Hi Scott,

Apologies for the belated response--but in all honesty (and this is even coming from me)--politics just aren’t doing it for me anymore. It’s certainly a phase, but I’m spent.

But in any event, I would suggest that your position undergo further evaluation. And I’ll provide a whole host of reasons why. Examples: Your first paragraph on the non-threat of Iraq… I question the subconscious integration of 20/20 hindsight into the perspective. Most everyone believed Iraq to be a threat. The past administration is on record as such. Every spy agency in the developed world stated as such. The democrats even demanded a special vote such that they could go on record as supporting the regime change. Then, when things didn’t turn out as expected, everyone tries to change their story--and the media allows them to do so. So if you were truly the lone eyes of foresight, disregarding every single piece of universally agreed upon evidence, please quit your job and join the CIA. We need good people like you in there.

Secondly—I don’t necessarily believe that there were *not* weapons in Iraq. Take a look at all the crap Russia has pulled. They sold anti-aircraft surface to air missile systems to Iraq which were supposedly immune to GPS guided weaponry. (And as it turns out, those systems failed miserably—egg on the face of the former soviets.) This, and many other dubious actions on behalf of the Russians, including assisting the Iranians with their nuclear plans. Is it entirely possible that the Russians help supply Iraq with the materials and technology to make WMDs? I certainly think so. And when the poo hit the fan, is it entirely possible that Russia help destroy or remove said weaponry? I wouldn’t put it past them.

And this leads into your second point about the cold war being over. It’s far from it, my friend. Espionage has actually *increased since the late 80’s and early 90’s. Look at all the poo Russia is doing all over the globe. The fall of communism didn’t end the cold war, it just blurred the boundaries and took the axe off of neck of western Europe. Russia isn’t our friend, nor our ally. And they’re doing all they can do in a subversive fashion to systematically undermine US global authority.

And your inclusion of Israel into the mix as an explanation for why Europe doesn’t care about facist islam… well, I’m not buying that either. If there was no Israel, Europe still wouldn’t care. Why? Because they’re not directly affected, and they (too) would like to systematically undermine US global authority.

I will happily agree with your infantile account of European actions; that’s perhaps the single best explanation I’ve heard to date. Like a petulant child, Europe wants to feel like someone again. And with the decline of the dollar relative to the Euro, they probably feel like they have earned their right to act in such a fashion.

But in any event—all of this is entirely immaterial, as reality is reality. True peace only comes through indisputable victory, and current geo-political military theory does not allow for such. And since we’re fighting not-to-lose, we will clearly and ultimately do so. We had an opportunity, but are choosing to limit ourselves from seeing it come to fruition. The more I think about it, the more I realize that we’ve screwed ourselves from the inside out. Today’s baby-boomer generation doesn’t understand the sacrifices necessary to win. (Just look at the DECADES in which we occupied Europe & Japan. And this legacy remained until Rumsfeld ordered an executive overhaul of US troop (global) deployment.) And I also largely blame the democrat party for this, as they have banked their political future on our own military failure. (And this legacy continues today--as Hillary is set to propose a "troop cap". Yeah--because LA has a good ball team, they should only be allowed to play with 4 players; not five.) Finally, moral relativism makes waging a successful war campaign impossible. An entirely different discussion.

The thing is—the US is just as much of a super-power as we ever were. If not more so, due to (our) massive technological disparity. What has changed is the mindset of the people. We don’t walk, talk, act or think like a super-power, thus we are limiting ourselves.

Finally—your rebuttal relative to the WWII analogy is incomplete. The japanese were entirely torn relative to the notion of surrender to the white man. We’re talking about a culture that would have gladly chosen suicide over the shame of defeat, and a culture which employed the use of suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism to do precisely this. So when the emperor, who was viewed as a god, began to mull over the concept of surrender, the near mutiny to overcome this deity-gone-wild would have killed the entire deal. Seriously—you should read some of the accounts. Japanese parents through their own kids off a cliff, rather than have to surrender themselves and their families to an American GI. Their level of fanaticism was just as great as what we’re seeing today, and perhaps the only reason why the surrender went down as it did was secondary to a failed military coupe attempt to overthrow a god-gone-crazy. The military and much (if not most) of the japanese population was fully prepared to continue their suicidal military effort rather than unconditionally surrender; they, too, were fighting for their god. The only significant difference between the japanese of then and the islamics of now is that we actually fought the japs to win. White guilt and moral relativism has since forced us to fight on the level of our enemies to ensure them a fair fight.

So where does that leave us? Well, for me—it leaves me apolitical for the moment. We’re fighting not-to-lose, and as such, we will. The current geo-political military paradigm is fatally flawed. And for that matter—so is the notion of a democratic republic (as we know it today). And this too, is a talk for another time.

But moving on to something that I actually care about… Pandas. That’s right. Pandas. Apparently female pandas only go into heat some 3 days out of the entire year, and the Memphis zoo wanted some hot-hot panda love. So they closed the panda exhibit for a week—to give the panda couple some privacy and alone time. Perhaps some candle-lit bamboo dinners, champagne, maybe a little Barry White in the background. But apparently, male pandas are notoriously bad lovers. Bad in the sense that they don’t know how to score; bad in the sense that they cannot have successful troop deployment. So after a failed attempt or two, they decided to artificially inseminate the female panda. (Logistics that I really don’t want to go into; although I knew a girl that worked on a stud-farm…so I know what goes down…) But here’s the funny part. Why artificial insemination? Especially when the Panda Porn industry has proven results time and time again. (And time again.) Well—I guess it’s because we’re in the Bible belt. Because porn is wrong. Maybe the zoo-keepers didn’t want the boy-panda to have unrealistic expectations? Maybe they didn’t want the girl-panda to feel insecure or self-conscious? Perhaps they just felt panda porn was ultimately detrimental to their relationship… I don’t know. But a funny conversation nonetheless…