Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Watch these:

Of course it did not start with the US. However, because of our power and our foreign policy we are the ones who are being attacked.

However, it is also within our power to alter what is happening and to change the course of how the world deals with such actions. Why would you be opposed to removing the source of the problem? Why are you willing to accept simply stopping the terrorism for a short period of time, while creating fertile ground for future terrorism to grow? Why not do what we can so there is no fertile ground for terrorism?

Going to war is not the answer. It simply engenders more of what we already have.

That's what we're doing, George - removing the source of the problem. We're chasing them down and killing them like the worthless dogs they are.

Now this addresses those who are attacking us from the outside. But before our country can really be safe, we must address those who are attacking us from the inside - the liberal left who wants to give our country over to the UN, a world court, and who thinks the solution to every problem is to blame the US, then negotiate away more of our sovreignty.

You cannot find a single time in history George, where any country won by negotiating with his enemy. You can dream your idealistic dreams all you want, but Japan would not have changed their ways by negotiating with them, neither would Hitler, or any of the other aggressors in war. And it isn't worth considering in this case either. Our foreign policy toward Israel may irk you, but the fact is we are right to support them. It is and has always been the land of the Jews. As for trying to negotiate with the Arabs, you're living in a dream world. We are doing the only thing that can work - breaking the back of the criminal element. Hunt them down and kill them.

Somehow, I'd rather be inconvenienced than send to my horrible, fiery demise in an airplane.

There is no humor in my tone, just in case anyone is wondering.

And when we have hunted down all of them and killed them, and our actions have angered millions more and turned thousands more who feel impotent into another group of terrorists because it is the only way we notice them, then what, Larry? Hunt them down and kill them too? And when done with that, and we have created more anger and hatred and terrorists, then what?

I have not argued against going after the terrorists as criminals. Nor have I argued we negotiate with them. What I have argued is that we see the reason they became fanatics against us, understand it and change the conditions which cause it. Is it really so radical to say we should stop creating terrorists, rather than starting a so-called war which will do nothing more than create more of them?

I think not. I think it only makes sense to stop what is formenting this so that in the future we need not worry about it again.

Yes.

"Feeling impotent" is liberal jargon, George. You aren't thinking for yourself, you're just buying into the liberal line. Of course, that's already pretty obvious from your entire line of reasoning. You operate from a point of view that says regardless of whether or not your actions are right, regardless of whether or not you are only defending your own interests, if it makes someone mad, you should cave in to them. As an example, suppose a group of gang members decided to take over your house. My answer would be to defend my house, and if necessary, kill those gang members who were invading me. The rest of the gang can learn from this that if they try to come into my house they will get killed too, so they'd better learn to leave me alone. I don't really care why they felt a need to take over my house. It has nothing to do with anything. It's my house. Using your ideas, I should give them my house so as to not **** off the rest of the gang, and then talk to them to find out why they are so angry, and to find out why they wanted my house, then set about finding them other houses to give them so they won't attack any more houses.

What a simple minded way to solve the problem, George. They have no logical reason to want my house other than that they are thugs who want to create anarchy. So negotiating with them is useless, worrying about why they did it is useless, and appeasement is simply giving up and letting them run amok. The answer is to defend your house, and not worry about why they chose to be thugs. If any of them, during the course of getting the crap kicked out of them, figure out that they are in the wrong and want to change, those should be talked to and given another chance. The rest of them should be attacked to whatever degree is necessary until there are none left to attack. Your way attributes values and logic to the attackers when there are none, and requires the attacked assume the role of guilt. Sorry, but that just isn't going to happen.

Quote

I have not argued against going after the terrorists as criminals. Nor have I argued we negotiate with them.

Well.....yes you have, George. IF you're going to promote the touchy feely liberal line, at least take the time to understand what you're saying. This is *exactly* what you've been arguing.

Quote

What I have argued is that we see the reason they became fanatics against us, understand it and change the conditions which cause it.

Thanks for stating my summation of your opinion so clearly. Wake up, George. They don't have a valid reason. They make up their reasons. Changing the conditions which cause it is not done by placing the blame on the one who got attacked. Defend yourself. And if necessary, kill the fanatics who are causing the problem. In the course of doing that, try to educate as many as you can about why *they* were wrong, and work with the ones who figure out the truth. The answer is *not* to change the way of the victim. But then, you think *they* are the victims, don't you?

Quote

Is it really so radical to say we should stop creating terrorists, rather than starting a so-called war which will do nothing more than create more of them?

This is the root of the flaws in your logic, George. You believe *we* are creating terrorists. This is complete and utter BS. We didn't create them. They are fanatics, George. They will find a reason to be terrorists no matter what you do. Pure liberal line, George, which ignores history.

Quote

I think not. I think it only makes sense to stop what is formenting this so that in the future we need not worry about it again.

You couldn't have proven my point any better if you tried, George. This sentence places the blame squarely on the victims, and assumes the terrorists to be rational people who will act civil once we give them what they want, with their wants based on a rational examination of our sins. The exact opposite of what's going on. But it sure sounds good to a liberal, doesn't it?

Here's the truth, George. We have not done a thing to cause these terrorists to do what they're doing. And the things we *have* done have been correct. We don't owe anyone an apology for supporting Israel. We have sent more aid money into these people's region than any other country. We have not tried to take them over, or tell them how to live. Giving in to their demands (most of which are simply *assumed demands voiced by the liberal left) won't stop a thing. They will simply come up with new reasons for continuing to be criminals.

So hunt them down, kill them, and get rid of the problem. They can't attack you once they're dead, and those left alive will figure out that if they want to stay alive they'd better mind their own business.

Throughout history, and even in our current day, radical violent reactions against the status quo have always come from those who felt economically and politically impotent and see no other way to express themselves and make their grievances known because the powers that be will not listen, much less make any changes, unless there is violence.

As examples, may I give you the story of the Exodus in the Bible, the Reformation, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the taking over of China by Mao Ttse Tung, Ho Chi Minh's 30 year battle aginast the French and Americans, Ghandi in India, Nelson Mandella in South Africa.

This does not even mention the labor riots in the uS in the first part of the 20th century, the race riots in the US in the 60's, the anti-war protests in the 60's and 70's, or the fact that the most violent crime in America comes from the slums of our cities. Or perhaps we could look at the Civil War and the South's reaction to the north denying their legitimate claims of states rights. For those of you who are gay, may I suggest you look at Stonewall or Act-Ups attacks on the Catholic Church.

How about we simply consider the acting out of a child in the classroom or at home when his needs are not being given adequate attention.

I see a pattern here. The same dynamic has occured over and over again in history. What we are seeing now is nothing new. Once in a while, nations take a different tack than the historical models. The US did after WWII with Germany and Japan. After a diifcult start, the voluntary dismantling of the colonies by European nations in the 50's and 60's is another example. Whenever a nation has listened to the legitimate grievances of the disenfranchised and taken steps to resolve the problem, peace has generally been the result. When these grievances have been ignored, or worse the people with them attacked, the problem has simply grown until those who defend and maintain the status quo are forced to change because they can no longer handle the violence.

Pope Paul VI stated that the biggest threat to the industrialized world was the disenfranchisement of the third world. He predicted that violence would be the reaction if the First World did not recognize the political and economic needs and aspirations of the thrid world and take actions to further them along. Pope John Paul II has reiterated and underscored this many times. Ghandi, Martin Luthor King, Nelson Mandella, Kurt Waldheim, Mother Teresa, and a host of others have warned against the same thing.

No, the US does not need to allow itself to be attacked. Yes, we should take actions to keep it from happenign again. Yes,we have the right to go after those who did this. BUt.....

Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. In a time when one power, the United States, is so preeminent, this power can change history, make the world a far better place and instill its own genuinely good values throughout the world.

That is not what we are doing. And we will pay the price for not doing it, rather than reap the benefits of taking an alternative course.

George,

Great Post!

No George, you're wrong; your logic is flawed. You just made the equivalent of the old joke of a logical "argument"

"God is love."
"Love is blind."
"Stevie Wonder is blind."
"Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God."


The fact that we can all point to examples of oppressed peoples using violence to redress their grievances does not translate to the conclusion that all violence is merely a manifestation of oppression.

You are mistakenly placing a cloak of nobility over the shoulders of those who do not deserve it, trying to rationalize and justify the unjustifiable. In so doing, you are doing a horrendous disservice to people who have fought and died to combat real oppression throughout the ages.

Also, your comparison of the killing of 3,000 people, the destruction of the World Trade Center, and a fifth of the Pentagon to a the "acting out" of a schoolchild is shocking and disgusting.

Sometimes, a misbehaving kid isn't "acting out" because of wrongs he's suffered. Sometimes, a misbehaving kid is "acting up" simply because he's a lout. Sometimes, a thug is just a thug. Sometimes, people are simply motivated by evil - they didn't get that way because they didn't get enough hugs as a kid, and they're not going to change if we sit down with them and tell them that we feel their pain.

The only thing that will stop an evil force is a decisively overpowering counterforce. Wishing it were otherwise makes this reality no less true.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Dwain Lee ]

Unfortunately, none of the examples given here are applicable. The revolutions you have listed here occured when those ruled overthrow their political or religious rulers. If the terrorists in question were "revolutionaries", they would be rebelling against their own governments.

I also must point out that the struggle of Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Cong was originaly against the French (a colonial ruler), but then became a war of aggression against the (successor to the French and recognized as legitmate) government in South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese government was supported by the US and other nations, in various ways.

You also say that the downtrodden "see no other way to express themselves and make their grievances known," but so far all of the 'grievances' expressed are intimations that the presence of Westerners and the existence of the state of Israel has defiled their holy lands. The Westerners in the Middle East are there at the invitation of those nations' governments. There is a historical precedent for the existence of the state of Israel that the US government, the majority of its citizens, the United Nations and nearly every government in the world recognizes as a legitimate mandate.

If we are to apply your reasoning at an economic level, i.e., that the terrorists are expressing their economic disenfranchisement, then the argument becomes weaker still. The poverty experienced by the majority of the inhabitants of those countries that produce these terrorists is the direct result of economic stratification that has existed in that part of the world for centuries. The influx of Western capital and profits over the past sixty or so years as a result of the oil business has never been used by the governments of those countries to create a more equitable distribution of wealth. Instead, the plutocrats of those nations simply became much wealthier than their subjects. Once again, if these terrorists were revolutionaries, they should be rebelling against their own governments.

Both Matt and Dwain are correct. The example you give have nothing to do with what we're talking about. There is a big difference in a revolution and terrorism.

For example, there needs to be a revolution in the US right now. Liberal thought is ruining the country with its PC crap. Liberals and socialists (but I repeat myself) misinterpret the constitution and then cram down America's throat the idea that "Freedom of religion" really means "freedom from religion". They think it's ok to kill unborn children by the millions but you can't let farmers in the midwest have water for their crops because you might hurt a frog. They think the best way to govern is to take money away from the productive citizens and give it to those who sit on their butts. They think we should subordinate our constitution to the UN and the World Court. They think we should give up the right to bear arms, again twisting the Constitution upside down but bound and determined to do so so we will be unable to defend ourselves when the UN takes over. They think freedom of expression means that some moron can put up an "art" display of religious figures with elephant poop all over it and that's freedom of expression, but a group of school kids who want to say a prayer at their graduation are not covered by this right, that this is *not* freedom of expression, and that it is a crime for which they should be punished.

The majority of Americans don't like any of this, but the liberal left has the media in its pocket, and we are rapidly losing the battle for truth because we are working on about the 3rd generation who have been indoctrinated by our socialist anti religious education system which has left us with millions of people who can't even think for themselves.

Those of us who are able to think for ourselves, and who feel that America is being hijacked by liberal PC socialist thought, and who see that if change doesn't happen soon our country will be taken over from within and handed to the UN where we will be subjected to their laws, taxes and armies, who by the way account for the vast majority of Americans, wehave a just cause and a right to revolt. We should start a revolution and take back our country from this evil that permeates our society, and return it to the great nation our forefathers designed.

And in *that* situation George, you will be dealing with rational humans that you could talk to. We would prefer to not have to revolt. It will come as a last resort. I'm giving you the warning shot George, that it is time for all liberals to put their money where their mouth is, and do exactly what you say should be done in a situation where people feel disenfranchised and put down. Let all those in your party know that trouble is brewing, and the Americans are coming for them soon if things don't change. We are feeling disenfranchised. The harm they are doing is clear. We have a right to revolt. You said so yourself.

But you see, we won't be sending a plane load of Methodists to England to crash it into the London Tower to make the point. That would be terrorism. And if we were to do that, and if we were to set up a worldwide organization of Methodists who were plotting to attack England, then England would have no choice but to hunt those Methodists down and kill them before they killed some more British people.

Now you know of the coming American Revolution, George. The only right thing to do, based on your logic, is for you to notify the entire liberal base of their crimes against us, and meet us at the negotiating table. It is time for your side to give in to our demands and cease and desist from doing those things which are creating anger and resentment on our side. You gave proof that in a situation where there is a threat of a revolution from those who feel disenfranchised, those guilty of making them feel that way are to negotiate and give in. I think we have just found the solution, George.

God Bless America, the Constitution, and the Republic, for which it stands. One nation - under God . Now let's quit killing our babies and let God back into the schools, George.

Correct me if I'm wrong, fellas, but most of the 9-11 suicide bombers were middle class and upper middle class. Bin Ladin is a multi-millionaire (who chooses to live in caves)! Hardly the disenfranchised, impoverished, voiceless, and impotent people George thinks they are!

George, the fanatical Muslims want you to convert to their religion or die! There is no other option. It's a crusade, pogram, inquisition all wrapped into one. ANYONE who does not share their views is an infidel and infidels must be put to death. Get it now? There's nothing left to negotiate.

penny

If one researches in any way at all about how politicial and military leaders prepare a citizenry's attitude to go to war, one sees that there are 2 important basic components. 1) The citizenry must feel they have been unfairly attacked or harmed because that country has done nothing wrong at all. 2) The enemy is less than human, does not have human values, and therefore can be eliminated without guilt.

Based on those few who have joined in this discussion, it appears that Bush2 has done a masterful job in accomplishing both of these.

It is when this propoganda fails, when people begin to see the enemy as human beings, with all the aspirations, hopes and dreams of any other human being and when the people realize that their own country's actions played a part in creating the situation that caused the attack, that the support for the war and all of its horror begins to diminish and ultimately fades away.

This is why the censorship we now see in our news coverage of what is happening in Bush2's war and Bush's unwillingness to provide information to the Congress, the press or the American people is so important to his strategy.

The cracks have already begun to appear in this country and throughout the world. The truth is beginning to out. The decline in support has begun. Bush2's support, while still high, has alreadt dropped by 15%. It is now just a matter of time.

And if, when the support for the war ends, we simply walk away from the needs of the people in the Middle East for cultural integrity and for recognition and support of their legitimate economic and political aspirations, we can plan on more of the same as we saw on 9/11 for a long time to come.

It will happen over and over again. We will spend our money and the lives of our children in this same battle, making the same mistakes over and over again.

But if we change our view and actions vis-a-vis the Islamic nations of the Middle East and bring the rest of the world with us, this cycle of violence will end.

It is up to us. Do we continue to live in a world where we are not secure? Or do we take the steps necessary to ensure we can live in peace with the Middle East countries just as we now live in peace with Europe, including the former Soviet Union) and Asia, including Japan.

It would appear that Stevie Wonder isn't the only one who's blind.

I'm sorry, I tried, but I just can't let that go. George, will you please look at your list of succss stories of peaceful, harmonious relationships between countries. Do you notice the common thread that in every case, the harmonious relationship was preceded by a thorough butt-kicking in wars hot and cold? Peace can only be achieved and maintained through strength, and the resolve to use it when necessary.

I have made it pretty clear that I believe the 9/11 attacks were a textbook case of a justification for war. I believe that it meets the criteria of self defense, homeland protection, and protection of our legitimate national interests. To me, this is not even a close call. Questions of understanding the root causes of the enemy, and understanding their hatred, are entirely irrelevant (and, in my opinion, misguided in this case).

George, you obviously disagree. For the benefit of the group, would you please give us your underlying philosophy of
1. what a military force is for;
2. under what criteria or circumstances it should be utilized, if ever, in your opinion; and
3. how the current situation does not, in your opinion, meet said criteria.

By reading the above, you know my core philosophy regarding the use of the military. From previous posts, you understand that I give no credit to the notion that all violence is merely manifestation of ill treatment - and that even then, violent reactionv is very rarely justified. You also understand that I disagree with the notion that little if any morality is relative, and that all military actions are therefore, not morally equal, and further, not equally immoral.

Please share with the group your core beliefs of these very same issues, so we can more fully understand your positions.

Would you please be so kind as to define cultural integrity and then contrast that with a description of the role of isolationism in a global economy? Then, please enumerate these legitimate economic and political aspirations, since apparently nobody else can.

Once you have done that, please indicate, using objective source materials, what role, if any, the people of the US have had in promulgating and/or denying these aspirations.

This is going to be very long, since I have been asked some very provicative questins which cannot be answered in short sound bites. Read it if you want.



Happy to respond with my opinions.

What is a military force for?

The military is primarily for the defense of a nation, it's sovereignty and its legitimate international interests. This need not always be done through the use of military force; it is often best done through the threat of using it. The Cold war is the best example of this.

There are other purposes, including humanitarian uses, international prestige, employment of a certain percentage oif the population, control of the civilian population within the nation, maintaining the political power of those in office, as well as political pork barrell to make consituents happy, all of which are reasons nations have and use a military force.

But for the purpose of this discussion, I'll stick with what I have defined as the primary role -- defense of a nation, its sovereignty and its legitimate national interest.

2. under what criteria or circumstances it should be utilized, if ever.

I assume you are asking when I think a military force should be used to go to war.

I adhere to the just war theory as espoused for centuries by the Catholic Church. These principals include:

Having just cause,
Being declared by a proper authority.
Possessing right intention
Having a reasonable chance of success.
The end being proportional to provocation.

To me, when all of these criteria are met is the only time the use of military force is justified.

Let me discuss each of these, if I may.

HAVING A JUST CAUSE
If what we are doing was simply to find the terrorists and bring them to justice and to provide for our self defense, I would have no trouble with what we are doing. However, that is not the case.

Bush2 has too often said that we are seeking revenge. If one listens to the American people, even those on this Board, the American people are supporting this out of anger, for revenge. Revenge is not a just cause. It is simply an angry reaction. Understandable, perhaps, but not a just cause for war.

From a starting point of rooting out Al Qaeda and bringing them to justice (justifying war) and revenge (not justifying war), Bush and Rumsfeld are now saying we are succeeding because we have changed the social environment in Afganistan; maybe a good thing but not justification for war.

To me, I know of only three wars in US History that I can justify -- the Revolutionary War because it was the only way we could create our own self government which is an inherent right os people, the war of 1812, because we were attacked with the purpose of eliminating us as a nation and WWII, in defense of innocent people against an abhorrent evil.


BEING DECLARED BY A PROPER AUTHORITY
Under our Consitution, the proper authority for declaring war is the Congress. The President asking for war powers, but no war declaration, and the Congress budgeting money is not the proper authority.

If the Congress is forced to debate and then make a declaration of war, all sides of the argument would be aired, the American people, through the representatives would be involved, and the full implications of going to war would be understood.

The fact Bush2 and the Congress did not have the guts to do this tells me they do not believe they could get the American people to go along with what they want to do to the extent they really want to do it.

How many middle class Americans do you really think would support a war if they thought their sons were going to be drafted and sent off to Afganistan, Somalia, Iraq, the Phillipines, Indonesia or such other places for this purpose? I doubt there would be enough support to allow the Proper Authority, the Congress, to declare war.

No proper authority, no just war.

POSSESSING RIGHT INTENTION
What is our real intention? Self defense? The Taliban did not threaten our country. Just what is our real intent in all of this? Lots of nice jargon from Bush2, but no real meat on the bones. Too much of what he says is our intent one day contradicts what he says is our intent on another day. Can anyone give me a quote from Bush2 that clearly defins our intent -- and one which was not added to with some other intent when he changed audiences?

HAVING A REASONABLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS
We have yet to be told what success is for this war. Already we have moved from capturing the leaders of Al Qaeda and bringing them to removing the Taliban from power. Now we are on to nation building. In Iraq we are talking about using war to enforce UN sanctions and to finish what Bush1 failed to do. Are we justified in killing mroe people to do this? In Somalia we are talking about establishing what is in essence a police force. In the Phillipines we are talking about putting down an insurrection against the government there.

Can anyone here tell me the official position of Bush2 on how to define success and how what we are doing will achieve it? It can't be done because the definition is a moving target -- changing as Bush2 decides it should change. Thus there is no way to measure whether what we are doing has a reasonable chance of success. Thus, no just war.

THE END BEING PROPORTIONAL TO THE PROVOCATION
From all reports, the attack on the WTC was caused by a wordwide network of terrorists called Al Qaeda. It was not caused by the Taliban government in Afganistan, it was not caused by the Afgan people. It was not caused by th Iraqi people, nor by the Somalians, the Filipino's or anyone else. And yet, we are using this "war" to attack all of these people -- and killing them.

The attack on WTC was a dispicable act, which killed 3000+ people and destroyed property. It did not, however, destabilize the United states. It did not threaten our sovereignty. It did not threaten to destroy our way of life.

For us to go to war against entire countries, or to forment war in countries throughout the world is not a proportional act.



To me, cultural integrity is the wholeness of a people and how they express their beliefs, values and aspirations, and how they establish their society in order to achieve these.

I do not see a link between cultural integrity and isolationism. I am not an isloatinist. I simply see this war, the Bush2 war, as unjustifiable. The United States must be and should be involved around the world. Indeed, in all of my posts I have argued for the US to use its international political and economic power to change the world so that this type of terrorism does not occur again. I believe we can do this and I believe we have a moral and ethical responsibility to do so. Howver, we must change the root causes that bring it about, not just the actions which have grown from these causes.

I do not believe war is the means we should use -- and I see the Bush2 war as working directly against our long term national interest.

As far as the legitimate political and economic aspirations of the Islamic world, let me give you several examples that we are ignoring or playing a part in defeating.

The Palestinian people have a right to their own homeland. We pay this lip service, but we do not force it. And yet, we know we can. We are the only ones who can. Israel, through its actions, have yet to show they are willing to aloow this. To the Islamic world, these are their brothers and sisters, and they see us ignoring their legitimate right to a homeland -- a right, btw, we agree with.

The Palestinian people are overwhelmed by a much stronger country who uses American supplied military arms of the highest quality against people who throw rocks and use home made bombs. See my comment above about the reaction the the Islamic world.

Because of our sanctions against Iraq, estimates of up to 100,000 civilians, including children, are dying each year because of lack of medical supplies and food. We may want to go after Hussein, but we are attacking the people instead. The Islamic World sees the US as harming women and children and seethe in anger against us for it.

We have troops in Saudi Arabia, that are there primarily, frm our perspective, to protect the oil fields -- from whom? The people in whoise countries these fields exist? Apparently. The Saudi Governbment wants them there because the Suadi people would overhtrow the government if they could. The Islamic people see this as stationing troops from the Christian world near their sacred places. THey do not want us there and we have no moral right to be there. We should do as they ask and get out.

The Islamic World finds our values as a society offensive and contrary to their own values. We may disagree with theirr assessment of our values, but we have no right to impose values they do not want. The stationing of our troops throughout the Middle East simply imposes our values on these countries in ways they do not wish to be imposed upon.

Three weeks ago, the Gallup organization released a poll of the attitudes of the Islamic societies towards the US. None of them liked us very much; all of them wanted us out. The country which liked us least? Kuwait -- the one Bush1 supposedly went to war to protect. If we were really helping them, if they saw us as supporting them, this would not have been the result a short ten years after we went to war. What do they know about what is happening over there that the American people do not? Why, after we supposedly freed them, do they hate us so much? They must justify it some way.

The Islamic cultures simply want us to leave them alone. They want us to force a just settlement between the Palestinians and Israel because they know we are the only ones who can. They want our troops and our industries out of their countries. They want us to stop exporting our cultural values to their countries.

While we may or may not think this is the best thing for them, it is their decision, not ours.

There is a reason why groups like Al Qaeda have a reservoir of thousands of young Moslems from which to recruit terrorists against the United States. This is not a matter of just a few disgruntled people. In order to recruit so many, there are many times that many who feel this way but who do not take the extreme actions the terrorists take.

The anger of these people comes from some place. For decades we have heard the same entreaties from them -- legitimize statehood for the Palestinians (we are called to do that because we are the primary sponsors of Israel) and leave the region to the people themselves, remove our troops, get out of their oil fields. We have not listened. And now, the anger has grown so fierce, we are attacked on our own soil.

It is time we listen. It is time we recognize that it is possible for us to have peaceful relationships with the Islamic World -- but we have to respect them in the same way we expect them to respect us.

We would not be happy to have them supporting what we perceive was a hostile nation in North America, as they perceive us doing with Israel. We would not be happy to have Arab country businesses controlling our primary natural resources. We would not be happy to have Arab country troops staioned in the US -- particularly if their presence was used to prop up a government that was basically dictatorial and did not have popular support among the people.

Many of you seem to feel that I am somehow un-American because I do not support what Bush2 is doing. On the contrary, if I may. I believe that what he is doing internationally is short-sighted and will not give us what we seek. It will simply make the anger and hatred grow wider and deeper and not provide us security. I also believe there are agendas being met that we are not being told about. And yes, one of these I believe is the agenda of the international oil industry.

And I see the removal of freedoms within the US as playing into the hands of the very terrorists that attacked us, not providing us any more security. They wanted to change our society and thanks to Bush2 and Mr. Ashcroft, they have succeeded. Bush2 should have told us to fight any restriction on our freedome to counter the terrorists. Instead, he told us to go shopping and take an airline flight, while he and his men worked to strip away another layer of freedom.

I recognize many of you will disagree with me. And I am sure Larry will tell me this is all liberal claptrap which will destroy our country by handing it over to some world government. So be it. All I ask is that you think about whether or not you really believe that what Bush2 is doing will make from a more secure world 20 years from now and a freer American society.

George wrote:



No, four planes commandeered by 19 suicide mercenaries did that for us!

Click here for an article about a Palestinian television show for CHILDREN that teach them to grow up and become suicide bombers. George W. Bush doesn't have to make up this stuff! We're up against an evil. Do I paint all Muslims with this paintbrush? No! But there is a movement within Islam that is very dangerous. And if GWB decided to never speak of it again, it would still be REAL and it would still be THERE and one day, it would strike again. Very few doubt this. Why do you?

penny

You are right, Penny. I don;t disagree with the fact there is a dangerous movement within Islam. The question is how to deal with it and make sure it does not return to to do us more harm. To me, the answer is to recognize there is a valid reason why the peope in Islamic countries are angry with us -- reasons we can change with minimal impact on us and thus defuse the anger that breeds this dangerous movement.

Killing off the current crop of terrorists will not ensure long term peaceful co-existence with the Islmaic World. Only removing the source of their anger is. And removing it will not cause us many problems at all.

Dear Mr. Chamberlain,

Have you read the list of demands from Islamic Jihad, Al Quaeda, etc.? They're extensive.

George,

There is so much wrong with what you've said in your long post that I can't even begin to address it. However you said one thing I'd like to address since it seems to be at the core of Islam's hatred of the US:



Why does the Islamic World blame the US for their problems and not Hussein? All Hussein has to do is allow weapons inspectors and sanctions would be lifted.

To be perfectly blunt, any member of the Islamic World that "thinks" in such a twisted manner needs to grow a brain.

Imagine for one moment what the US could do if it wanted to. Now explain to me how we are the big, bad, wolves of the Western world.

Derick