I define civilization as mainly consensual too. The use of force is not the rule, it is the exception.
I think our troops will be there for at least several more years, in order to prevent either a take over by Shi'ite clerics, or a civil war. I think we have a perfectly viable plan, although it depends on the Iraqis being able to take a far greater role in security.
Who ever said anything about a vastly expanded American military presence all over the planet? Whose sovereignty do I deny? I would be happy to have a much lower residual force in Iraq; I would be happy enough to have the EU take over more of its defense, and pare down our bases in Europe; I would be ecstatic if the fall of the North Korean regime permitted us to cease policing the DMZ. I acknowledge the sovereignty of most all of the nations on the planet. I consider the sovereignty of brutal dictatorships to be dubious, since there is no possibility of a reasonable consent of the governed, but that is about it. I consider the increase in government spending to be temporary, and normal during time of war. I support reating suspected terrorists differently from ordinary criminal suspects. I believe in a strong executive, but I also believe in congressional oversight and a robust systemn of courts. I do not by any means support all power being concentrated in the hands of the president, just most power having to do with foreign affairs, especially security.
Actually, I have not said much about Islam; I recently posted criticism of Meir Kahane and his followers; and if you will show me some Christians who are blowing people up, I will denounce them.
Do you go out of your way to misrepresent me, or do you merely misunderstand? |
