2/1993: Bombing of World Trade Center; 6 killed.

8/1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa; 224 killed including 12 Americans.

12/1999: Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S.

9/11/2001: Destruction of WTC, attack on Pentagon.

To suggest that Bush is not responsible for the absence of attacks on American soil since 9/11 is totally preposterous. If there had been attacks you would blame Bush and his policies!! !! He is ultimately responsible for that success (as he is for the failures). His policies of aggressively pursuing terrorists no matter where they are has resulted in no attacks on American soil since 9/11

>>”Sorry, this is just plain wrong. This article outlines in detail specifically all the reasons why this is patently false.

I couldn’t access the site you referenced, all I got was an advertisement. But I suggest you read “The Iran Threat” by Alireza Jafarzadeh, of the Iranian opposition. He documents all the various diplomatic advances clearly and unequivocally. Back channel diplomatic efforts to engage Iran have been attempted for 30 years, even during the Iran-Iraq war. All of these offers have been rebuffed by the mullahs in Tehran. They have consistently labelled the US as the Great Satan, and used anti-american rhetoric to manipulate their people, and ensure the continuance of their Islamic Republic.

Steel,

>>”Yes, the federal government doesn't ALLOW war between states (ie, treason et al.) but if a state could get away with an attack without much cost (such as the USA bullying the weakest nations on the planet) it would probably do so.

I had a great laugh at this one. This is absolutely among the most moronic ideas yet posted.

War between the states is only prevented by commonwealth law?? ?? ?? ??
Which war is it that the US has gotten away with, without much cost?? ??
Which are the weakest nations you are referring to??
What planet do you live on??

PaulL.>"War between the states is only prevented by commonwealth law?? ?? ?? ??"

Technically yes. Without federal government, states are like miniature countries. Imagine Tasmania wanted to secede from Australia...

PaulL.>"Which war is it that the US has gotten away with, without much cost?? ??"

Iraq hasn't cost them much, politically or in deaths of soldiers, as compared with the Iraqi losses. It's cost them immense wealth but that cost is borne by the domestic populace who don't really count at a strategic level. We have yet to see whether new generations of Iraqis will decide to become terrorists in the future because their country and relatives were destroyed. At present it looks quite good for the USA in Iraq.

PaulL.>"Which are the weakest nations you are referring to??"

Have you ever noticed that all the countries the USA threatens militarily and with sanctions have militaries that date back decades, with inferior technology? They are usually fighting untrained peasants with sticks and small arms when they are beating their chest with pride at their achievements.. in some ways it's rather amusing.

Steel

Steel >> PaulL.>"War between the states is only prevented by commonwealth law?? ?? ?? ??"Technically yes. Without federal government, states are like miniature countries.

Sorry, I don’t have to imagine Australia without a Federal gov’t, we didn’t have one until 1901. How the states managed to avoid fighting a war I’ll never know ;)

Steel >>” Imagine Tasmania wanted to secede from Australia...

If there was no federal government who would Tasmania be seceding from?? ?? This is absolutely ridiculous argument. Wars are not prevented by law. They never have been and they never will be. Wars are prevented by alliance, diplomacy, trade and deterrence, which are all inextricably linked.

Steel >> "Iraq hasn't cost them much"

This is absolute rubbish as well. The US’s invasion of Iraq has cost it significant political capital/goodwill which will require many years to mend. In terms of dead and wounded the costs have been significant and as you rightly acknowledge the monetary cost has been huge.

Steel >>” Have you ever noticed that all the countries the USA threatens ...have ... [dated military] and inferior technology?

The Iraqi Army at the start of the gulf war had far more troops, tanks and guns than the US forces they faced. The armaments they used were up to date Soviet designs which were proven in battle. Their technology turned out to be inferior but no one knew that at the time. In the hands of a determined army, Iraq’s weaponry would have been formidable.

Steel >>”They are usually fighting untrained peasants with sticks and small arms when they are beating their chest with pride at their achievements.. in some ways it's rather amusing.

Where are they fighting untrained peasants?? Afghanistan?? Where the “peasants” have been fighting for 30 years? And fought off the Red Army. Iraq?? Where they are fighting AlQaeda forces forged in battle in Chechnya, Kosovo etc?? Or Saddam loyalists blooded in Iraq’s battles with Iran and the US.

What’s amusing is that someone with so little understanding of military matters has such strong opinions on the subject

...<<What’s amusing is that someone with so little understanding of military matters has such strong opinions on the subject
Posted by Paul.L, .>>

OK paul so your in the crowd that lobbied us into war, time you knew a few facts
the intel was flawed, we were lied to deliberatly and systematicly.
here is but one of the sites that is reporting on how
http://www.infowars.com/
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/9injobinsp.html
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/tesped.html

bush cant explain
note he dosnt answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXobrGDb-vY
ron paul dont believe it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCP3cfS88E

you think the army cares about its troops?
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m45094&hd=&size=1&l=e
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/230608Bolton.htm
when they shut down the web they wont need bloggers like you
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1028224/Was-friend-yelled-abuse-police-anti-war-demo-stooge-thug-asks-writer.html
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/167819
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/18/ex-state-dept-official-hundreds-of-detainees-died-in-us-custody-at-least-25-murdered/

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m45060&hd=&size=1&l=e
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6710289.stm
http://www.zenjoomla.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=82

http://prisonplanet.tv/video/20080612report.php
you can buy the truth here on how you were decieved
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/911ctr.html

you can hear it here in their own words
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2827
as to why listen to the 3 and 4 th hour
http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls

if you think its over your just plainly decieved
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2814

Knowledge of military matters in modern times means zip without knowledge of modern history.

Knowledge of history and the politics that led to conflicts or why they where avoided is relevant, not military battles. The military is but a pawn in the game of politics.

Invading Iraq was the most stupid move, done without any understanding of Iraq's history and ignoring knowledge of internal and regional politics.

Paul take your finger off the question mark button.

I'll tell you what Yvonne, when or if I write you another post, I might consider it. Until then, if you don't like what you see, change the channel. Don't presume to tell me how to write my posts and I'll do you the same courtesy.

If you insist upon inserting yourself into a discussion you were not a party to, might I suggest you at least read the history of it.

Steel pretends to having a full understanding of military matters, yet clearly doesn't.

It was Clausewitz who, paraphrased, said "war is politics conducted by other means".

In fact military matters are at the heart of the politics of the matter when discussing Iraq, Afganistan,the shooting down of an Iranian jet, or the nature of Irans threat to Israel, its neighbours and the West.

>>"Knowledge of military matters in modern times means zip without knowledge of modern history. "

I might easily reverse that and with equal validity tell you that knowledge of modern history when discussing war/conflict means zip without knowledge of military matters.

Tell me how knowing/believing that invading Iraq in the first place was a mistake, helps us decide what to do from here?? ?? We have a whole new set of problems in Iraq and this point of view hardly illuminates things at all.

Besides all of this, Steel was disputing something which was purely military in nature. Which is perhaps how you came across this "conversation"?? ?? ??