” … a maximal war to impose American principles on the world … “

For the United States to engage in any such war would amount to its own final, self-inflicted death-blow — it would not survive intact as we know it — and those who wish for such a war against the Arabs or anyone else are blind or crazy.

If this country ends up getting killed, what will come after will not be to the neocons’ liking, I can guarantee. But then again, the neocons are not exactly known for giving wise advice.

If we agree that “American” democratic ideals merit world wide extension and application then doesn’t the idealist position above noted presume a just war for the destruction of (Islamic) evil? Isn’t the destruction of evil what the two “great wars” and every American foreign war were fought for?.
And isnt the contrasing principle of containment of evil that infuses the limited objectives faction in the national government wrong by comparision ?

Islam is already at total war with us infidels, but until 911, below America’s public radar.

Look at Islam’s 911 attack as a premature, worldwide Islamic public announcement of their religio/political position and unwavering future intentions.If they had been as technologically advanced and as ready as, say, Germany and Japan on the eve of WWII,do you think we would now be discussing limited objective warfare?

Our job, for the next however many years it takes, is to eat them up, one country at a time until nothing remains of their capacity and drive to destroy.

War has little value unless its horrors are inflicted to the fullest with maximum destruction to the enemy and his future abilties to resume any opposition of any kind whatever, for as long as the victor can forsee.The nature of warfare throughout history is that only the victors get to make the rules of tommorrow.

Limited objectives are just post WWII liberal newspeak, that cost us victory in Korea and defeat in Vietnam. Limited warfare is just the anti-war pol’s way of keeping a political thumb in political war that it has already rejected in principle.Its their hedge-bet.It little matters whether the right or the left preaches anti-war its all the same newspeak out of Brave New World.

Radical Islam isn’t confined to recognizable states. Iraq is a secular dictatorship. Waging war will accomplish absolutely nothing as long as we continue to bring Radical Islamicists INTO America. This policy, suppoerted by the neocons, will destroy America as Unadorned says.

Absolutely true David. We have creaed another 5th column inside our boders. hope the government has them under surveillance until the true dimensions of their danger can be assessed.

“If we agree that ‘American’ democratic ideals merit world wide extension and application…” — sandy

We don’t agree. In the first place, it’s unclear why you surround “American” with quotes, as if “American” democracy is a possibly inferior type of democracy. The Founding Fathers would beg to differ with you. One of their key goals in framing the Constitution was to avoid as far as possible the evils that inevitably accompany democracy. Secondly, no, American democratic ideals are manifestly not fitted for other peoples. If we haven’t been able to sustain them ourselves, what makes you think a bunch of Muslims, who have not even one foot in either Christianity or Enlightenment Philosophy, will be able to appreciate and treasure them?

“…then doesn’t the idealist position above noted presume a just war for the destruction of (Islamic) evil?” — sandy

Yes. When you stipulate that democracy is the only acceptable form of government for any person in the world to live under, then it pretty much follows that you are committed to forcing it upon them. This typically includes as a precondition “the destruction of evil,” which is necessary in order to get rid of those who oppose your designs.

As for whether what you describe constitutes a just war or not, suffice it to say that Aquinas might have a hard time suppressing his gag reflex…

“War has little value unless its horrors are inflicted to the fullest with maximum destruction to the enemy and his future abilties to resume any opposition of any kind whatever, for as long as the victor can foresee. The nature of warfare throughout history is that only the victors get to make the rules of tomorrow.” — Sandy

This is a genuinely sickening statement, suggestive of some sort of inhuman totalitarian thinking. Since Sandy obviously is no inhuman totalitarian, I feel he needs to re-think that statement and re-phrase what he meant. Virtually every religion and secular school of thought down through history has produced thinkers who commented on the stringent moral obligation of warring parties to limit their destruction and cruelty in various ways.

“Limited objectives are just post-WWII liberal newspeak, that cost us victory in Korea and defeat in Vietnam. Limited warfare is just the anti-war pol’s way of keeping a political thumb in a political war that it has already rejected in principle. It’s their hedge-bet. It little matters whether the right or the left preaches anti-war — it’s all the same newspeak out of Brave New World.” — Sandy

I understand what you’re saying here and I agree with it, but you seem to mix it with another issue. Yes, once war is declared, its prosecution is best not micromanaged by politicians but rather left — except of course in its broad objectives and concerns — to the generals to bring to successful end as swiftly as possible while respecting the rules of civilized warefare (don’t target civilian populations, forcefully restrain your own troops from rape and free-lance pillage, extend minimally-humane treatment to POWs who are disarmed and subdued, etc.)

What you seem to stray into is the other topic of “total warfare and unconditional surrender.” This, which seems to have been introduced into the modern world by the United States’ Lincoln Administration in the War for Southern Independence, was most faithfully prosecuted by Gen. W.T. Sherman who ravaged civilian populations against all known rules of warfare of that time, and by Gen. U.S. Grant who, acting under orders of course of the tyrant Lincoln, extended no terms to the Confederate States of America except unconditional surrender. This policy of total warfare and unconditional surrender kept Japan and Germany from surrendering much earlier than they would otherwise have, and this policy of warmaking has been discussed by I forget who (Hans Herman Hoppe maybe?) as being a defect of democracies, the older aristocratic régimes always fighting their wars less than “totally” and considering less than unconditional surrender in order to bring them to an end.

Unadorned:

The notion of chivalry in war went out with the concept of duelling in the ante bellum south. It was the southern romantic version of war that made it attractive to them and is the reason they fired the first shot.Chivalry encourages war and hides its horrors.

An unconditional war of attrition against the south was the only thing that prevented the northern copperheads of from demanding that the north agree to a compromise settlement with the south that would have left “the peculiar institution” of slavery intact.
It shortened the war by an estimated 36 to 48 months and inumerable casualties just as the Atom bomb did toward th end of WWII.

I disagree that it was against all the civilized rules of time.

Abraham Lincoln, far from being a tyrant is one of the most respected and revered of all American Presidents, asassinated by a southerners buulet to the back of his his head.So much for your civilized rules.

War is the worst form of politics known to man.The more outrageous we make it for our enemies,the less they will enjoy it and want to continue it.All within the rules of “civilized war” of course.

I think we are going to have to rethink those rules for urban soldiers masquerading as civilans which is what the moslems excel at.Plus of course murdering our civilians.
The moslem civilians they mingle with and who support them and are equally to be held responsible for their actions.

“The moslem civilians they mingle with and who support them and are equally to be held responsible for their actions.” — Sandy

Spoken exactly like the occupying Germans in Belgium during World War I, who put randomly-chosen, completely innocent civilians before firing squads in retaliation for terrorist sniping and sabotage by other Belgian civilians. The theory used by the German General Staff to justify that, which horrified the world and made it MUCH easier for Wilson to get us into that war, was EXACTLY as you just stated it. Had you lived then, you could have gotten a job with German propaganda, Sandy.

You can’t have it both ways. You must either condemn both or excuse both. You can’t pick and choose, just because you like one side. You can’t condemn an action done by one, and excuse the exact same action done by another.

Unadorned said:
“respecting the rules of civilized warefare (don’t target civilian populations, forcefully restrain your own troops from rape and free-lance pillage, extend minimally-humane treatment to POWs who are disarmed and subdued, etc.”)

American revolutionaries thought it suicidal to stand up in a straight line to fight the British redcoats and learned to fire weapons from behind rocks and trees.The British correctly accused them of violating the existing rules of civilized warfare.

During the Revolutionary war;,I World Wars I & II and ever since, men and women on both sides are executed as spies for violation of the civilized rules of war, i.e. failing to wear a uniform while fighting.Today none of the moslem irregulars ever wears a uniform. All nations however insist that we do-the better to mark us for death.Civilized? Hardly!

In the newest violations of the “civilized rules of warfare”, children are sent by soldiers, masquerading as civilians, to be human bomb afainst other “enemy” civilans.Also a violation of the rules of civilzed war.

The Germans broke the back of the Belgian resitance by shooting civilans who harbored them.North Vietnam, the Arvin and the U.S. Army did the same all in their turn.
There is nothing civilzed about war.The “rules” appear to be discarded by more and more combatants. It would be suicide to allow the other side its own rules of engagement outside the “civilized rules”. Not one of the moslem countries has ever signed the Geneva accords on the civilized rules of warfare and the treatment of prisonwers.

So, unadorned do you have any solutions, excepting of course referring and resorting to the failed policies of the past for our conduct of a total and unlimited war we never started and must never lose??.
Let me suggest a few.

If any fire comes from any building that building is an open target regardless of occupancy.

If non uniformed irregulars come against our population, by bomb or other means, we automatically target and kill one or more, hopefully all,of their known civilian or military political operatives within our range

.When we learn of the origin locale from which the irregulars started a mission, the location is destroyed to the ground, regardless of usage or occupancy.

Sound familiar?

These are the newly developed methods that Israeli’s Mossad and Military are now employing against the palestinian murderers.
It will escalate, of course, until they are all dead or the non combatant civilians leave the area of the fighting.Of course they wont leave, because they support jihad from behind every diapered head on their streets.
Maybe your civilized rules can be amended- maybe they’ll be the death of you and your country.

What happens when a US soldier roughs up (or even kills) an Iraqi civilian and a cause celebre results? Watch how fast the Bush administration puts our own man on trial. The “Arab-Americans” will be leading the charge for his conviction. We, you see, will play by the rules.

I agree with those who have said that we should not get involved in any kind of crusade to force democratic government on peoples who are manifestly unprepared for it (and that means most of the Arab world), but I agree with sandy that we have no choice but to wage a global war against Islam, for the simple reason that they are waging one against us, against America and against the whole Christian West. I have read interview after interview with Islamic radicals saying that their aim is nothing less than a global Islamic empire that includes Europe and America. However unlikely that is they intend to use any means necessary to try and bring it about. We have no choice but to defend ourselves, our lands, our faith and our civilisation, and that means waging total and ruthless war to convince our enemies that their aims are impossible and self destructive. But we will not win this war until both the liberal left and the neocons realise that mass immigration, especially from third world and Islamic countries, is a policy of national suicide. I won’t hold my breath waiting for them to wake up.

When you asked, “Sound familiar?,” what I thought of was what happened to the town of Lidice in Czechoslovakia, which the Wehrmacht wiped off the map, literally leveling the place with bulldozers, after shooting the men and dispersing the women and children into concentration camps, in reaction to the assassination there of SS General Heydrich, an unusually brutal and efficient Nazi who was loathed by the occupied populations.

Your detailed description showing what has to be done in war when an army unit, or an army, or a country, is fighting for its life, certainly gets the picture across, except the reality of war is of course much, much worse than what you describe. What takes place (and gets skillfully covered up by propaganda) and has taken place on both sides in every war certainly that this country, the U.S., has ever fought, is horrific, literally unmentionable, and the unmentionable horror is visited upon civilians as well as armies on the battlefield. It is all the more reason to utilize the utmost caution, sobriety, wisdom, and morality in deciding whether or not we must attack Iraq, as opposed to employing other means to defend ourselves and Israel from our enemies in the Muslim world.

I certainly agreed with our attack against the Al Qaeda camps, bases, and hideouts in Afghanistan, though I consider Donald Rumsfeld to be a war criminal for countenancing the repeated blowing-up with hand grenades of disarmed, subdued, and cooperative POWs who were first herded into shipping containers before grenades were tossed in. This was not the only war crime he countenanced and did nothing to stop. Rumsfeld makes my blood run cold.

I nevertheless fully supported our attack on Afghanistan. At present I personally see no justification for attacking Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or for that matter North Korea.

What I recently told an anti-Semite on this Forum I’ll paraphrase for the neocons, and whatever other interests there are, who are pushing for this war: the multi-culti, “diversity”-worshipping, post-modern nationless cultureless monstrosities of “pluralistic” nothingness which you dream of imposing on the Muslim countries of the Middle East are something which, if they ever came to pass, I’d commit suicide in two seconds rather than live in.

I just saw Shawn’s post and I agree with his last points about immigration. This is addressed to Jonah Goldberg and all his nauseating ilk who are acting like foaming-at-the-mouth war-mongers against the Muslims WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PASSIONATELY SUPPORTING THE IMPORTATION OF AS MUCH OF THE MUSLIM (AND MEXICAN) WORLD INTO THIS COUNTRY AS MAY POSSIBLY PHYSICALLY BE SQUEEZED IN BEFORE THE PLACE BURSTS: WHY IS THAT, MESSIEURS LES NEOCONS? MAY WE HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR ONCE, GENTLEMEN? OR ARE WE GOING TO BE MET WITH MORE OF THE SAME BRAZEN SILENCE AS YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE RAMMING DOWN OUR AND EUROPE’S THROATS OF THE SAME ENEMY YOU WANT EVERYONE TO DECLARE WAR ON?

I agree with Shawn’s summary of the problem and I share Unadorned’s indignation about it. We are in a civilizational war, but the problem is, the other side knows it and we don’t. They’re at war with us, while we’re just at war (if we’re at war at all) with “terrorism.” The sine qua non of any successful war is to stop letting the enemy into our country. But in order for that to happen, we must first re-awaken to our own national and cultural identity. And in order for that to happen, the reign of liberalism must be destroyed. If liberalism continues to rule, we die. It’s as simple as that.

To amplify Mr. Auster’s point I would add that while Islam is indeed aware, on an instictive level if nothing else, of the civilizational war mentioned, we in the west are at the same time engaged in a civil war. The leftist/neocon side in this western civil war is a malignant force destroying us from within. Father Fahey in the other thread was correct about the existence of a force seeking the destruction of western civilization. Fahey’s moral error lies in his obsession with the individual Jews involved in this counterfeit version of religion, which he wrongly blamed on Judaism itself. I have come to believe that the internal malignancy must be dealt with before we can deal with Islam - even though there may be immediate Islamic threats that must be fought as well. The Islamists were actually foolish in betraying their true intentions on 9/11/01. If they were really smart, they would have simply waited patiently for the deadly poison of multiculturalism to do its work. They could have had Islamic-friendly governments in place in a fair number of Western nations, including the USA and even Israel itself - pandering to the large Muslim immigrant population, to effectively neutralize any effective opposition to their dreams of conquest.

I’m inclined to think our government is more aware of America’s internal and external dangers than its citizens. Our intelligence capabilities are exceeded by no one in the world, except maybe by the Israelis.

Probabilities are high that deep within the councils of government there is consensus that we are indeed in a war between civilizations. They can hardly fail to note that Islam has no secular state to counter its religious Imam’s singular message of holy terror.(Except Turkey, which is a special case).
.
Traitorous radical chic infests our country like fleas on the body politic, so it would be less than intelligent to admit publicly that we held any long term goals. That’s why our president publicly calls for war against extremists and terrorists, and give the greater Islam Chamber of Commerce in the fez hats a pass( tongue in cheek).
Conservatives know that this war must not end with a token victory as demanded by the radical anti-war left or the isolationism demanded by the radical anti-war right.As long as Republicans have the people’s mantle to govern and control perhaps we’ll stay on track.

We keep our national secrets private or we risk losing our national purpose and continuity. At the end of World War I, the allies captured the German High Command’s war college archives containing their deepest darkest longest held secrets and plans. It effectively ended Germany’s war plan continuity for the next twenty years. Loss of war plan continuity is what the eight Clinton years cost us. We don’t have any breathing time left for more -sell-secret-technology- to-the-Chinese-get-money-for-Democrats–and–ignore-the-Islamic-murders with our heads in the sand approach.

And I think our military leadership has finally discovered the game America’s left-wing media played with American heroism in the journalism driven market of public ideas during the Vietman war. That despicable 5th column of journalists should and will be be micromanaged into a traitorous corner and kept far away from our future battlefields.

We are also see national spokesmen at presidential newscasts wisely and cleverly using the radicals own language of deflection and denial to rebut the radicals journalists emotionally loaded compound questions of grammatical complexity. Helen Thomas looks especially piqued that her approach is no longer effective.
I agree too. that immigration must not just be brought under control, but stopped for a breathing spell while we try to sort out what damage has been done to our country by the democrats decades of open borders in exchange for immigrants votes .

What I said to Shawn about the war between the West and Islam I will repeat to Carl about a civil war within the West. There may be such a civil war, but only one side, the left, knows that it is happening. In this civil war the “right” side only exists in a passive state, and for the most part accepts the worldview and assumptions of the left. It’s similar to the famed concept of a culture war. I don’t see such a war. I see the left dominating, and steadily taking over more and more of our society, and facing virtually no real opposition. But whatever tiny, mostly pro-forma opposition does still exist is shrilly denounced as though IT were really the dominant, reactionary force controlling society and the left was the weak and beseiged party.

So there is no culture war, just as there is no war between the West and Islam, because in both instances the pro-West side doesn’t really exist. If there are to be such wars, the pro-West side must first come into being.

And as proof that the pro-West side doesn’t exist, see my post on National Review’s advocacy of a merger of Europe and the Muslim world in a single state: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001119.html

“Rumsfeld makes my blood run cold” - Unadorned

Then he has succeeded in being a good military leader. People should be terrified of him. People are terrified of him. Thus, they are less likely to mess with anyone whose side he is on (us). He has sacrificed the lives of a few open supporters of the enemy (Muslims are muslims) to send a message to the enemy, which will save at least as many lives of his own people.

The only way to stop someone who is willing to die for their cause is to make it known that not only they will die, but so will their brothers, sisters, uncles, grandmothers, and infant children if they attack us. If they still attack us, even with that threat, we nuke all of them. Better to lose 10,000 of them than 1 of us. If you disagree, you forfeit your right to self-preservation, and you might as well join the pro-Islam immigration movemen, because your cowardice is contributing to national suicide.

While I have my doubts as to the veracity of rumors of Rumsfeld-approved summary execution of Afghans by hand grenade, if I were to suspend my incredulity and presume those reports true then clearly Unadorned’s position is that of the noble, not of the savage. The neocon mindset has lost the distinction between civilized man and savage; and defending the distinction is courageous — the very opposite of cowardice. I used to think the Redcoats absolutely silly lining up in their civilized rows on the battlefield, to be shot from the woods by the Bluecoat rebels. I have a different perspective now, though it is still not a tactic of which I would approve. It is true that pragmatically, when dealing with savages, one must be savage. But once civilized man has renounced his civilized nature he deserves death. The savage is merely ignorant, not a heretic; the civilized man who goes savage has forfeit his life. Better to die with honor than to “live” on while deserving death, if such an existence can be called “life”.

Chomsky radical chic supports and uses the myth of the noble savage as a basis for hamstringing the combat defenses of the U.S.Whats good for the primitive goose is never good for the advanced gander.Moral equivalency arguments of the worst sort.
Their ultimate political destination is that the U.S. is actually at fault for the murders of 911 (and inferentially all the other ills on earth) because of its world policies.

Preference for the ignorant,so called non heretical savage is the first shoe to drop. Listen carefully for the other.I hear it being unlaced.

“It is true that pragmatically, when dealing with savages, one must be savage. But once civilized man has renounced his civilized nature he deserves death” - Matt
Simple syllogism here. When dealing with savages, one must be savage. Once a civilized man is savage (‘has renounced his civilized nature’) he deserves death. Therefore, once a civilized man deals with savages, he deserves death. Basically we must either let the savages kill us or kill ourselves after we are done killing the savages. In either case, we deserve to die. So much for the American dream.

“The savage is merely ignorant, not a heretic” - Matt
Ignorance is no excuse to the law, my friend.

Matt, if you are at all capable, avoid deconstructing my language and answer my evidence if and when you choose to reply.

If Remus’s had bothered to read what I actually wrote he wouldn’t be lost in syllogisms. A civilized man sometimes has to behave _in a savage way_ in war, that is true. That does not extend to BECOMING a savage, which is what it would take for one to throw a hand grenade into a shipping container filled with unarmed POWs.

I don’t know what evidence Remus is referring to, nor what it is supposed to be evidence of. I do know that a charged of cowardice is often the result of incomprehension. Since Unadorned’s position can’t be answered Remus’ only alternative is to engage in name calling. Perhaps he hopes he can provoke Unadorned so that Unadorned will say something unrelated that Remus CAN address.

As for Sandy’s comment, I can’t make anything of it. The notion that the US is at fault for 9-11 is ludicrous. I would consider it justice if Osama bin Laden were wrapped in pigskin and hurled, alight, from the top of a skyscraper. I do know though that when someone is so clearly filled with incomprehension in a public forum he or she tends to demonize rather than seek understanding.

As an aside, doesn’t it seem odd that the side that was labeling me a Nazi not long ago is now defending the summary execution of unarmed POW’s?

Matt,
You have a seemingly inescapable tendency to resort to particulars. You say there is a distinction between BEHAVING like a savage and BECOMING a savage. What is to say Rumsfeld was not merely BEHAVING like a savage (assuming that the rumors are true)? You leave the terms vague and simply draw a line wherever is most suitable for your current argument.

As for the Chomsky-like rhetorical devices in Matt’s posts, he does not fail to deliver here. Sandy and I are both incapable of comprehension, so we resort to name calling. Somehow, the argument has ONCE AGAIN become personalized. It seems that VFR’s master deconstructionist cannot even seperate words from personal behaviors and attributes that are entirely his own projections and speculations.

Basically, Matt’s methods by paragraph were these:

1) Accuse me of misinterpreting the exact particulars of what he said, and which he still leaves open to be defined only at his own liking.

2) Accuse me of name calling and an inability to post a good argument, because I used the word cowardice at the end of a two-paragraph post. He refers to a post that had nothing to do with him, and only to the parts that question MY motives, not even what I was saying. He then takes it upon himself to speculate about my intentions. I am obliged to point out that while I am also picking apart his method, I am referring completely to text and to none of the personal characteristics, desires, or intentions that Matt can magically read into.

3) Say that he can’t understand Sandy’s argument, then accuse Sandy of being unable to understand anyone’s arguments. Throw in a bit of a personal feeling about Bin Laden as to possibly rally for support by appearing to be righteous after all.

4) Resurrecting an earlier comment by Sandy out of left field, Matt puts an undefinable group into an imaginary ‘side’ that labels him a Nazi and supports Rumsfeld at the same time. He also presents the two seperate actions with an ironic tone that implies that the supports of Rumsfeld are actually the Nazis (don’t try to tell me it’s not there, Matt).

Basically, Matt’s post is an attempt to use completely unrelated statements from all over the board, with no rational relationship to one another, to establish an imaginary pattern of behavior that serves no purpose other than to discredit Sandy and myself. His post shies away from reason and rational discourse and is much closer to persuasion, personal boasting and branding, and a concerted effert not to provide interesting food for thought, but to duck behind his own vagueness and simply discredit all opposition in the debate.

To everyone reading this man’s attempts to manipulate and deceive rather than argue and debate substantively, please do not be fooled. Sorry for the length.

I see. So Remus’ imputation of Unadorned’s “cowardice” was not personalizing the discussion, but my defense of Unadorned in pointing out this ad hominem, and the logical fallacy behind it, was. What is more, making the distinction between a civilized man who DOESN’T summarily execute unarmed POW’s in controlled custody with hand grenades and an uncivilized savage who DOES is a Chomsky-like hair-splitting rhetorical device.

I’ve been accused of being a persistent fellow before, but I have lost any expectation that either Sandy or Remus is likely to read anything I write with any sort of dispassion (Sandy apparently actually thought I was saying that savages are noble simply because I used both words in a post, for example, when I actually said precisely the opposite). Remus seems to think that my failure to address his first paragraph, in which he says that the fact that Rumsfeld is scary makes him effective, excuses the _ad hominem_ in his second, in which he accuses Unadorned of cowardice. I very much doubt that Rumsfeld is guilty of the act of which rumor accuses him (though if he were, he would be an ignoble savage); but I don’t think there is any way for me to have a reasonable discussion with either Remus or Sandy at this point.

I suppose I ought to address this one point, in case anyone besides Remus and myself still has any interest in this discussion:

Remus says:
“He also presents the two seperate actions with an ironic tone that implies that the supports of Rumsfeld are actually the Nazis (don’t try to tell me it’s not there, Matt).”

I don’t deny it at all, but it is missing an IF at the beginning. IF Rumsfeld ordered the summary execution by hand grenade of unarmed POW’s in shipping containers, THEN he is morally in a similar category to the Nazis. Anyone who supports doing those sorts of things is in that category (irrespective of whether or not Rumsfeld himself is, or if the events actually took place). As I mentioned in my first post in this thread though, I very much doubt that Rumsfeld actually ordered any such thing.

“The only way to stop someone who is willing to die for their cause is to make it known that not only they will die, but so will their brothers, sisters, uncles, grandmothers, and infant children if they attack us. If they still attack us, even with that threat, we nuke all of them. … If you disagree, you forfeit your right to self-preservation, and you might as well join the pro-Islam immigration movement, because your cowardice is contributing to national suicide.” — Remus

Listen to yourself, Remus.

Matt, many thanks for sticking up for me.

Did I say Rumsfeld made my blood run cold? Remus and Sandy are starting to as well.

Certainly Unadorned, you have done the same for me.