This is certainly an area where all points on the political spectrum can and are working together, and it shames Gay Patriot to attempt to use it to slur the left, although I admire his role in bringing attention to the overall topic of the post.

We meet to discuss ways of promoting Modernity and Humanism in the world, and how we might stop the surge of dhimmitude in our nations. We are not Leftists. We are not socialists. We are conservative and boring and private. We work to stop dhimmitude and fascism. That includes protecting the rights of homosexuals and anyone else regardless of their identities as group members. I want you to join us for coffee. I want you to sit with us and tell us what it mens to you to be a homosexual in a world in which you are directly threatened by Islam. And then we want to find a way to fight agianst that threat.

We meet people of all kinds, few of whom are “us.” It doesn’t make a bit of difference. You are at risk from Islam, and your lives, though they might well have little to do with mine, are as valuable as any others. If you decide to be a “victim” of vast Rightwing conspiracies,” please don’t bother us. If you are concerned about Islam and fascism threatening your lives, the lives of your friends and companions, then we wil be happy to do what we can to unite with you in this struggle agianst Islam and dhimmitude.

I look forward to meeting you Thursday.

Regards, Dag.

Try this: President Bush is always insisting that our mission is to spread freedom and democracy around the world. Yet his administration frequently coddles dictators, an example of which I provided. Therefore the notion, repeated ad nauseum by Bush and the rest of his Administration, that it’s all about spreading freedom and democracy is simply “Bush BS.” Which was the whole point of my response to Rose. I believe our foreign policy has to be and actually is nuanced. It’s the CLAIM that it’s all about spreading freedom and democracy that’s bullshit.

I have no problem with encouraging freedom and democracy anywhere but I am skeptical that lasting democracy can be installed using military force. However, there are times when we don’t have much choice but to at least try and that was exactly the situation in Afghanistan. We had every right to go after bin Laden and those protecting him and his organization. Indeed, we had an obligation to do so for our own protection. Once we had removed the Taliban, we not only owed it to the Afghan people to give them a chance for democracy but it was in our best interest to do so. Once we had decided on the course in Afghanistan, we should have stuck to it and poured the resources in to give the new democracy a fighting chance. We should have nailed not only bin Laden but the head Taliban mullahs as well and destroyed their organiations. The fact that they’re still around and resurgent in Afghanistan is testament to how we have not followed through on what we started there.

Unfortunately, Ian, the Duelfer report also clearly noted that Saddam was paying UN diplomats and member countries to eviscerate and remove sanctions and inspections for the express purpose of continuing and expanding his weapons programs, including the importation of banned technology to greatly accelerate and facilitate the process.

Your reference for this being–what? The Duelfer report is at http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html I’m not going to go through almost 200MB of text to verify your claim. Provide the verification, yourself.

At #52 you made these statements:

1. I…believe in nuance in our foreign relations even when it comes to dictators.

2. Rose…apparently accepts the Bush BS that our foreign policy is all about spreading freedom and democracy around the world.

3. I understand that we can’t effect regime change in every country that might not exhibit the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy.

[End of Ian's statements]

Well, if your concept of foreign policy isn’t all about freedom and democracy, if it is “nuanced even to the point of providing legitimacy to dictators”, if we can only effect regime change in countries that do exhibit Jeffersonian democracy, then I think you’ve pretty much qualified (nuanced?) the spreading of democracy out of your foreign policy.

Hence, in the vernacular: You believe spreading democracy is bullshit.

I don’t see what else I can draw from this.

Hence the FACT that inspections were NOT effective.

As for your “60 Minutes” story, CBS has already faked news to smear the Bush administration; I don’t consider this story any different, especially since we now know that CIA officials linked to the Democratic Party regularly leaked classified information to facilitate said process.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are out there working hard to protect your civil rights–

Ah, the famous illiterate misreading of the Dulfur Report. I suggest you read the report for yourself, because it does not support you idiotic position.

That’s a lie. I never said that. If you wish to engage in a civil discussion, don’t lie about what I said. Re-read my post.

There was a very specific reason we invaded Afghanistan: the Taliban government refused our request to hand bin Laden and his associates over to us and indeed vowed to protect him. We had every right to go after bin Laden and his Taliban protectors. We had real support from many other nations and with the Taliban toppled, it made sense to help the Afghan people establish a democracy. We should have finished that job instead of attacking Iraq. Now we see that the Taliban is resurgent and learning how to attack the coalition troops with deadly results http://tinyurl.com/jzou7 Gee, I wonder where they learned that!

You claim the inspectors were useless but it turns out that after the first Gulf War, they were a major reason that Saddam no longer had a nuclear weapons program http://tinyurl.com/65gr6 :

“The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq’s illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.”

Of course, we know even more today about how we were misled. And the media is finally starting to get the word out - last night’s 60 Minutes was devastating to the “Bush couldn’t help it he had bad intel” argument. But that’s fine, you just keep on clinging to your talking points and touting the Iraq fiasco as a success to the American people and we’ll see what they have to say in November.

You believe the US has to look after itself. You believe this means tolerating dictators. You believe spreading democracy is bullshit. You believe that regime change and spreading democracy in Afghanistan is OK but that to do so in Iraq is to recognize “that we can’t effect regime change in every country that might not exhibit the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy”.

I don’t think your toleration of dictators squares with your support for the invasion of Afghanistan, or that that support for Afghanistan squares with your opposition to Iraq, or that your concern over the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy squares with your belief that spreading democracy is bullshit.

It seemed clear to you that the threat of Iraq was in doubt even though Saddam had a record of seeking nuclear weapons, the inspectors were useless, Iraq had invaded a country ten years earlier, and Saddam was using his country as a trade route for terrorists.

I don’t think this is very nuanced, Ian.

35: Sorry, but supporting our nation, the principles for which it’s supposed to stand and the Constitution of the United States

None of which describes liberalism, which despises every principle for which the United States is supposed to stand, and fights the Contitution at every turn in favor of their “interpretation” of it.

And the war is America’s war. Either you support your country in time of war, or you do not. There is no support for the troops if you do not support their mission.

You are being disingenuous here. I was quite specific to specify the Christians in this country who would implement the death penalty for gay people as Reconstructionists.

It’s nice that you were so specific, but you should be aware that more than a few leaders of conservative christians, particularly conservative evangelicals, have indicated that their goal is to at least imprison gay people for lengthy terms, including life. It is but a slight step to call for their execution.

You are being disingenuous here. I was quite specific to specify the Christians in this country who would implement the death penalty for gay people as Reconstructionists. If you are ignorant of what these particular Christians believe then you’d be well-advised to educate yourself. Google is your friend.

FWIW, I detest any religion, philosophy or belief system that is intolerant of gay people.