The Iraqi War -- Four Years Later

Here is what Michael F. Dickey said in post #54,

"Acting in self defense does not mean waiting until a bullet is flying at your head"

Michael must not have bothered to read what I wrote because in the paragraph next to the one he quoted, I said,

"...unless of course there is a serious threat of imminent attack - that is the same as an attack for the purpose of self-defense." [emphasis added]

I have said in a number of place on this thread that an imminent threat is the same as an attack.

I described the self-defense exceptions for protecting yourself as derived from criminal assault:

With the right set of principles it never becomes which policy do I adopt - Interventionist or NonInterventionist. It becomes a matter of applying the principles to any given situation. Does this situation call for intevention or not?

Is the threat real and imminent? {emphasis added}
Is there a reasonable alternative to the use of force in self-defence that would protect our rights or avoid the threat?
Is the degree of force to be used in self-defense reasonable and proportionate?
If the issue of force raises its head - as a threat against us or as part of a proposal against others, always to go the concept of justified self-defense and those points I just layed out. It will be much more illumniating then 'rational self-interest'.

I don't mind people objecting to what I say, but it is frustrating to have to argue against things I didn't say.

Michael, your entire post number #54 wasn't needed since I have already said as much.
----------------------------

Post 61

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 11:28pm

John Armaos, in post #55, says,

"We were attacked. Fascism was an existential foe that had to be defeated."

John that just throws morality out the window and says you get to attack anyone you want to declare as your "existential foe" - China, almost every dictatorship whether in Latin America, the Middle or Far East. Why limit it to nations - let's declare all of Islam and even all supporters of any form of collectivism or any supporters of any form of mysticism as "existental foes"

Without the stricture on self-defense the use of violence is immoral. It isn't my rule, it isn't arbitrary or subjective. Calling for solidarity with other nations, quoting Benjamin Franklin, labeling this nation or that as "existential foes" - none of those things change the fact that you have a moral principle that is objectively derived from man's life or you don't.

"Self-defense" has two components - "self" meaning this nation, the one that will act to defend itself. And "defense" which means a response to a real attack or to a real threat that is imminent (not theoretical or next century or existential) - it doesn't mean calling someone an enemy and saying that is the same as being attacked or that because you call them an enemy that means they will attack.

Then John says,

"I don't see the difference between Alabamans expressing outrage and lending support to defend a nation because NYC was attacked, and the United States expressing outrage and lending support to defend a free nation like Great Britian, and France from the throes of tyranny."

That is a nice emotional statement. But it just makes it clear that you don't understand the concept of self-defense. Note the word "self" - Alabama is a part of the 'self' - Great Britian and France are not.

And note that

"expressing outrage and lending support"

is not the same as saying "enter a war that will result in millions of deaths."

You are advocating an absence of principle in chosing when to loose the dogs of war. An absence because you give no standard for discriminating between those times when we should and those times we shouldn't.

"We hang together or we hang separately" is a rhetorical trick not a reasoned approach to deciding when to go to war.

Outrage shouldn't be how we decide to go to war.

We don't have the moral right to attack some nation because they attacked some other nation. Not in the absense of self-defense. Whatever you are arguing it isn't Objectivism.

Post 62

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 11:51pm

Robert,

That's an excellent example:

I am walking down street late at night, and I suddenly stumble upon some innocent person being violently attacked.

Question: Do I have the right to intervene?

Yes. "Why?", you ask. Because the attacker forfeited his rights (he is fair game because he voided their boundaries) and there is no innocent bystander that would be injured or killed by my attempt to help. (Am I morally obligated to help if it risks my life? No, that would be altruism.)
But, if the only way I could intervene would certainly kill an innocent bystander, then I have no right to intervene no matter how much my emotions might urge me to.

Next example:

Now let's assume that the attacker were to look at me and say, "You're next." At this point, he has not begun to actually initiate force against me; he has only threatened that he would.

Question: Do I have the right to attack him?

Yes, the threat is real because I see him attacking another and it only makes sense to assume it is imminent. So the only wise thing to do is nail him first.
What if the only way you could attack him would very likely injure of even kill an innocent bystander? I would still have the right because I am fighting for my life and if I use prudent force that ends up harming someone else the moral blame lies on the attacker.

Those are the very same principles I applied in my threads above. Using your words, These two situations are analogous in principle to a national defense situation in which the U.S. (assuming the existing of a volunteer military) might intervene against a tyrant or aggressor harming others, or against a tyrant threatening us with aggression.

Post 63

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 6:25am

After the fall of Germany, no evidence was discovered in official Nazi archives of any plans to invade the United States. Hitler was incapable of invading Great Britain across 70 miles of the English Channel. The idea that Hitler's socialist Germany was in a position to menace American freedom, across 3,000 miles of the Atlantic Ocean, is absurd

Other than the Rockets, long range bombers, dirty bombs or nukes as well as references to the US in Mein Kampf as an eventual enemy.

...and there would have been no Manhattan Project under an isolationist US

Post 64

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 6:33am

Steve,
Michael Dickey asked you the following question in his post #54, to which you didn't respond:

So if Hitler invaded every nation in the world *except* the United States, it would still be unjust to attack them?

What principle do you apply to decide when Hitler actually becomes a threat and self-defense is justified?

Also, can I conclude from your arguments that treaties with other countries, like the NATO treaty (which of course was after WWII), which would require mutual defense of its member states in case of attack, are not allowed in Objectivism?
Thanks,
Glenn

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 3/29, 6:47am)

Post 65

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 6:43am

"If these two situations are not analogous in principle to a national defense situation in which the U.S. (assuming the existing of a volunteer military) might intervene against a tyrant or aggressor harming others, or against a tyrant threatening us with aggression, then on what grounds are these situations not analogous?"

It is analogous to a situation with a voluntarily funded military which would only fight the individual aggressors. But that's not really what we're talking about when we talk about WWII or Iraq or other real wars, and it's dropping context to act like they are analogous.

Here's a couple relevant clarifying questions:

If you intervene, do you aim for the victim and various passers-by too?
If you want to forcibly intervene, do you have the right to rob everyone who lives on your block to fund your intervention?

Post 66

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 7:36am

Steve wrote:

John that just throws morality out the window and says you get to attack anyone you want to declare as your "existential foe" - China, almost every dictatorship whether in Latin America, the Middle or Far East. Why limit it to nations - let's declare all of Islam and even all supporters of any form of collectivism or any supporters of any form of mysticism as "existental foes"

You read my mind! Why yes I do consider any tyrant, or idealogy that seeks to enlsave man as an existential foe. Don't you? I didn't realize that's throwing morality out the window?

But you can only deal the blow that you can to the largest threats to your values. It would be absurd to use the same force against any kind of existential foe. In some cases you can use military force, in others you can deal economic pressures and isolation, with the least threatening, i.e. your fellow liberal in America, you try to persuade them with words. As Mike Dickey put it: "Acting in self defense means rationally responding to a growing threat as early as the threat is reasonably clear and acting in a reasonable manner to deal the best possible blow against your enemy."

Post 67

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 9:47am

In post #58 Robert Bidinotto makes an analogy between 3 individuals and nations. While a good starting point, these situations are not analogous in the following respect. Nations are not individuals, but comprised of individuals. When a few individuals act on behalf of a nation -- e.g. George Bush and his staff -- they commit the lives and resources of others in that nation who do not consent to such action. There are no such others in Bidinotto's example of individuals.

Post 68

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 11:02am

Glenn points out that I didn't answer the following question posed. by Michael Dickey,

So if Hitler invaded every nation in the world *except* the United States, it would still be unjust to attack them?

Well, clearly, there comes the point where we say "We must be on the list too." And at that point, when ever it occurs, we decide we have an imminent threat and can attack.

Glenn, the question is silly unless its purpose is to elicit when I what principle I would use. And I provided that principle several times and discussed the issues involved several times.

And then Glenn asks,

What principle do you apply to decide when Hitler actually becomes a threat and self-defense is justified?

Glenn you must have joined this thread just recently because I described those prinicples in posts 35, 44, 60, 61, and 62. At this point, rather than repeat them, I'll ask if you would be so kind as to let me know if you believe they are in error or not.

I notice that no one choses to contest what I have written in a direct fashion. No one says, "Steve, these are the words you are using incorrectly." Instead they just keep bringing up different kinds of hypothetical questions or emotion laden assertions or point the how very evil this or that foe is. None of those things are principles that help us make an objective determination of when it is moral to go to war.

I have to tell you, I find it bizarre that I am being attacked in an Objectivist forum for defending individual rights, pointing out abuses of military power, and the supporting the principle of self-defence. If I were some closet pacifist that would be different - but I'm much more the carry a big stick, speak softly, if someone comes at you whack them till they stop moving kind of guy.

Post 69

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 1:03pm

In post #60 John says that any tyrant, or idealogy that seeks to enlsave man is an "existential foe" - Well, no Objectivist would disagree with that (although they might be wondering what exactly the phrase "existential foe" means. But John's statement is different because it is in the context of answering the question, "When is it justified to launch a war?" That is the very heart of this ongoing discussion. What do we need as moral justification to launch a war? Not a little police action. But a full blown war with tens or hundreds of thousands killed - many of them innocent.

My point has been that a nation must use the concept of self-defense (which includes imminent threat of attack) to launch a war. If there is another principle it needs to be brought out. Unless the "existential foe" labeling process is what John intends to use as this prinicple.

I would be worried about the actions of John, were he Commander in Chief, since he might start a war with most of the nations on the globe because they are collectivist or islamic. If I have this wrong, then maybe he will explain his principle. What do we need to know to determine when to engage in a war that will kill thousands of innocents and yet is a justifiably moral action?

Post 70

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 1:13pm

All,

I'm not ducking a detailed reply (that's not like me, you know), just postponing one. I've been on deadline earlier this week, and also taking care of some personal business. I'll get back to this shortly.

Steve, the hypothetical questions were merely to clarify in my mind what you really meant. Now that I know, I'll get to that very soon.

Post 71

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 1:30pm

I meant to mention this earlier. I hope everyone reads the brilliant post made by Aaron - post #57. There are a lot of lessons to be learned in that short post.

Post 72

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 2:40pm

Steve asked:

I would be worried about the actions of John, were he Commander in Chief, since he might start a war with most of the nations on the globe because they are collectivist or islamic. If I have this wrong, then maybe he will explain his principle. What do we need to know to determine when to engage in a war that will kill thousands of innocents and yet is a justifiably moral action?

If you could specify what you mean by thousands of innocents killed? By whom? An aggressor nation that seeks to enslave another is responsible for all deaths in a war. That includes the deaths of the aggressor nation's citizens and soldiers, the deaths of the citizens and soldiers of the defending nation, and all friendly-fire incidents.

I don't know why you would think I would start a war with most nations on this planet? Because I justified the actions of the Allied powers during WW2 you mean to construe that as me wanting to declare war on the entire world? Or that I recognize the menace of Islamic fascism to mean I would declare war on anyone that is a Muslim? Certainly I would not, I would though definitely not kowtow to Iran and let them continually attack our soldiers without impunity, or let them get away with taking people hostage without justification.

Any war that seeks to destroy a tyranny is morally just. However, we do not have a moral obligation to topple any tyranny that exists on this planet. I hope you can understand this distinction. As far as when it is appropriate for a free nation to enter a war, this would depend on the threats to it and if it is in their best self-interest. I can't understand how someone would view America helping to defend most of the free world from Hitler and Hirohito as not in their best self-interest? My quotes from Ben Franklin are not empty and hollow expressions of my emotions. To hang together, i.e. the free world, is in our best self-interest to insure our long term survival. To not, increases our chance of falling separately. The same as 50 states in this union hang together when one state is attacked by an enemy. The same as all of the ancient Greek city-states unifying together in an alliance to fight the massive onslaught of the Persian army 2500 years ago. That's why military alliances like NATO are in our best self-interest. When one nation is attacked, it is in our self-interest to come to their defense. And I can only concretize that abstraction by pointing out to wars past. Giving hypothetical situations would not be terribly useful or enlightening to that abstraction.

Post 73

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 3:50pm

John,

You said,

An aggressor nation that seeks to enslave another is responsible for all deaths in a war. That includes the deaths of the aggressor nation's citizens and soldiers, the deaths of the citizens and soldiers of the defending nation, and all friendly-fire incidents.

Now if you mean by "aggressor nation" a nation that is an imminent threat or has attacked the United States, then we have no disagreement at all. But that hasn't been what you have been saying. You have been saying that they could be aggressing against another nation and we would be justified in going to war.

You say,

Any war that seeks to destroy a tyranny is morally just. However, we do not have a moral obligation to topple any tyranny that exists on this planet. I hope you can understand this distinction.

Yes, I understand that distinction and I agree with it. But the first part, the part about any war that seeks to destroy a tyranny is morally just - that part is a little trickier and it where we have been disagreeing.

Attacking the tyranny itself (the head of the snake) is ALWAYS moral. But to declare war on an entire country and to commit our entire country requires more. It requires that we be doing so as an act of self-defense. If we are not defending ourself from an attack or an imminent threat of attack then we are engaging in military adventures that are immoral if just one innocent life is lost (one civilian).

You have acknowledged my point when you say,

As far as when it is appropriate for a free nation to enter a war, this would depend on the threats to it and if it is in their best self-interest.

When a nation is threatened they have the moral right to defend themself. Either you have changed your position or I have misunderstood you all along.

This thread was about the war in Iraq - not WWII. I never brought up WWII - that was Mark and you guys. I only responded by continuing to say that going to war must arise out of our right to defend ourselves if it is to be moral.

And part of my response was, yes, we should have gone to war as a result of Pearl Harbor. Because it was to our self-interest AND it was moral to do so. My point is that self-interest alone isn't enough. Stopping tyranny isn't enough. There has to be that element of self-defense.

The points you make about "hanging together" are good ones - but just they weren't addressing the moral justification and that was the issue.

As to mutal defense treaties being to our self-interest.... To tell you the truth, I don't know, but I have some serious misgivings that the benefits might end up being disadvantages some times and that they could prempt our sovernty in other instances and that they could also put us in a situation where we had to choose between failing to honor a solomn commitment or engaging in a war we shouldn't. The problem is that most of the time treaties are Metternich-like, pragmatic creations done to try to preserve a status quo that in the future can become a liability tying us to nations that might not be behaving morally.

Post 74

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 4:06pm

Things got off track somewhat on this thread. It was about the war in Iraq. Then I was stunned that some Objectivists are okay with wars where we are in no way under a threat or an attack.

At that point, my concern became to argue the moral and ethical foundation for going to war.

WWII was brought in to the thread and side arguments about historical events and the differences between this Libertarian and that. To me if felt like a distraction from the issue of promoting an individual's right to his life through to a nations right to wage war.

I saw some things I liked in a Pat Buchanan column that I'll quote because it shows how desperately we need to have a clear standard in determining when to go to war.

"...the United States did not declare war on the Kaiser's ally Turkey in 1917, despite the Armenian massacres. Nor did we did confront Stalin over genocide in the Ukraine. FDR recognized Stalin's regime as it perpetrated that holocaust. Nor did we intervene to halt Mao's slaughter and starvation of millions of Chinese.

America looked on during Pol Pot's genocide. Clinton stood aside in Rwanda. No one is calling for the 82nd Airborne to be dropped into Darfur.

President Bush declared that America's national goal is now to "support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny on earth."

We declare war on drugs and we talk about declaring war on terrorism but the only real war is in Iraq despite the fact that Saddam was captured, tried and executed. Drugs aren't even in a category where we should be using the concept "war" and our war on terrorism isn't progressing very well because we are bogged down in Iraq.

We were attacked by terrorists and I believe there are links to Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia - but not any links of significance to Iraq- why are we still in Iraq?

We need to understand the principles governing going to war or our future will be as muddled as the past and the present.

Post 75

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 4:44pm

Steve wrote:

Now if you mean by "aggressor nation" a nation that is an imminent threat or has attacked the United States, then we have no disagreement at all. But that hasn't been what you have been saying. You have been saying that they could be aggressing against another nation and we would be justified in going to war.

Because they would be a threat to our long term survival. It would be in our best self interest. You say "imminent threat" but I don't think you need to wait for a threat to be "imminent". But of course what constitutes an imminent threat is a matter of degree.

the first part, the part about any war that seeks to destroy a tyranny is morally just - that part is a little trickier and it where we have been disagreeing. Attacking the tyranny itself (the head of the snake) is ALWAYS moral. But to declare war on an entire country and to commit our entire country requires more. If we are not defending ourself from an attack or an imminent threat of attack then we are engaging in military adventures that are immoral if just one innocent life is lost (one civilian).

Let me see if I understand here when you mean the first is a little trickier by using something analogous. Would you think stoping a rapist even though you are not the victim of that rape as morally tricky?

The only way to topple a tyranny by force that has enslaved a populace is to destroy it's ability to enslave those people. And the only way to do this is to commit to a military operation. But consider that the longer a nation waits to topple a tyranny, the longer the state of enslavement is, and the more people that exist in that tyranny are killed by their tyrants. To concretize this, when the United States left Indochina, far more people died after the war than during the war. Four and a half million people died after and as many people died within the 6 months after the fall of Saigon as did during the entire decade long US involvement in the Vietnam conflict. Half a million Vietnamese in boats drowned trying to escape their communist enslavers after the fall of Saigon. I just can't bye the argument going to war to topple a tyranny should be morally tricky because innocent people may die? How about you ask the innocent person in that regime unjustly jailed and tortured, with many of his friends and family executed by that tyrant, how he feels about collateral damage in a war to topple that government? I would imagine if he had any sense about him, he would accept the risks given the potential to free him from his torment.

This thread was about the war in Iraq - not WWII. I never brought up WWII - that was Mark and you guys

Yup. I'm pretty sure I kept addressing "Mark Humphrey" in my posts. Which was why I quoted Mark in my initial post in this thread and not yours.

(Edited by John Armaos
on 3/29, 4:50pm)

Post 76

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 4:58pm

Steve, in an earlier post you said, approximately, "Attacking Tyranny is always moral." Meaning, if I understood correctly, that taking out the leadership of a foreign dynasty is always morally proper.

But at whose expense?

Government exists to defend the natural rights of its citizens within its borders. In a free society, its citizens are akin to being the principals in an agency relationship with their government. They hire it to defend their lives and property. The provision of justice is a scarce economic good, as is the provision of food, or water, or entertainment. The citizen-clients of the government should not be pressed into "roaming the globe in search of monsters to destroy". They have the costs and risks of securing their own justice to worry about.

So when one posits that it is moral to topple dictators, one needs to distinguish between the forfeiture of natural rights by dictators, which makes it moral to use violent means to see to their removal; and the issue of who should pay the costs and bear the risks of their removal.

The fact that the United States government has no business venturing into, say, Iraq to get Saddam Hussein, does not mean that individuals should not choose to donate their money and effort to topple him. Whether or not they ought to depends on a host of other factors.

I like most of your other comments.

Post 77

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 5:19pm

John, you are describing the aggressor nation and when it would be appropriate to declare war and you say,

Because they would be a threat to our long term survival. It would be in our best self interest. You say "imminent threat" but I don't think you need to wait for a threat to be "imminent". But of course what constitutes an imminent threat is a matter of degree.

The threat has to be physical, not intellectual, political or economic and it has to be perceivable in someway as opposed to imagined. It can't just be a theoretical threat as in saying, for example, well, they are communist, sooner or later they will decide to attack.

What I'm doing is trying to say why the word "imminent" or something like it has to be there. Without that threat there is no self-defense and we would be the aggressor nation. To be a threat it has to be real in some fashion. If there is no real threat we have no right to go to war, if there is we do.

You say,

Would you think stoping a rapist even though you are not the victim of that rape as morally tricky?

The answer is no - it is not morally tricky. But there are two problems with analogy: There is no innocent bystander that will be harmed by my efforts to save the rape victim and there is no group of people who will be commited to a course of action and expenses when I make the attempt. So, by itself it is NOT a good analogy.

Your paragraph on toppling a tyranny by force takes us back to where I was in the beginning. It isn't our job to go out and topple all tyrannies just because they are there. So, yes, many of them may grow stronger if their own citizens allow them to continue. That isn't a reason for us to decide to go launch military operations against all tyrannies. Do you agree, or not?

As to Vietnam. That is an excellent example of a war we should not have been involved in. Because it was not in our national interest to do so. Yes the North was a tyranny. But no, as you said, we did not have a moral obligation to attack. And I just don't understand your point about more people died after the war than before we left. You could also say more people died because we went to war. I just don't understand your point there.

You said

How about you ask the innocent person in that regime unjustly jailed and tortured, with many of his friends and family executed by that tyrant, how he feels about collateral damage in a war to topple that government?

That person isn't in charge of our decision as to when it is moral to commit our nation to war. It makes no more sense to 'ask' him then to suggest that you 'ask' one of those thousands killed if they mind being dead.

Which of the tyrannies that exist today should we be attacking and which should we not be attacking?

Post 78

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 6:58pm

Steve wrote:

Your paragraph on toppling a tyranny by force takes us back to where I was in the beginning. It isn't our job to go out and topple all tyrannies just because they are there. So, yes, many of them may grow stronger if their own citizens allow them to continue. That isn't a reason for us to decide to go launch military operations against all tyrannies. Do you agree, or not?

I believe Mike Dickey said it best "Acting in self defense means rationally responding to a growing threat as early as the threat is reasonably clear and acting in a reasonable manner to deal the best possible blow against your enemy" and that has been my position consistently for this entire thread. As I said we have no moral obligation to topple tyrannies around the world, but I would never consider toppling one to be immoral.

Yes the North was a tyranny. But no, as you said, we did not have a moral obligation to attack. And I just don't understand your point about more people died after the war than before we left. You could also say more people died because we went to war. I just don't understand your point there.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough or I didn't understand your position? You said in post 73:

If we are not defending ourself from an attack or an imminent threat of attack then we are engaging in military adventures that are immoral if just one innocent life is lost (one civilian).

By not toppling a tyranny because we may lose innocent life is a non-sequiter, because by not acting to topple that tyranny more lives are lost in the long run. Choosing not to act is a choice, and in that choice one must weigh the consequences of it. As I tried to concretize that with Vietnam, I don't believe we had a moral obligation to defend the South Vietnames, but it was not immoral to do so, and despite those innocents that died while the US was defending South Vietnam for over 10 years, the same amount died in just 6 months after the fall of Saigon, when the United States ended all material support to the South Vietnamese government. Thus I don't understand your implication that toppling a tyranny that is not in direct threat to your country, is somehow immoral because one innocent life may be lost? More innocent life is lost not doing anything.

The threat has to be physical, not intellectual, political or economic and it has to be perceivable in someway as opposed to imagined. It can't just be a theoretical threat as in saying, for example, well, they are communist, sooner or later they will decide to attack.

Sooner or later they did to half of the world. Sooner or later they would have attacked the rest of the free world had the West not did what it could to stand up to that aggression.

Sadly, 100 million people were murdered by from communist governments. (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM) Communism was spreading throughout the globe in the 20th century and it was unfortunate the Allied powers did not heed Churchil's advice. 100 million people may have been saved, and 80 years of slavery from how many billions may have been avoided had we listened to him? Which goes back again to your notion losing one innocent life is immoral when toppling a tyranny that most likely will have killed 20 times that amount, and perpetuate the cruel hell hole that these innocent people have to suffer through.

You said

How about you ask the innocent person in that regime unjustly jailed and tortured, with many of his friends and family executed by that tyrant, how he feels about collateral damage in a war to topple that government?

That person isn't in charge of our decision as to when it is moral to commit our nation to war. It makes no more sense to 'ask' him then to suggest that you 'ask' one of those thousands killed if they mind being dead.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Why would he be in charge as to when it is moral to commit our nation to war? Did I say this? My original response was to your assertion we ought to be worried about toppling a totalitarian regime because we may "kill civilians" in the process. It's an absurd concern when you consider the alternative the people in this totalitarian regime have to face.

Let's concretize this to alleviate any confusion. Some recent polling in Iran suggests Iranian civilians do want America to help them topple their government. Doing so will undoubtedly result in innocent life being lost in the process but if you are an Iranian living in this hell, the risk of dying is probably well worth it to take on if it means freedom for yourself and your loved ones.

Which of the tyrannies that exist today should we be attacking and which should we not be attacking?

Didn't I already answer this? Or were you looking for a more concrete answer as to which specific country today should be attacked? Would you like to know who I think we should be attacking now?

Undoubtedly, that would be Iran.

Post 79

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 7:46pm