Jeffjoe: I suppose this makes me a part of the "Axis of Evil Posters" right?

Gentletim:
"The "hate us for our freedoms line" is cheap. But I don't think they'll be satisfied if we just leave them alone. And anyway, we simply can't in the near term because that's where the oil is."
Agreed, but my point is that I do not think we can win the war on terror the way we are fighting it i.e. making more enemies than friends, being unable to please everyone etc. I thought this op-ed summed it up perfectly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/opinion/16hiro.html?thNotice how different the opinions are. Some of the "fundies" are supporting our moves against Iraq, although I suspect it has more to do with the large Shia influence. We cannot win the hearts and minds there by force.
"They weren't looking to cause maximum damage, they wanted to plant the idea of vulnerability. How vulnerable would you feel if a remote pumping station in Alaska was attacked?"
This is a very good point, but I think it also proves that they are more concerned with symbolism than body count. This would indicate that they are fighting for something, an idea or belief, and are willing to die for it. To me, this indicates they are not nihilists (whatever the opposite of nihilist would be). IMO A nihilist would launch a bloody terrorist operation with no concern about political statements.
"It's not set up to govern, but rather to provide a forum for states to communicate with each other. "
The UN Charter states that the organizations primary focus is to protect future generations from the scourge of war. I think the UN was working in 2002 and 2003 to protect our soldiers and the Iraqi people from the scourge of war. Had we let UNMOVIC do its job, Bush would have had to present the case for war in a much different fashion. The American people would probably not want to go to Iraq to topple a dictator. Therefore, we would not be there now and there would be NO TERRORISTS in Iraq now.
"The problem with all this is that it wasn't the sanctions killing Iraqi children, it was Saddam Hussein."
I disagree.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020121&s=letter"...invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" as one dispicable demogogue put it. "
Ann Coulter?

"And it's officials should be elected, rather that appointed. "
Absolutely.
"A point where we definitely disagree. I think that US foreign policy is the best we've got. I think that we are the best chance for a stable, peaceful world."
This scares me. And if you are looking for a reason to vote for Kerry, I present to you the last four years of W's foreign policy. One thing is sure: Kerry would not have handled Iraq the way Bush did.
" I think that the UN will ignore very real dangers, and problems until it's too late. I mean, even 10 years after sitting on their hands in Rawanda, they only reason they've done a damn thing in Dafur is that a few powerful, western countries, particularly the UK, but also the US, have made it a priority. I mean, if the UN can't protect subsistance villagers from milita on horseback, how the hell can they be trusted with running the world?...We @#!* up, but at our best, US foreign policy saves lives around the world. "
Well, the UN can only act if the UNSC acts, which is the West primarily. The other option is a Uniting for Peace resolution. And I am not advocating World Government. It won't work anytime soon. What I am advocating is the use of the UN as a mediator and the use of force only when absolutely necessary.
Example:
2002. UNMOVIC finds WMD stockpiles. Iraq is caught dealing with terrorists. Hussein remains belligerent. If in that situation the UNSC cannot act to authorize force because Russia vetoes, we present the UNGA a Uniting for Peace Resolution and we go in. We did that in Korea I think. But this was not the case. Material breach of 1441 would result in UN authorization for the use of force. There was no material breach in 2002-03. We went in anyway and we were wrong IMO.
"We also didn't have resolutions for Kosovo or Bosnia."
NATO was an established UN protectorate of the area, so under IL UNSC authorization was not necessary as far as I can tell.
"As far as I'm concerned, it was a mistake to estabilish the prescedent that the UN is the only thing that gives military force legitimacy."
This is not true. States can respond to what is a perceived "imminent threat." This goes back to the Caroline Incident around the end of the 18th century. Actually, under this doctrine, had Hussein attacked the US forces or the Continental US while watching the amassing forces on his border, this would have been legal under IL. The National Security Strategy of the US adopts a policy of pre-emption established by the Nazi's during WWII. This precedent was ruled illegal and a war crime under Nuremburg. This is the precedent that scares me the most.
"No, I'm actually pretty liberal, if you can believe it. I'm basically pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and socially quite liberal. I'm a bit more conservative on economics, but still left of center. But I'm an unabashed hawk. What scares me about Kerry is stuff like his vote against the *first* Gulf war. I mean, if ever there was a multi-lateral endevor, that was it. I just feel that his voting record prior to running for president shows a lot of hostility to the idea of the US government using force abroad. The recent stuff doesn't really bother me. I understand that most of the votes of the last 2 years have been tactical, and I don't really have a problem with that. A candidate gets bonus points for sticking to his guns and being consistant, but I don't expect it."
Yeah, I can believe it. I actually thought you were a lefty before you said this. You seem to be arguing the Christopher Hitchens side of the left. That is not an insult BTW.
"I still have hope that things will turn out ok. But maybe not. And that scares the hell out of me. Because I don't know what the next strategic move is if what happened in Iran 30 years ago happens in Iraq now."
Yeah, that scares me too. Especially as a parent. My daughter is three months old. My wife has two brothers at military age. I have a friend in Iraq right now (Marines). But I am most afraid that, with the sabre rattling about Iran, who is next? When does this end? How is it going to end? This cannot be the best of all possible worlds simply because there is so much ignorance and hatred out there on all sides. I just tend to fall on the side that by cooperating more and pissing others off less, we can bring others to our side. By talking about the world in black and white terms, we force people to choose sides. I just don't think it is all black and white... I see shades of grey. You probably do to. Bush doesn't, Kerry does. To me that is critical in a war on terror.
"I was never impressed with the way Clinton handled Russia. Such a lost opportunity."
I am in total agreement here. We can still do something about this, but Bush won't buy the nukes that are still left.
I guess I should apologize to your fiance. I don't want to make waves there

Ahhh, Switzerland sounds much better than Kentucky right now. Enjoy!