Scooter242 wrote: "Are you advocating that we allow ourselves to be dominated an[d] controlled? Or do you think if we play nice, everyone else will too? What do you think about the idea that if one shows weakness it invites attack?"

Scooter just gave the game away there. He revealed in Salon's letters pages that he lives his life in fear, and can't understand why we do not. He is undoubtedly a gun nut, who lives in fear of home invasion by other races; and 9/11 made him afraid of dar-al-Islam, whose languages and cultures are strange and scary. In short, he is afraid of the world and needs to feel protected, even if it means spending trillions of dollars to deploy other people to occupy lands so hostile that even the Romans couldn't conquer them. He uses words like "domination and control," the language of dog trainers and domestic violence. And like all right-wing authoritarians, he hates us for not sharing his fear. We make him feel small; and so he spends his time trying to bring us down to his size.

Scooter, snap out of it. Yes, we could die today in a terrorist attack (or more likely by an aggressive driver on a cell phone in an SUV or pick-up truck); but it's not worth repealing the Constitution and selling the American Republic to the highest corporate bidders. As someone else mentioned, this is supposed to be the Home of the Brave; remember?

American men should not be cowering in fear of a handful of religious zealots, Christian or Muslim. When bad guys commit crimes, you form a posse, track them down and see they are punished. You don't name some idiot like Bush Jr. or Dick Cheney your king; and you don't let criminals like bin-Laden go free. For someone who talks about "weakness inviting attack," I'd think you'd understand how ridiculous the Bush-Cheney failure to even TRY to catch Osama bin-Laden makes America look in the eyes of the Arab world you so despise.

Ditto to you, Denning. I'm tired of hearing the language of fear every time I turn on a TV or radio. I think we're all tired of it. Hopefully, a lot of people will tire of it in time for '08.

Gitland says: "The Bad: Denver, what a stupid place to put an airport-snow, wind summer thunderstorms everyday, ugh. Dumb design for limitless space to build. Living on the West Coast, I refuse to fly United because of Denver's airport-delays cancellations etc."

Um, where should Denver's airport be? Arizona? (Here's a tip: make your connection through DIA as early in the day as you possibly can, especially in summer.) Denver will never be world class, though, unless and until there is a fast train line to civilization.

Which brings me to SFO. BART now enables travel between the airport and downtown in less than half an hour for $5.15, and the new face of the International Terminal is great. San Francisco can be proud; and yet I'd expect nothing less from America's finest city.

No one has yet said anything about two of the world's newest airports, Osaka Kansai and Seoul Incheon. No I've not been to either one yet and can't help; that's why I'm curious.

There is great Chinese food in SF. King Tin in Chinatown for Cantonese seafood. Yank Sing in the Financial District, and The Fook out on Clement St. for dim sum. Ton Kiang way out Geary for Hakka/Hokkien. For noodles, Tong Kee, above King Tin on Washington between Grant & Stockton, is gone; but Sam Wo's has moved into a nice spot across the street.

No point; I just wanted to show off my knowledge of SF's Chinese restaurants. I guess American Chinese is mostly a victim of its own success, with little incentive to improve.

The only question is whether attacking Iran is believed by Dick Cakewalk Cheney and the Powers That Be as good for the military-industrial complex. Wall Street is at record highs, and the rich have never been richer; but the mob has turned. Something new is needed to ensure growth after Jan. '09, such as a dramatic escalation in Iraq -- or a new victim.

Iraq meanwhile seems to be all Army and Marine Corps. The Navy and Air Force and their suppliers have to be eager for a greater role to play; and an attack on Iran would seem to be tailor-made for their needs. Bush-Cheney have nothing to lose politically, and a legacy to win; and the Israel lobby clearly favors an attack on Iran's fledgling nuclear capabilities.

So there it is. On the other side of the argument are reason, common sense, the Opinion of Mankind, and We the People. In other words, nothing is standing in the way of war.

Comet124 writes, "Not a Chance. An attack on Iran puts oil prices through the roof and the whole region in turmoil, probably starting a much wider war that even the neocons would seriously regret. We can't subdue a country that we had systematically crippled for over ten years and now some people think we can handle Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan at once? It's all bluster. Not even these scoundrels are that stupid."

In all honesty, I do not know if Comet is being facetious or sincere. Because what he/she describes is exactly what the neocons want to see (except their regret; but including the continued transfer of enormous wealth to the oil industry); and yes they are that stupid.

Susan Sunflower quotes from Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007:

"al Qaeda . . . may even try to lure the United States into a war with Iran."

I assume in the near future the corporate media will put on heavy rotation Junior Bush telling a hand-picked Gop audience (in his snotty know-it-all know-nothing tone) that of course Iran is now the central front in the War on Terra' (TM) because al-Qaeda says so.