Michael: Oh yes i see a comparison between the above qoute and the “They also assume that their version of ‘better’ is exactally what everyone else wants.” qoute. I mean, I inferred everything you just said from that one sentence, although there was no mention of Iraq, or Insurgency, or any of the other crap you just talked about. Liberal moral equivelance is the spear head of tolerance of the utmost wrongs. You make the moral ground from which we stand on, equivalent to the murderous terrorists. By saying that maybe what they want is better, for these people or those people. And betray the millions of Iraqi’s who stood up FOR democracy, by saying the terrorist who are deliberately targeting innocent civilians are on the same moral playing field as Iraqi troops, or coalition soldiers.

Here’s what I base the ‘better’ factor on…El Salvador. One example of MANY countries we have converted to democracy in the past 100 years. The one aspect of this ‘nation building’ concept we fail to understand every time is that when the process doesn’t take place on it’s own, the end result of it taking place at gunpoint is almost always a system where the people end up no better off than they were before we got there. I’m going to post the article I read about El Salvador, but here’s a list of facts:

Population: 6.7 million, a little larger than Massachusetts.

Area: a little smaller than Massachusetts.

Currency: US dollar, no local currency minted.

Taxation: no property tax, 13 percent sales tax.

Principal export: people; after that, coffee, sugar, rice.

Principal destination of exports, both legal and illegal: United States.

Principal import: remittances from Salvadorans in the United States, known as remesas and estimated at $2.5 billion annually, 17.1 percent of gross domestic product.

Ethnic groups: mestizo 90 percent, white 9 percent, Amerindian 1 percent or less, having been largely exterminated in a massacre decreed by the government in 1932.

Foreign businesses visible immediately on the streets of the capital: Wendy’s (for hamburguesas), KFC (pollo), Pizza Hut, McDonald’s, Burger King, Hyundai, Isuzu, Holiday Inn, Nine West, Tony Roma’s, John Deere, Toyota, Blockbuster, Armani, Subway, Domino’s Pizza, Payless ShoeSource, DuPont, Budget Rent A Car, not to mention Texaco and Shell stations. Emblems of a consumer nation, or are we talking corporate colonization here? Sorry, that’s opinion, especially the left-loaded word “colonization.” Stick to facts in this section.

Emigrant population: 2.5 million, legal and illegal, in the United States, more than one-third the total in El Salvador itself.

Most recent war: Currently the country is at war in Iraq, having sent 380 troops, six of whom were awarded the Bronze Star by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on a visit to El Salvador.

Most devastating war: The civil war lasted twelve years, from 1980 to 1992, costing El Salvador 75,000 lives and the United States between $4 billion and $6 billion as it supported the rightist government against leftist rebels. The peace accords of 1992 gave a place in the nation’s politics both to the conservative ARENA party and the FMLN rebels.

Most recent election and candidates: In 2004 Tony Saca of the ARENA party defeated Schafik Handal of the FMLN party, though in 2003 the FMLN won more seats in the National Assembly. Saca and Handal are distant cousins from Palestinian families. Don’t draw any conclusions; presumably they are just a couple of outsourced Palestinians looking for work.

Climate: tropical.

The one that sticks out most for me is the ‘Foreign businesses visible immediately on the streets of the capital’ one. This was the intent of our government when we invaded Iraq, to open up a market…but none of the businesses in El Salvador can get anywhere near Iraq until the security situation is solved…and even then, who’s to say that the very existance of a McDonalds won’t prompt Arabs to blow up more people.

Osama Bin Laden’s primary message is that his disciples must drive the westerners from Arab soil. The exporting of our culture to their world…our version of ‘better’ being assumed as something better than what they could create themselves over time.

How long did it take for Europeans to leave and create this nation of ours? After a genocide or two or three, the gross subjugation of more than one race, a civil war that equals to this day the deadliest in our history…

It’s not as easy as overthrowing a dictator and sending in some troops. And assuming that we know best is part of the problem of why we don’t do this ‘nation building’ thing that well.

Oh yes i see a comparison between the above qoute and the “They also assume that their version of ‘better’ is exactally what everyone else wants.” qoute. I mean, I inferred everything you just said from that one sentence, although there was no mention of Iraq, or Insurgency, or any of the other crap you just talked about. Liberal moral equivelance is the spear head of tolerance of the utmost wrongs. You make the moral ground from which we stand on, equivalent to the murderous terrorists. By saying that maybe what they want is better, for these people or those people. And betray the millions of Iraqi’s who stood up FOR democracy, by saying the terrorist who are deliberately targeting innocent civilians are on the same moral playing field as Iraqi troops, or coalition soldiers.

DI: They also assume that their version of ‘better’ is exactally what everyone else wants.

Michael: This shows the classic equivelance theory of the Dems. Oh, the terrorist have a right to kill innocent civilians because they are stiving for their own form of a ‘better’ world. I live in a world of black, white, and very few grays. I’m not giving the same moral equivelance to terrorist as I do our soldiers. I leave that to the left.

It does nothing of the sort Michael. In fact, if you look at the events that transpired in the Iraq war, you’ll see exactally what I’m talking about here. The intent since the 90s was to invade Iraq and turn it into a democracy. Their idea was that the population would respond favorably, and economic forces would further stabalize the population. So we invaded and the honey was spread…meaning, hundreds of companies were given contracts for all kinds of services and reconstruction efforts within the country – and the cost for all this was going to be suplimented by oil revenues.

Their assumptions were that an insurgency wouldn’t derail their plans, and that the oil revenues would lessen the burden on US taxpayers. Why they assumed these two things? Because their theories wouldn’t be entirely viable at that point.

What happened instead was an insurgency did emerge and is still strong today – so the foreign investors who were given contracts saw their monthly insurance payments for each worker shoot up to 10K, so they were out of the picture. Then the oil revenues haven’t suplemented the cost of reconstruction…in fact, they’re pumping less than expected.

It has nothing to do with terrorists or soldiers, but in how the plans to make the world ‘better’ are drawn up on specific terms that don’t wash with reality. Bush Sr and Powell recogzinez this.

This shows the classic equivelance theory of the Dems. Oh, the terrorist have a right to kill innocent civilians because they are stiving for their own form of a ‘better’ world. I live in a world of black, white, and very few grays. I’m not giving the same moral equivelance to terrorist as I do our soldiers. I leave that to the left.

karl: I can never decide if the Neo-cons are the “I love the smell of Nepalm” crowd grown-up, or if they are people who have figured out how to profit from war.

One thing is for certain with this crowd they are horrible war planners. Whether you are for or against the Iraq war, their is no doubt the neo-cons are losing the war.

I think they’re people who genuinly want to make the world better – only they tie in too much of their rationale with how to make sure America profits from making it ‘better’. They also assume that their version of ‘better’ is exactally what everyone else wants.

Kind of the thinking that goes behind sending evangelical missionaries out to far off tribes to convert them. They bring food and medicine, which is great – but of course they want something in return…souls.

One thing is for certain with this crowd they are horrible war planners. Whether you are for or against the Iraq war, their is no doubt the neo-cons are losing the war.

The message Bolton has for all of us is un-American.

Bolton is sort of a feminine version of Ann Coulter.

What has he produced in terms of results in his current job? You’d think there’d be a list of accomplishments.

“The timing of John Bolton’s possible recess appointment early next week just as we’re sitting down with the North Koreans after a year-long hiatus in the six-party talks reminds me that, however sketchy Bolton’s conduct at State, the chief reason to oppose his appointment is the blow it would deal to U.S. national security. Bolton, after all, is one of the diplomatic masterminds whose chief contribution to solving the North Korean nuclear crisis was to routinely insult Pyongyang’s leadership, with no apparent goal other than gaining personal satisfaction for “telling it like it is” and undercutting any diplomatic progress. The United States will have a tough enough time crafting a deal on North Korea’s nukes even if Bush representatives are acting in good faith and with reasonable latitude to negotiate. This is hardly the time for Bolton to begin lobbing grenades from a high perch at Turtle Bay.”

Much of what he says may be satifying to some peole but it does not do any good. Not to mention this man has been a disaster for nuclear non-proliferation. The goal should be to make the world safer, and this man does not do that.

BTW: I really don’t think you and Micheal should be talking about your time in prison, to much information.:)