the voice of reason. It is appropriate in only one sense, it is a public admission that you know who your enemy is and that you fear him.
Perigo, Hospers, Branden and ~most~ objectivists are half-crazed warmongers
Robert beat me too it. Half-crazed, how dare you! Once Objectivists decide on a course that is right and necessary, they put 100% of their effort into it. We are fully crazed or nothing.;)
promoting an evil, impractical and dangerous U.S. foreign policy which has caused massive needless death, injury and property damage in Iraq,
You appear to confuse us with our adversaries.
plus a shocking deterioration of U.S. prestige abroad,
You mean estimation in the eyes of others, image over substance? Our image is enhanced in the eyes of those who matter in the world. Decent freedom loving people everywhere approve of our efforts in Iraq. If you want to inform yourself, compile a list of those who do not approve. It might open your eyes. You used the word evil. How are you defining it—as anything you don’t like?
as well as an incredible increase in the public debt,
Nothing spent on the defense of this nation should be a matter of regret. If you mourn for the treasury, I suggest you concentrate upon the incredible pile of money wasted on education, agriculture, health care, corporate welfare and the legions of needless nanny programs of all sort.
fascist "security" measures
The ‘fascist’ security measures you decry have been in effect since Carter signed FISA into law in 1980. Where have you been on that issue for the last 25 years?
and an increased risk of terrorism at home.
How do you assess this ‘risk’? When terrorists struck the trade center the first time, we followed your advice and took no effective action. Did we make friends? Did inaction prevent the attack upon our embassies or the USS Cole or the even more devastating attack on the trade towers?
And it will only be a matter of time before George Bush, faced with declining military enlistments,
Bush, Bush, Bush. Are you irrational enough to think he is a king? You'd do better to keep an eye on the Congress.
Military enlistments always peak at the onset of war and always decline as a war proceeds.
a growing Iraqi insurgency
It is not an Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi people are not rising up. It is all manner of foreign jihadists supported by some the most vicious, dangerous regimes in the history of the world. It is appropriate that we are locked in mortal combat against them.
and a military on the verge of mutiny,
Really, from which bodily orifice did you pull this bit of whimsy?
will either have to pull out of Iraq
Only if the left co-opts the media, however, 3 networks no longer control the news. Media outlets are far more numerous and diverse. I doubt you will return us to those thrilling days of Kumbaya that warm the hearts of aging hippies and professional protestors.
and watch it turn into a theocracy,
The Iraqi people do not want a theocracy. But, even if this worst case scenario of yours comes true, could Iraq be any worse off than it was under Sadaam?
or he will have to reimpose a draft to maintain troop levels
This is just silly. Training Iraqis to take over has been slow, but it is ongoing.
for an indefinite American occupation.
You are so very careless with words. We do not possess or settle land in Iraq. There is no possession or control of Iraq. We are simply staving off the wolves until a government can get on its feet.
Don't say nobody predicted it.
Everyone on the left is predicting it, so if you are bucking for the Nostradamus Chair at some liberal University, I would suggest you find a new topic.
In closing, if you want to continue arguing along these boorish lines, move it to another post.
(Edited by Robert Davison on 6/14, 8:29am)
(Edited by Robert Davison on 6/14, 8:39am)