Lander,
Sorry if I ignored your response. You may be misinterpreting the intention of my original post here. It was not designed to insult you, but it was in fact designed to demonstrate that there CAN be decent individuals within the anti-war position, as I was meaning to give you a "softball" that you could illustrate my point for me.
You answered as I assumed you would concerning the professor as I intended to demonstrate that you, and others like you, were actually decent folks even if I personally feel you are misguided and, at best, selective in your interpretation of fact. Thus I distinguish you from common scum like Grantt and Radiofreecostarica who have expressed their admiration for terrorists.
I guess I'll have to accept your self-defined label as an "independent" though you would certainly admit that the vast majority of your attacks are directed at "right" positions as opposed to "left" positions.
As for me, I would say that my politics are center/right on social and economic issues, and far to the right on foreign policy issues. It is my belief that the United States should ALWAYS do WHATEVER is in its national security interests, regardless of what others might think. That being said, sometimes the cost of a potential act is too great to reap the potential benefit, and then the act by definition is actually NOT in the best interest of national security. It's essentially an ideology of risk/reward or cost/benefit which if you know anything about the history of US foreign policy would put me in the Dulles school of thought in this arena.
