Soros Part 4

Next Soros frets about our Iraqi operations because, "there are more places than ever before where we might have legitimate need to project that power. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons, and Iran is clandestinely doing so" .

So the real problem is that Bush should have invaded North Korea and Iran? But how much support could we expect from the UN on THOSE invasions? Along about here, Soros essentially leaves behind all attempts to be coherent and reveals himself to be (SURPRISE!) a common everyday Liberal Democrat. Therefore, anything Bush does is wrong, and anything he doesn't do is right.

Soros tells the reader that the war on terrorism is going badly and that in fact war is no way to end terrorism. "Police work" is what is needed. 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal act and implores us to "Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would not have our military struggling to perform police work and getting shot at."

He fails to mention some other likely results of sending Joe Friday chasing after Bin Laden and friends. Things like ever increasing terror attacks on U.S. soil and militant Islam busting a collective gut laughing at the stupid Americans and their "police work".

"Military action requires an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states harboring terrorists. Yet terrorists are by definition non-state actors, even if they are often sponsored by states."

This is of course absurd. Terrorists by definition seek to create terror. States can do this just as well, and often better, than "non-state actors"

Trying to follow Soros' reasoning is an exercise in futility that leads to general frustration and frequent outbreaks of the heebeejeebees. Basically the Soros tenet is as follows:

We shouldn't wage war against terrorists, because a war requires an opposing state, and terrorists CAN'T be opposing states, and even though they can be SPONSORED by opposing states who presumably you COULD wage war against, you still shouldn't wage war to fight terrorists because war requires an opposing state and terrorists and so forth.

Tomorrow the conclusion......