Sudan is a terror-sponsoring country — no dispute about that.

The Government of Saudi Arabia maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism and has provided safe haven to members of al Qaeda.

I don’t dispute that Saudi Arabia may maintain diplomatic relations with embassies, etc. with Iran and other terror-sponsoring nations. Such a relationship would be very useful for those ‘back-channel’ contacts with the US. But when I Google “Saudi Arabia al Qaeda” all I get is a lot of examples of the Saudis killing al Qaeda.

The Government of the U.A.E. maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism and has provided safe haven to members of al Qaeda.

Sorry, Mary, but I can’t just take your word. Your going to have to provide some credible links before I’ll buy into it.

ETA, FARC and the ELN have not murdered thousands of American citizens.

You mean that if terrorists murder other people and not Americans, that’s OK?

But, the UAE, the Sudan and Saudi pretend to cooperate with our government. That’s why they’re our close allies.

I don’t think the UAE and Saudi Arabia deserve to be placed in the same category as Sudan. I think that they do more than “pretend.” Although I’ll grant you that ultimately the Saudis and the UAE are not to be trusted too far.

I am interested in any links you may have about “the realpolitik mess.” I’m not sure just what you mean by “the realpolitik mess” but it sounds interesting.

We’re not fighting a war against terrorism. We’re fighting a war against anyone who won’t do what we say, we’re fighting the desiccated remains of the cold war because we’re used to doing that, we’re fighting a war against some bad guys but not the bad guys who pretend to do what we say because they’re pretending to help us fight the other bad guys.

That’s your interpretation. My analysis: The US is fighting the chief “bad guys” and saving the little “bad guys” for later. One war at a time is enough, don’t you think?

Mary, at least you recognize that there is a terrorism problem and seem to be for action against terror-sponsoring states.

The Government of the Sudan maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism and has provided safe haven to members of al Qaeda. The Government of Saudi Arabia maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism and has provided safe haven to members of al Qaeda. The Government of the U.A.E. maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism and has provided safe haven to members of al Qaeda.

ETA, FARC and the ELN have not murdered thousands of American citizens. But, the UAE, the Sudan and Saudi pretend to cooperate with our government. That’s why they’re our close allies.

We’re not fighting a war against terrorism. We’re fighting a war against anyone who won’t do what we say, we’re fighting the dessicated remains of the cold war because we’re used to doing that, we’re figting a war against some bad guys but not the bad guys who pretend to do what we say because they’re pretending to help us fight the other bad guys.

Do you think the American people would have supported a some bad guys but not the bad guys who pretend to do what we say because they’re pretending to help us fight the other bad guys. . Do you think Americans would have support the realpolitik mess that we’re currently ‘fighting’ now? No. That’s why Bush sold it as a war against terror.

I’m not saying that we should fight this war another way, although I really think we should. But, our politicians will always work in their own interests, the are happy in their cold war rut, so they’ll do what they please.

However, when they try to sell the next war as ‘anti-terrorism’ there’s no way I’m buying it.

The worst part is, even though we’re not really trying, we’re fighting terrorism much more effectively than the Europeans. They’re hopeless. Sometimes I seriously doubt that nation-states (‘helped’ by the UN, of course) are able to handle the problem at all.

Carter did trust the Ayatollahs, Komeini. Bush trusted Chirac and Blair. But Bush does not trust Saudi Arabia however, or Syria, or Iran, or even particularly Pakistan and Libya.

Mary’s reply: Saudi Arabia and the Sudan are as culpable as the Taliban. So was the UAE. So was Iran. If you read Robert Baer’s Sleeping with the Devil or Robert Baer’s Hatred’s Kingdom you’ll see that members of the Saudi government directly supported terror. Members of the Saudi government are currently encouraging Saudi suicide bombers to go into Iraq.

I repeat: Mary, I don’t dispute that individuals in Saudi Arabia are probably funding terrorism. In fact, there are probably individuals in government and elsewhere in society in every Muslim country in the world who are giving money and other aid to terrorists — individual Muslim business leaders, Muslim politicians, Muslim government officials and Muslim clerics all over the Muslim world are probably contributing, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. In fact, Muslim “charities” in Europe and the US are probably also doing their part to contribute to the terrorists in the world wide religious war currently playing on the world stage. But your assertion was that the Saudis and the Sudanese were culpable specifically for 9/11 and I see nothing in the linked articles to support it.

I wrote earlier: Yes, I agree with Rumsfeld that the larger world-wide religious war, above and beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, may take decades.

Mary’s reply: The way we’re fighting it, yes, it will. It can take forever to get somewhere if you stand in place, shooting yourself in the foot.

So your answer is to declare war on all Muslim states? Really? Or do I have your strategy wrong? Maybe you could give us a condensed version of what you think the US should do about terrorism because I think I may be interpreting your statements incorrectly in regards to a strategy against terrorism.

I wrote earlier: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and North Korea may take awhile to win over diplomatically or subdue militarily.

Mary’s reply: What do Cuba and North Korea have to do with the fight against Islamist terrorism? This is the problem with this ‘war against terrorism’. Are we fighting the commies or the fascists? If we’d tried to fight both at the same time back in the early ’40’s, we would probably have lost both wars.

Terror-sponsoring states are the problem, not religion.

More from Mary: And why is Cuba still an enemy? They’re a toothless regime.

Tell it to the political prisoners jailed and executed by Castro. Read the State Department’s blurb on Cuba, an excerpt from which I’ll quote: “The Government of Cuba maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and North Korea, and has provided safe haven to members of ETA, FARC, and the ELN.” Castro will do anything he can to screw the US.

I wrote earlier: The US has recently deposed 2 belligerent governments. And how many governments did Carter’s administration depose?

Mary’s reply: According to some accounts, Carter’s administration deposed the Shah.

Only in the sense that Carter’s passive, apologetic foreign policy played into the mullahs’ hands. And the Shah was friendly toward the West, not belligerent, so your example does not pertain to my question — but we both know the real answer — Carter did nothing in retaliation and by doing nothing encouraged Iran to do more mischief.

Mary wades in: Our actions are similar to Carter’s because our government is willing to tolerate oppressive Islamist governments in order to achieve their goals.

Mary, the problem is not Islamic regimes. The problem is Islamic regimes that attempt to wage war against the US and its allies by using terrorists as their proxy military. As far as I’m concern anyone has the right to adhere to any religion they want, as long as they don’t try to use the religion as an excuse to perform murder.

Mary asserts: We allied with the Wahhabis to depose the Soviets. We invaded Iraq, in part, in order to help our Wahhabi ‘allies.’ Since these alliances are currently bleeding our economy, this time the Islamists are helping the Reds defeat us.

In WW2, the US allied with the Soviets to defeat Hitler. Much later the US assisted the Afghans against the Soviets. In diplomatic terms it’s known as ‘shifting alliances.’ We invaded Iraq for a lot of reasons but none of them had anything to do with “Wahhabi allies.” You do understand, don’t you Mary, that if the US has an alliance with a country that that alliance is not necessarily forever? That a country may not be an ally in one era but may become an ally later?

I wrote earlier: I’m aware that there are monetary exchange and trade deficit points of contention between the US and China, but that is hardly reason to believe as you originally asserted that China is causing US politicians very much anxiety.

Mary’s reply: US politicians are more interested in maintaining their power and status than in protecting Americans. That’s what their actions indicate. China’s growing economy doesn’t threaten me all that much, nor does it threaten most people, but it does threaten politicians.

I’ve seen a growing realization among US politicians that China is an economic opponent. Nothing new in economic opponents. There’s always an economic competitor on hand. Remember when the media had a feeding frenzy because Japan was going to ‘own’ America? But I really don’t think China’s economic shenanigans are causing a lot of anxiety in DC. Economic shenanigans are too commonplace to cause anxiety.

Mary asserts: They’re still at war with Cuba, because Cuba is a commie state. Cuba doesn’t threaten the lives of American citizens, but they don’t respect the US government. Therefore, they’re an enemy.

Cuba is a repressive state run by a dictator that used murder and pretended to want democracy to achieve his position. Cuba was the beginning of the Communist movement in Latin America and Castro has never given up trying to export Communism. As long as Castro is in power Cuba is a threat.

Mary asserts: Saudi Arabia directly threatens the lives of American citizens, but they pretend to respect the US government. They’re our “good friends”.

I repeat: I don’t trust the Saudis but then I’m sure Roosevelt didn’t trust Stalin, either; strategic alliances are not based on trust but on mutual interests and power.

Mary says: Politicians don’t see things the way we do.

You can say that again.

If they are all culpable as you say, then there should have been no target preference. One country owuld have been as good as another. But that doesn’t seem to be what you are arguing however.

If you read Robert Baer’s Sleeping with the Devil or Robert Baer’s Hatred’s Kingdom you’ll see that members of the Saudi government directly supported terror. Members of the Saudi government are currently encouraging Saudi suicide bombers to go into Iraq.

The question remains however, why Mary believes Iraq and Afghanistan were the WRONG first targets. We’re not talking about if Saudi Arabia did or did not support terrorism, we’re talking about why Saudi Arabia in Mary’s view, is a superior first target than Iraq or Afghanistan.

According to some accounts, Carter’s administration deposed the Shah.

Since the Shah was a US ally and progressive, and presumably Saddam was neither progressive nor an ally, there’s really no comparison between what Bush did and what Carter did.

Our actions are similar to Carter’s because our government is willing to tolerate oppressive Islamist governments in order to achieve their goals.

Carter did a bit more than “tolerate” oppressive regimes, he installed one in Iran.

We invaded Iraq, in part, in order to help our Wahhabi ‘allies.’

Again, Mary’s ignoring the fact that Kuwaitt was helped more by Iraq invasion than Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia and the Sudan are as culpable as the Taliban. So was the UAE. So was Iran.

If you read Robert Baer’s Sleeping with the Devil or Robert Baer’s Hatred’s Kingdom you’ll see that members of the Saudi government directly supported terror. Members of the Saudi government are currently encouraging Saudi suicide bombers to go into Iraq.

Yes, I agree with Rumsfeld that the larger world-wide religious war, above and beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, may take decades.

The way we’re fighting it, yes, it will. It can take forever to get somewhere if you stand in place, shooting yourself in the foot.

Cuba, Iran, Sudan and North Korea may take awhile to win over diplomatically or subdue militarily.

What do Cuba and North Korea have to do with the fight against Islamist terrorism? This is the problem with this ‘war against terrorism’. Are we fighting the commies or the fascists? If we’d tried to fight both at the same time back in the early ’40’s, we would probably have lost both wars.

And why is Cuba still an enemy? They’re a toothless regime.

The US has recently deposed 2 belligerent governments. And how many governments did Carter’s administration depose?

According to some accounts, Carter’s administration deposed the Shah.

Our actions are similar to Carter’s because our government is willing to tolerate oppressive Islamist governments in order to achieve their goals.

We allied with the Wahhabis to depose the Soviets. We invaded Iraq, in part, in order to help our Wahhabi ‘allies.’ Since these alliances are currently bleeding our economy, this time the Islamists are helping the Reds defeat us.

I’m aware that there are monetary exchange and trade deficit points of contention between the US and China, but that is hardly reason to believe as you originally asserted that China is causing US politicians very much anxiety.

US politicians are more interested in maintaining their power and status than in protecting Americans. That’s what their actions indicate. China’s growing economy doesn’t threaten me all that much, nor does it threaten most people, but it does threaten politicians.

They’re still at war with Cuba, because Cuba is a commie state. Cuba doesn’t threaten the lives of American citizens, but they don’t respect the US government. Therefore, they’re an enemy.

Saudi Arabia directly threatens the lives of American citizens, but they pretend to respect the US government. They’re our “good friends”.

Politicians don’t see things the way we do.

My response: I’m sorry, but no. I don’t believe the Sudan or Saudi Arabia were culpable for 9/11, except perhaps very, very indirectly. Before I swallow an assertion of this type I’m going to have to know just why Mary thinks Saudi Arabia and the Sudan were culpable.

Mary’s reply: Do you have time to do a few hours of reading?[links to articles]

Mary, I don’t dispute that individuals in Saudi Arabia are probably funding terrorism. And I certainly don’t trust the Saudis. The situation in Saudi Arabia with terror-funding is like the US had with IRA funding — not officially sanctioned but nothing much done to stop it, either(BTW, I concede the Brits have every right to be miffed at US hypocrisy on the IRA issue). And Sudan is definitely a terror-sponsoring state. But your assertion was that the Saudis and the Sudanese were culpable specifically for 9/11 and I see nothing in the linked articles to support it. BTW, if you believe Sudan and Saudi Arabia are the “worst terror supporting states’” you haven’t been paying attention. The country that sponsors the most terror is Iran.

On the “decades” assertion, I think it rather obvious from my response(“The US deposed Saddam only 3 years ago.”) that I was referring only to Iraq and thought you were referring only to the Iraq war. Yes, I agree with Rumsfeld that the larger world-wide religious war, above and beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, may take decades.

Why should a fight against Grenada-strength opponents take decades? It makes no sense at all.

In fairness, I don’t believe all the countries on the State Departments list of terror-sponsoring states are as militarily weak as Grenada was. Cuba, Iran, Sudan and North Korea may take awhile to win over diplomatically or subdue militarily. Three are off the list(Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan) but it has taken several years of military actions to get them off the list. Four more could easily take decades, don’t you think?

It’s militarily unfeasible to mount a military action against Iran because we’re tied up in Iraq, following the Carter doctrine.

No, actually the US could mount a devastating military action against Iran from afar using just one or two US nuclear submarines. After such a strike Iran would be reduced to the Stone Age. It’s political opposition here at home that prevents such an action, not any lack of military resources.

No, we allowed Islamist governments to take over. Just like Carter.

The US has recently deposed 2 belligerent governments. And how many governments did Carter’s administration depose? Just like Carter? Mary, you really do need to watch the exaggerations. Were you wanting the US to totally dictate the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq? Puppet governments? Oh how the anti-war crowd would scream if that were the case! Bush would be impeached by now!

I’m aware that there are monetary exchange and trade deficit points of contention between the US and China, but that is hardly reason to believe as you originally asserted that China is causing US politicians very much anxiety. This type of bloodless economic conflict happens too often with too many countries to cause anxiety.

Defunding Hamas is not drying up terroist funds. Invading terroist sponsoring nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, is not going after terroists where they live.

You want some complete Total War thing, which is not the same thing as saying Bush hasn’t done these things. You want him to do more of these things, you want him to committ the United States to Total War through obliteration. Don’t call that doing Bush’s strategy for him. That’s an entirely different strategy.

As I said, actions speak louder than words.

But you don’t believe what you say. Since you’re talking about Al Gore doing what you think he would have done, but since he wasn’t President he didn’t do what you think he would have done, now did he?

Actions of hypothetical characters aren’t real actions. And Afghanistan and Iraq are real actions, regardless of the hypothetical character actions you said would have happened.