Stability or Democracy - That is the question http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000828.html

Stability has been the main focus of US policy since (at least) the end of World War II. Reagan made a few steps towards democracy, but only a few. The first major policy shift occured with the invasion of Iraq. There are still many in the US government advocating "realpolitik" so there will be setbacks. However, Rumsfeld and Bush's war was a revolutionary shift in foreign policy and it will have an impact for many years to come.  ¶ 5:16 PM 0 comments

  The Cost of War and Peace, II
This article makes the point  that

“This war will be fought, whether we choose to fight it or not. The
only thing that will change is the cost of the war. Our Ancestors said
that they fought so that “their children wouldn’t have to”.
http://varifrank.com/archives/2006/10/the_long_march.php

The question is not whether to choose peace or war. It is whether to fight now or later.  Liberal Democracy generally prefers the later.  It is thus the curse of liberal democracies  to fight wars not at their own choosing, but at the choice of those opposing freedom and democracy.  Iraq was a small exception.  America more or less chose the time and place to fight.  Neverthless it was a fight in a war America did not choose, and it was a fight that had to come sooner or later.  For a while at least, it seemed, that a democracy for once had the initiative, instead of being on the defensive.

Will America retain that initiative?  I do not know whether America, will "win" or loose the war in Iraq.  However, I do know and predict that if America does not finish this war on its own terms, the next war will definitely be on the terms of the enemies of freedom.  The price of that war in human and material terms will be far greater than Iraq can ever be.
Our children will have to fight for their freedom regardless, however, it is up to us to make that fight easier.
  ¶ 1:59 PM 0 comments

  Democracy is a civil war where the weapons are pens and ballot boxes . . . ... not knifes and guns!

Michael Totten is as usual an astute observer:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001277.html

I agree with his point that you need to experience a true police state or dictatorship before spouting of on the US as a police state. You don’t know fear until you stand in your underwear in front of a VOPO.
For Michael, US politics must indeed be boring. But for those of us that do not have to dodge bullets it can be rather exciting.
I often get frustrated with those on the opposing site of a political issue. However, on the other hand as long as Koz and LG keep going at each other, I know that the announcement of National Socialist or Bolshevik America (depending on your political view point) is premature. In America the opinions are sometimes polarized, and the debate is heated and sometimes mean spirited. However, at least there is a debate. There is no real debate in Europe about the Iraq war, or even the Bush Administration. If you are European, you are against both, or at least you are officially. This uniformity of opinion frightens me to death, more than opinions from Ted Rall or Daily Koz.
If a "democratic civil" war ends we know tyranny has won.  ¶ 3:55 PM 0 comments

  The Boy from Venezuela Hugo Chavez wants a seat on the Security Council.  Makes you think Hitler should have run for office, and not left the League of Nations.
  ¶ 6:04 PM 0 comments

  The Human Costs of War and Peace An Exhibit at the Anne Frank Memorial in Boise, Idaho tries to show the human cost of war.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/102/story/51179.html

That this was done at a memorial to Anne Frank, made me think. Would Anne Frank still be alive if France had declared war against Germany in 1936 over the Rheinland? Or if England had declared war in 1938 over the Sudentenland Crisis? Of if the US had joined World War II two years earlier?
That war results in death is a no-brainer, and should not need a reminder. Only fools should think that it does not. However, other fools also make the opposite mistake. Not going to war, may also have a human cost.
How many lives were destroyed before NATO intervened in Yugoslavia? How many were killed while the West engaged Saddam and tried to make him "our bastard.?" The choice between "war and peace" is rarely a choice between taking lives and saving lives, it is more often than not a trade off between lives.
We also need reminders of the human costs of not standing up and fighting injustice and tyranny. The short tragic life of Anne Frank has always been just such a reminder to me.  ¶ 1:38 PM 0 comments

  Koreana This Victor David Hanson article fits with my earlier comment
http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/11/post_2.php
  ¶ 2:35 PM 0 comments

  Nukes don't kill people, Governments do! North Korea may have exploded the biggest fertilizer truck bomb in history or maybe it actually did manage to explode a nuke. The world is upset. We need sanctions, we need more negotiations, we need ...? What should the response be? Nobody seems really to know.
Nuclear non-proliferation does not work. The Bomb, the nuclear one that is, is not the problem. Japan could put one together over the weekend. Switzerland or Sweden could probably built one if they just put their minds to it. Hey, Brazil has nuclear technology, with which they could build a nuke. However, the world is not worried about Japan, Switzerland, Brazil or Sweden developing or having nukes. It is worried about North Korea and Iran. Distinguishing characteristics? Lunatics running the asylum. It is the government stupid!
A nuclear bomb is only a metal box with some weird rocks in it until somebody pulls the trigger. The decision to pull is made by a government.
Our response to North Korea (and Iran for that matter) should be simple. You can have your bomb, or your regime, but not both. No sanctions, no negotiations, but regime change. The bomb will not make your regime more secure, but less. Go ahead, bomb away. We will just change your regime.
Yeah, I know regime changes is easier said then done. However, the whole concept of non-proliferation has been relying to much on the tool, not on those that make use of the tool. We can not stop nuclear knowledge. This is a hopeless task. The knowledge is out their. And people can and will acquire that knowledge. We have to focus on those that could make use of that knowledge. That is why we should focus on regime change.  ¶ 10:10 AM 0 comments

  German TV reports the arrest of an Iraqi man who disseminated messages from Al Qaeda leaders.

http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/0,1360,,00.html  ¶ 10:00 AM 0 comments