"It was too early yesterday, it will be too late tomorrow, we have to do this now.." V.I Lenin urging his comrades to start a communist putch in 1917.

I believe these words can be used to desribe the situation in America today. If the liberals don't suceed today, they will be delegated to the dust bins of history. Today is the day. It was too early just a few years ago - the memories of the collapse of the Liberal Empire, Soviet Union - with its massive government sector, workers' rights legislations and people's democracy were too fresh.

A decade from now, the Second Great Liberal Empire, the European Union - with all the splendor of multi-culturism, unlimited immigration and gargantuan welfare system is most likely to go into abyss. The EU is unlikely to survive the radicalization of Europe's quickly growing moslem population, inevitable bancrupcy of its social security and welfare, low birth rates of the original population and massive immigration of the educated citizens.

If liberals lose the 2008 presidential elections - they can throw away their liberal ideas for quite a while. American people will be in no mood to follow the example of failed European Union. Moreover, the war with islamo-fascism is likely to get much hotter in the next decade.

This is my free advice to the libs. Just in case you wonder, yes, I am pretty right-wing. Or, as we say in Europe, I am a classical liberal, who stands for small limited government.

If you are pretty right-wing, then chances are that you support Bush - and if you do support Bush then what does that say about the validity of any advice you offer to Liberals?

Or, alternately, as someone who is by your own acknowledgment pretty right-wing: how is it that right-wingers were so slow to wake up to facts regarding the idiot George Bush and his Socialist Disaster in Iraq?

I know that few of you on the left have enough brains to understand why what I am saying is correct. Therefore, I can give you the best advice possible - and you still won't liten to it. So, it won't hurt me a bit.

Secondly, I provided enough arguments to support my case. If you disagree with what I am saying, you can simply check the assumptions I am making. If the assumptions are correct, and the logic is right, then my conclusions are correct too. Granted, it's unlikely, you will take the effort to do any checking, but it's just a thought.

Is this good enough, or you need more explanations?

Again, if you interested in my arguments - here they.

1. ME is screwed up. 9/11 was only a wake up call - but the writing was on the wall way before that.

2.Moslem world is screwed up. It's only a matter of time before some ben Laden-type insect gets a hold of nukes and uses it in the US or Europe or Israel.

3.If left to its own devises, Moslems in the ME will really screw up the world.

4.The only way to get them out of their stupor and show the way is to take one moslem country, and turn it around. Iraq was a perfect place to start, given its nazi-like dictator, its continuous flanking of the conditions of the seize-fire and the general unpopularity of Saddam Hussein. Moreover, Iraqis themselves strongly disliked him, and it was and is a high possibility that they can pick up the pieces after he is gone.

This is pretty much the case. If you disagree with this - identify which assumtions or logical steps were incorrect. Can you do this?

Well, but why is it that Liberals were such Geniuses that they were 100% correct about the idiot George Bush - Liberals didnt vote for the idiot George Bush - Conservatives did.

You dont see Liberals approving of George Bushs Socialist Disaster in Iraq - but Conservatives do.

So I mean, you say that you are a right-winger, so from your perspective, why have right-wingers been so slow to realize what a disaster the idiot George Bush has been?

All the talk of the EU's demise is based on unsupported, speculative assumptions.

France has taken a step towards reducing its welfare state, loosening job protections and cutting back on retirement benefits. Germany has tried to do the same. Who is to say these trends will not continue? Consequently, the conclusion of an inevitable financial collapse is unwarranted.

And who is to say that the radicalization of Europe's Muslim population is inevitable? Yes, if those nations discriminate against all Muslims because of the actions of a small minority, then there will be more conflict. But that response is not a necessity. Muslims in the US have not seen a great degree of radicalization, so there are other ways to go.

As for population, low birth rates need not be a problem. Indeed, nations with very high birth rates are often associated with poverty. If those nations got their birth rates under control, fewer of them would feel the imperative to emigrate because they would have more opportunities at home. Too many workers can depress wages, especially on the low end, creating more discontentment. Lower numbers of workers can cause problems for funding welfare programs, but adjustments can be made in benefit levels if necessary; any reasonable population would choose to do so rather than spend itself into collapse.

So I'd say just about all the assumptions are highly, highly dubious--certainly not sound enough to assert them as if they were facts .

I respond to every point you raise. Why should I trust you? Check my assumptions and logic and make up your mind. Why did you support the war? The arguments are such and such. You never respond to me, and you keep bringing up new issues. Liberal Geniuses predicted shit. Conservatives have a much better track record than the liberals on great many issues. The fact that you are a liberal proves that you are stupid AND ignorant. From the demise of the welfare system to the appeasement of the American enemies - the conservatives were always right, and libs were always wrong. Heck, I start sounding like you - except I have better style, of course, and I am correct.

Anyway, you are boring. You don't respond to the actual points I am raising. I have you reasons why invading Iraq was a good idea - given the alternative. You did not even notice that. Are you ready to tell me your opinion, or it is secret, like you IQ and SAT?

Gringo911, if you have reasons why invading Iraq was a good idea, then your opinion on politics is really worthy of very little consideration.

"The only way to get them out of their stupor and show the way is to take one moslem country, and turn it around. Iraq was a perfect place to start, given its nazi-like dictator, its continuous flanking [sic] of the conditions of the seize-fire [sic] and the general unpopularity of Saddam Hussein. Moreover, Iraqis themselves strongly disliked him, and it was and is a high possibility that they can pick up the pieces after he is gone."

Hm, Saddam has been "gone" for five years, and I don't see much in the way of the locals picking up the pieces. I do see Shiites working towards a non-inclusive Shia government which is sure to alienate the Sunnis and so continue the latter's resistance, probably violently so.

Corruption in Iraq is endemic, efforts towards reconciliation practically nil. So I don't think the evidence backs up your claim that everything in the Middle East will be fine and dandy. Yes, Saddam was a brutal murderer. But today's Iraq has stoked the fires of violent sectarian division. I hope it turns out well, but even if it does, I don't think it will affect other nations in the region which have their own set of problems. Nor do those problems necessarily depend on what happens in Iraq.

Really, if you have reasons why invading Iraq was a good idea, how smart can you be?

This is pretty much the case. If you disagree with this - identify which assumtions or logical steps were incorrect. Can you do this?

I think you have a weird notion of what constitutes a 'logical step'. All I see are assumptions.

How about I substitute my step 4 for yours? It should work just as well, as mine is based as much on guesswork and opinion (not facts) as yours:

4. The only way to get them out of their current path is to develop alternate sources of energy, which will devalue the oil under their land to the point that nobody will give a hooey what happens in the ME and won't prop up dictators like we propped up Saddam, and then the ME folks can decide for themselves what government they want their countries to have, and then they won't be upset at us for interfering in their business, and then we won't have to worry about a nuclear attack.

...(the) inevitable bancrupcy of its social security and welfare,

Inevitable, and yet these social security and welfare systems go back a hundred years or more.

Krugman ought to write a column about this and probably has: "The Perpetual Inevitable Decline of European Socialism." Or, "The Coming Collapse That Never Comes."

4.The only way to get them out of their stupor and show the way is to take one moslem country, and turn it around. Iraq was a perfect place to start, given its nazi-like dictator, its continuous flanking of the conditions of the seize-fire and the general unpopularity of Saddam Hussein. Moreover, Iraqis themselves strongly disliked him, and it was and is a high possibility that they can pick up the pieces after he is gone.

How incredibly enlightened of you. Invading more countries, and forcing our government, and our culture and values on them (at gunpoint) sounds like a great way to make friends...

If you are so worried about an islamic terrorist getting his hands on a nuke and attacking us, why do you insist on giving him more reasons to attack us? The way to stop the islamic world from hating us, is to STOP TREATING THEM LIKE PETS AND TOYS.

That's where the hatred comes from, disrespect, not religion. You want to conquer them and bring enlightenment. What in the world makes you believe that is going to improve the situation?!?

Listen to your argument again. Only this time, imagine yourself as one of the people who is going to be conquered. How would that make you feel if you, a conservative, were to be conquered by me, a liberal, with me bringing "enlightened" civilization to your backwater, barbaric world (at gunpoint).

• Is that going to make you like me?
  
• Is that going to make you respect my beliefs and way of life?
  
• Isn't it more likely that it would make you hate my guts?
  
• Isn't it more likely that it would make you despise my culture, and my way of life?
  
• Isn't it more likely that you will start filtering your observations, so that any positives that my "enlightened" way of life may have brought to you will be discredited or ignored?
• Isn't it more likely that your spare time will be filled with thoughts of revenge, and freedom from my oppression of you?

Did you notice that during the early 90s, after we intervened in Bosnia, that mainstream, islamic hatred towards the US disappeared for a while? Why was that? It was because we intervened to protect ethnic Bosniaks, who were primarily muslim, from the genocide and "ethnic cleansing" that they were suffering at the hands of the predominantly christian Serbs. We were, shockingly, treating muslims as actual human beings, and, even more shockingly, protecting them from oppression.

The last thing we need to do is continue living up to the middle eastern stereotype of the imperialistic America, an America that is on the fourth crusade to conquer the middle east and destroy islam. Maybe, if we start treating middle eastern people with a little more respect, we can start undoing some of the catastrophic damage that Bush has caused. Maybe if we intervened in the Palestinian peace process, and started treating Palestine as equal to Israel, we could actually do something good for a change.

Imagine the US protecting Palestinians from oppression at the hands of the Israelis. How do you think that would make the muslim world feel about us?

PS - How was that for identifying which assumptions and logical steps are incorrect?

"Anyway, you are boring. You don't respond to the actual points I am raising. I have you reasons why invading Iraq was a good idea - given the alternative."

"A good idea - given the alternative." Who is your dealer? He must have some really good stuff for you to believe that line. Let's look at the alternative. Shall we?

Alternative scenario: The US does NOT invade Iraq.

Consequences of that scenario:

• The US does not set aside 150,000ish troops for the impending invasion of Iraq.
• A good chunk of those 150,000ish troops are instead sent to Afghanistan to help our mission there. You do remember that mission, don't you? Overthrow the Taliban. Eliminate Al Qaeda. Does any of that ring a bell?
• Those extra troops come in awfully handy in operation Anaconda. We don't have to rely on the local, muslim warlords to provide containment with their troops that have a good amount of sympathy for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
• Operation Anaconda is successful. Most of the Al Qaeda leadership is captured or killed. Osama bin Laden dies!
• The rest of the Al Qaeda organization is wrangled up, or brought down over the course of the next year or so.
• Afghanistan, with the help of those extra troops and the elimination of Al Qaeda, is allowed to recover and stabilize under it's own government.
• The goodwill and sympathy that we received from the 9/11 attacks is not wasted. The international community actually likes us.
• The swift and successful US response to the attacks from Al Qaeda sends a pretty potent warning to anyone who was thinking of acting against us: Don't F*ck With the USA.
• Unbelievably, George W Bush goes down in history as a great president due to his response to 9/11, and his success in the war against Al Qaeda. Who knows? Maybe he even intervenes in Darfur, earning even more brownie points from history.
  
• Saddam Hussein is still in power in Iraq. He's still trying to weasel whatever scraps of power he can underneath the close watch of the US and the UN. Oh, darn. I guess we can't have everything.

So that was the alternative to invading Iraq. I'm sure glad that Bush and Cheney were able to save us from that horrific fate...