"It is probably why we agree on some domestic policy issues like drugs and other victimless crimes."

There is no such thing as either a "victimless good" or a "victimless crime". If, for example, second-hand smoke were actually harmless, there would still be a victim of the tobacco smoke: the smoker.

"There is a desire to minimize harm and a recognition that there are limits to the criminal sanction in law and limits to the effectiveness of the implemtation of military force in foreign policy."

The law is not perfect. Murder is illegal, yet murders happen anyway. But if murder were not illegal, it would happen a great deal more often than it does with it being illegal.

"That does not mean it was considered an American virtue by our founding fathers to sit idly by while injustices were visited upon our neighbors . . . ."

Excuse me? Oh -- right: they weren't "sit[ting] idly by" when they were actively committing genocide against the original occupants of this continent.

And we all know how famously non-injurious was their practice of slavery.

". . . or that we should never protect our commercial interests around the globe.

"-- L.W.M"

Remind me of when the Founders pronounced their desire to be the "policeman of the world" in order to protect their commercial interests in, say, China. Or central Africa. Or in Australia. Or in Southeast Asia. Or in Central and South America.

But give us first a list of those "commerical interests around the globe".

But before making that effort, first read Washington on avoiding "entangling alliances".

In fact, of course, the Founders saw as a "virtue" the isolating fact that the Atlantic was vast, and stood between the US and Europe as a natural protective barrier.

"The "200 lbs. rocket"...

"Is from the strike earlier in the week.

"We have several different instances of strikes with civillian casualties. The strike on Saturday is unclear as to what type of munitions were involved but with impact craters as large as the article describes, (18 yards across?) it sounds like something with a good sized warhead.

"-- L.W.M. Sunday, May 4, 2008 06:37 AM"

The types of munitions are wholly irrelevant: it is a WAR CRIME to target civilians, or to target ALLEGED "enemies" who are mixed in with civilians. The infant is DEAD, regardless the types of munitions.

Such myopia-induced stupidity/bean-counting is revolting.

LWM has me pegged, and credit is given where due:

Phillip Allen likes to hear the sound of his own voice making bold and unrealistic proclamations. Not unlike many people on the internet and a few longshot candidates that didn't make the cut, and for good reasons. And this blog is populated with people who are, in my opinion, radicals.

I am, fully and proudly, a radical. Given the debased meaning the term has come to have in an era where someone like Bush or Cheney can be called radicals, I must specify that I am a leftist radical, and I hope that I contribute in whatever small way to the defeat of the American empire and the demise of the criminal clique that directs and benefits most from it.

I don't know what, precisely, LWM objects to in "bold and unrealistic" statements. Advocating the overthrow of monarchy was once 'bold'. Advocating the end of chattel slavery was once 'unrealistic'. I gather that LWM finds more value in being "a realist and a pragmatist". Well, mazel tov.

I do not bother commenting here or anywhere else on the internet because I love to hear the sound of my own voice (or rather see my words in pixilated print). I certainly don't do so with the notion that any ideological adversary will change positions. I say what I do because I believe it correct, and I hope it provides some encouragement to those who may believe likewise. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of readers of Glenn's column and the subsequent comments never participate in these discussions. Many of these readers have not yet made up their minds about the subjects at issue. I hope what I write helps to clarify a problem, or provides a way of expressing something that helps their own thinking or helps in their discussions in their communities.

"Hey Libs....

"Iraq has served the purpose of educating the country to the real nature of terrorism . . . ."

No, it has served to educate SOME of the Bushit-believing DUPES that Iraq had NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH 9/11 OR TERRORISM OR TERRORSITS.

And, that lying the country into illegally invading and illegallly occupying a country that was barely a threat to its neighbors, and no threat to the US, is S-T-U-P-I-D and worse.

". . . and demonstrated that conventional warfare doesn't work."

Let me introduce you to a subject of which you are clearly unaware:

History.

Conventional warfare does work, in some circumstances. And as the Founders demonstrated, "asymetrical" guerilla/"insurgent" warfare does work in other circumstances. (Not-so-by-the-way, the colonials in 17th century Massachusetts-Bay were losing their war against King Philip and his followers until they took the advide of their Injun allies: use guerilla tactics -- ambushes, destruction of villages -- and all their inhabitants -- and destruction of food supplies.)

"Past that, we are convinced that trying to referee tribal entities isn't realistic. (Iraq comes under the Pier One rule however) Indeed, this small space in history will go down as a huge turning point in attitudes of all sorts."

It will go down in history as yet another instance of an idea that was "new" to those who implemented -- and supported -- it only because they were ignorant of history, and thus ignorant of the fact that there was nothing whatsoever "new" about it.

Nothing "learned" from this disaster was "new," or is "new," including that of "trying to referee tribal entities" -- those are tribes consisting of human beings, not abstract "entities" -- whose various tribal HISTORIES would demonstrate the impossibility of success of such colonial manipulations. "Iaarq" was not a country until cobbled together by BRITAIN. And "Iraq" has NEVER been successfully occupied by any foreign power. Which latter fact shouldn't surpirse, because NO people will tolerate its sovereign space being occupied by foreign powers.

"May we conservatives should speak a little slower and a little plainer.

"We are agreeing with you."

And you still mistate the realities based upon your "conservative" ignorance of history. Here's a "conservative" maxim:

"There's nothing new under the sun."

"However, no matter what philosophical reasons you may choose to invoke as impetus, the reality is, that democracy just doesn't work with people that aren't advanced enough to understand the value of co-operation over killing."

Is it possible that other peoples have better ideas of what "works" for them as forms of governance than the right-wing's monotonous insistence upon "democracy," which they themselves oppose in behalf of "free markets" and elitisms based upon wealth and power rather than equality in rights and before the law and merit?

Who the hell are "we" -- you -- to insist that "democracy" is the best form of gov't for absolutely everyone? And who the hell are you to determine that those who may not WANT "democracy" are therefore "backward" as compared with such supernally enlightened patronizers such as you?

"Killing is the raw nature of human beings, and to ignore that is a flaw in seeing reality."

If that weere true, ass, then every one of us would have at least one killing under our belt. The fact is that killing is not necessary; it is, however, a means to an end -- for SOME.

"Thinking that such people can be dragged into the 21st Century is fantasy."

"Thinking" they need to be "dragged into the 21st Century" in keeping with your bigot's provincialism, or that they are "backward" becuase they cannot be FORCED to adopt "democracy," is direct result of your IGNORANCE of the "Iraq"i people.

"For good or ill, our inteference stunts the change required to progress along the development path."

For ill, our interference and meddling -- and war crimes of war of agression, torture, and wantonly killing civilians, including women and children -- says a great deal about the "value" and quality of your notion of "democracy" and how wonderful it is . . . it even allows this "democracy" to engage in the "freedom" to engage in crimes against humanity, and war crimes, while smugly patting ourselves on the back as to how "advanced" and "peace-loving" -- and, of course, "superior" -- we are to all the backward, morally-depraved victims of our showy actions in exercising "democracy" upon others, to the detriment of those others.

"But as global history demonstrates, war is the default human condition, and you should be prepared for that."

As global history demonstrates, war is only one option.

But, being about "freedom" and "democracy" and therefore "options," you leave out the option of NOT engaging in crimes against humanity and war crimes. Alas, all them there not-so-white backward peoples who haven't the brains to realize that our crimes against them are "for their own good," and are a lesson in the meaning of "democracy" -- they just don't "get it" that "democracy" doesn't allow for anyhting BUT crimes against humanity, though we use our special synonym for that: "freedom".

"The withdrawal of the US from the role of world policeman, will result in exactly the same situation as removing police from NYC, (h/t PW) gangs will emerge, war will rage, the weakest will be enslaved and chaos will descend upon the city.

But according to you that's the "default human condition". That being the inevitable way things must be, why even mention it?

"What ever fantasy you may have of some other scenario is just that, fantasy."

Stop the preaching of self-negating gibberish and take a good look at yourself.

"Are you ready for that eventuality?"

Of course we are: why bother attempting to prevent it, in view of the FANTASY that it's "inevitable".

"Conservatives think not."

Well and simply said: "Conservatives," concerned exclusively with identity -- who is and who is not "conservative" -- and ideology, don't think.