I’m quite aware that Israel doesn’t export oil (no matter how much some want it to). I never claimed that. I said… well, here’s what I said: …our alliance with Israel is pretty much entirely about securing a logistics and staging point in the Middle East.

To what purposes are logistics and staging points put?

(There’s also the utility of having a disavowable separate military around.)

the largest recipient of our foreign aid and our closest ally in the region.

You mean the region where there’s a lot of oil?

Yes, I’ll happily contend that our alliance with Israel is pretty much entirely about securing a logistics and staging point in the Middle East. (There’s some religious sentiment there, too, but I rather doubt it’d sway much of anything if Israel weren’t located where it is.)

(BTW: two yes-or-no questions, zero answers…)

those were your words, not mine.

True. Your words were, “so-called innocent victims“. (Emphasis added.)

Of course, the article you were responding to specifically and explicitly stated that “the children of the schools, other children, all have been victims of strikes… another drone attack happened, killing the small children.”

So… hmm. Either you’re stating that the children weren’t innocent victims, or you didn’t actually read the article you were responding to. (If there’s a third option, I’d be interested to hear it.)

you do realize that American forces are no longer in Iraq, right?

17,000 personnel in our embassy in Baghdad alone. Not all military of course… but your point has been that the opposition doesn’t make such fine distinctions, right?

Since you’re not going to watch the video, I’ll spill the secret of the key point: Suicide terrorism is used exclusively by forces resisting perceived occupation of their native lands. It simply doesn’t happen otherwise. (Go ahead. Check.)

The thing is, we do – or at least, are supposed to – make a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Are you arguing that we shouldn’t anymore? I’d appreciate a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ on that one.

Also, can you bring yourself to put in a good word for the 3,000 innocent Americans killed on 9/11?

I already called them “innocents” that were “killed”. If I don’t agree with you about how to respond to that, that doesn’t mean I think 9/11 was any less of a tragedy.

[Us not using nukes] kind of puts a dent in your mocking the idea that the US attempts to limit civilian casualties.

I already spoke of differences in kind rather than degree. Yet another point that seems to have slipped by you. Just to be clear – are you suggesting that we should nuke Pakistan? Just checking. (A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ there would be most helpful, too.)

You want to know what I think we should have done? Fine.

1. Devote the ~1 trillion we spent on the Iraq war to reducing or eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. Do like Kennedy did with the moon, and set a goal of eliminating oil imports by the end of the decade.

This would attack our opponents in several ways. Especially under Wahabbi Islam, their countries can’t compete in science and technology, and they sure can’t beat us militarily. The only reason they have more than a third-world economy is because of oil money. Right now, we’re paying to support them. If we cut off that money – and in developing alternatives, we’d cut off money flow from everywhere else, too – they’d collapse.

Secondly, the only reason we have to care about that area is because we need the oil. Cut that dependence and we can pull out our troops – whose presence, as I noted above, is a perceived provocation leading to terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the first place.

Militarily, we should have chosen one of two tracks – either a focused, limited engagement of al Qaeda and any Taliban forces that opposed us, or a full invasion plus a full-on Marshall Plan-style followup.

The populace was already weary of the Taliban, had some lingering memories of us as assisting them against the Soviet Union (an enemy-of-my-enemy thing, but still a plus), and the place was a wreck already. Any improvement we could provide at all would have been a plus. We couldn’t change the place overnight, but set up a decent cell phone system and make sure everybody had electricity and TVs, and the culture would change by itself over a generation.

Instead, you know how much money the Bush administration put in its 2004 budget for Afghan reconstruction?

Nothing.

Zip. Nada. They completely forgot about it. Embarrassed Congressional staff members had to write in $300 million to cover the lapse.

At this point, Afghanistan is a complete waste. Our people there are not serving any strategic purpose at all. If we’re not going to follow through – and it’s surely clear by now that we won’t – then we should get out. That would save a lot more American lives than drone strikes.

Re unanswered questions — you do realize that American forces are no longer in Iraq, right? And that Chris Stevens was not a member of the military? Also, can you bring yourself to put in a good word for the 3,000 innocent Americans killed on 9/11? Or are they not worthy of expending your moral capital?

You do realize that the United States could solve the problem of terrorist incursions from Pakistan this afternoon if it chose to do so. That kind of puts a dent in your mocking the idea that the US attempts to limit civilian casualties. You may remember what you said “Riiiight. Protecting innocent people was the only motive for going in with troops. Pull the other one.” I know it’s hard dealing with facts on the ground when you have decided to devote yourself to the love of humanity. Living life in the abstract is so much easier than facing reality, riiiight?

Afghanistan, the one where our solidiers are being killed by Al Qaeda/Taliban sheltered by your innocent Pakistani ‘civilians’

This is like a merry-go-round. As I noted in the my very first comment in this thread, “Yes, children are notorious harborers. (You did note that “so-called innocent” children had been killed in the strikes, right?)”

Somehow you never responded to that point. Odd.

And the other question you haven’t gotten around to answering: “what good is being done by our forces being there?”

That’s the relevant issue. If we’re fighting people who target civilians, and then hide among civilians… we might have to figure out different strategies than bombing them from the air.

(Did you watch that video yet? Can you explain why having troops on the ground there is an aspect of the problem?)

“I love our fellow Americans enough to want them out of places where they are targets and provide no strategic benefit, sure.” — Does that include the American consulate in Benghazi?

“Y’know, if we weren’t fighting two pointless wars, we might be able to spare some Marines for embassy and consulate security” – Y’know, the fact that there weren’t any Marines at the consulate had nothing to do with fighting “two” wars. We’re only fighting one war at the moment (Afghanistan, the one where our solidiers are being killed by Al Qaeda/Taliban sheltered by your innocent Pakistani ‘civilians’). Americans are no longer fighting in Iraq, in case you missed that.

And if you read a little more, you’ll discover that Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters do not wear military uniforms and live and fight amidst the “civilians” of Pakistan and Afghanistan, knowing full well the “moral outrage” generated by “civilian” casulaties. Perhaps you may want to direct your indignation toward those who deliberately target civilians and then seek shelter in their midst.

Yes, you love humanity so much, it is unfair to love your fellow Americans more than anyone else.

I love our fellow Americans enough to want them out of places where they are targets and provide no strategic benefit, sure.

I understand — a dead American soldier is worth no more a jihadi “freedom fighter.” Got it.

At this point, I have to assume you’re deliberately lying. You must be consciously ignoring my actual words: “civilians, not combatants.”

Why bother lying, when it’s so obvious? I mean, seriously – who do you expect to convince? Do you even convince yourself?

Oh, and tell Ambassador Chris Stevens’ family and the families of three other Americans murdered in Libya that al Qaeda is no longer a threat.

Y’know, if we weren’t fighting two pointless wars, we might be able to spare some Marines for embassy and consulate security…

Yes, you love humanity so much, it is unfair to love your fellow Americans more than anyone else. How fitting, on the weekend when the American death toll in Afghanistan crossed the 2000 mark. I understand — a dead American soldier is worth no more a jihadi “freedom fighter.” Got it.

Oh, and tell Ambassador Chris Stevens’ family and the families of three other Americans murdered in Libya that al Qaeda is no longer a threat.