Slouching toward Bethlehem: The new American Empire

[Darth Tater]

Good 'spiricy but not quite the right one.

Original plan was to get Gore elected for two terms while our information bureau continued to harp on the failing state of morality and education. When the time was right, we had a guy who we've been grooming to help us put into place laws to save us from the lack of morality. Our new plan is to take over the school system with the voucher system (we have a 'compromise' plan that we'll cut with the left that allows us to do so). We also want to see Hilary elected POTUS because we believe her actions will be even more destructive of personal responsibility then we can take the guy we've been grooming (note to self: we may have to negate the guy and go with a female) and have even more fun with laws that tell people what they have to do. Then we lizard men would be able to bomb you humans back to the stone age.

[Soliloquy]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

In addition, I believe there were several strategic reasons that partially (but not wholly) explain the war:

• Provide a central U.S. Middle East military base to replace Saudi Arabia (which had been problematic as a Muslim holy land)
  
• Boost Bush/Republican popularity through a visible (if fictitious) “war on terror”, taking out a notorious and embarrassing enemy of the U.S. (Hussein) in the process
  
• Show everyone in the world who’s boss (audience to include Arabs/Muslims; North Korea; China; Europe; etc.)
  

These secondary reasons sound far more plausible than your primary reasons.

[redman]

This thread - and particularly ASF's and Jack's posts - should serve as a banner demonstrating how radicals of all stripes, no matter how far right or left, have far more in common with each other than they do with most "average" Americans.

To be able to join Pat Buchanan's reactionary views with "social libertarianism" would turn any normal person into a philosophical pretzel. What's next, ASF? Did we fight WWII to end the Depression, a New Deal War if you will?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by redman

To be able to join Pat Buchanan's reactionary views with "social libertarianism" would turn any normal person into a philosophical pretzel.

redman, I think it's Buchanan who is being inconsistent. His international views are fundamentally libertarian, and are out of sync with his interventionist social views.

I also disagree with your description of his international views as "reactionary" -- which implies a kind of negative, radical and dangerous perspective. For the record, here is a quick summary of Buchanan's international views, from the first chapter of his recent book, "A Republic, Not an Empire":

How Empires Perish

At the opening of the twentieth century, there were five great Western empires -- the British, French, Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian -- and two emerging great powers: Japan and the United States. By century's end, all the empires had disappeared. How did they perish? By war -- all of them....

America survives as the sole superpower because it stayed out of the slaughter pens until the other great powers had fought themselves near to death and avoided a cataclysmic clash with a nuclear-armed Soviet Russia....

Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new "crusades," to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.

This is why I have written this book....

I believe Buchanan's international views are best described as "strong libertarianism" -- strong military, but avoidance of entanglements where possible. Call it Big Gun Switzerland.

Roughly speaking, that's where I stand.

[Prosperity]

So we would basically stay neutral in all international affairs even if they are just screaming for intervention like in Bosnia for example.

Instead of being isolationist we should intervene only on justified causes.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

So we would basically stay neutral in all international affairs even if they are just screaming for intervention like in Bosnia for example

The U.N. was invented for places like Bosnia.

The U.S. is not the U.N. However, the Bush administration apparently seeks to make the U.N. irrelevant and employ essentially unilateral U.S. intervention. I believe that's a disastrous strategy that will drag the U.S. into blood wars all over the world.

[fansince62]

malthus lives!!!

man.....I needed a laugh and you made my day......

i guess if you work the law of averages you'll eventually hit on some hypothesis that actually bears a remote resemblance to reality.......

tut tut JackC...we all know you're anxious to return sexual harassers to the White House and restore murderers to power in the Senate........you will be proud again!!!! don't be so impatient for depravity!

[Prosperity]

The UN is completely inept when it comes to policing, they have no military power and even when they do have troops on the ground they usually bound by politics to defend themselves only. If some paramilitaries did not want to hand over their guns and stop murdering Bosnians they just said no and the UN peace keepers could not do anything about it as long as the paramilitaries were not actually firing on the UN troops.

Would Pat Buchannon be in favor of giving more power to the UN?

[redman]

Pat needs to learn learn his history. The fundamental problem with the concept of "empire" is that it's d*mned expensive to maintain. The British, French and Russian empires didn't collapse because of war, although that was certainly part of their problem. It was because their empires didn't pay for themselves; quite the opposite, they cost more money to oversee than they yielded for the mother country.

For example, does India strike you as a prosperous country? Both the French and the British found out it wasn't even though it was supposedly the pride of their respective empires.

I called Buchanan reactionary for a very good reason: he's so conservative in foreign affairs as to be isolationist, not "libertarian". He hates the U.N. He hates NAFTA. He hates GATT. Any international body or committment that obligates U.S. involvement he seems to oppose. I don't know for sure but I'd suspect that even includes NATO, at least now. His views seem more appropriate for the era of William Jennings Bryan than to the 21st Century.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

I believe Buchanan's international views are best described as "strong libertarianism" -- strong military, but avoidance of entanglements where possible. Call it Big Gun Switzerland.

Here's some more on Buchanan's international views:

"The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with.

-- Pat Buchanan, New York Times, September 8, 2002

More....

May 19, 2003 issue

Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

Colin Powell, Conservative?

by Pat Buchanan

The Cold War lasted from the fall of Berlin in 1945 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. And the two most successful presidents of that era were the only presidents to serve two full terms: Eisenhower and Reagan.

Truman was taken in by Stalin at Potsdam and left us the “no-win war” in Korea. JFK’s tenure was too brief. LBJ was broken by Vietnam, Nixon by Watergate. Ford embraced détente and presided over the loss of Southeast Asia. Carter is remembered for kissing Brezhnev and failing to end the Iranian hostage crisis.

What was the secret of the success of Eisenhower and Reagan? Both were conservatives. Both were prudent and patient. Both knew time was on America’s side. Both understood the truth of what A.J.P. Taylor wrote: “This is an odd inescapable dilemma. Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a great war, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one, or to fight it on a limited scale.”

Looking at the deaths of all the empires that entered the 20th century—the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, French, British, Japanese, Russian—all perished because they fought one war too many. Imperial overstretch killed them all. The United States is the lone superpower left because we were the last to enter the world wars, and, so, suffered least.

Eisenhower saw his first duty as wrapping up Korea even if it meant a cease-fire at the DMZ. He refused to bomb Indochina to save the French at Dienbienphu. When Britain, France, and Israel invaded Suez, Ike ordered them out. When the Hungarians heroically rebelled, Ike did not intervene. Who ruled Budapest did not threaten American vital interests. It was hard-headed and cold-blooded, but who is to say now Ike was wrong? And after Castro showed his colors, Ike would have gone in, and there would have no loss of nerve at any Bay of Pigs.

During his tenure, defense rose to nine percent of GDP as Ike built up the bomber fleets and missile forces to deter any Soviet attack. He believed in Peace through Strength, not peace through permanent war.

Reagan began a military buildup Moscow could not match and supported anti-Soviet rebels in Angola, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan. But like Ike, Reagan never sent a U.S. army to fight a foreign war. Grenada was a walkover that swept a Soviet pawn off the board. His great mistake, putting Marines in Lebanon in the midst of a religious-ethnic civil war, proved costly. But Reagan had the courage to admit a mistake. He pulled out and never went back.

But for not invading Lebanon and smashing the Islamic militias who blew up the Marine barracks, Reagan is today condemned by the same neoconservatives who see Colin Powell as the principal impediment to their Pax Americana. They believe the way to win the War on Terror is to widen it into “World World IV” and overthrow all the undemocratic regimes of the Middle East.

This issue is at the heart of the struggle over U.S. foreign policy. Is interventionism the way to defeat Islamic extremism? Or is intervention and its concomitant, empire, more likely to spread the infection? In Iraq, final returns are not in, but the outbreak of anti-Americanism suggests that we may have created our own Lebanon.

The presence of Powell, a realist in the War Cabinet, is today the best guarantee the president will not launch the kind of utopian crusade that brought down all the other Great Powers. For while the neocons were doing graduate work at Harvard and Yale, Powell was doing his in Vietnam. That is the difference. The Powell Doctrine that came out of Vietnam—Don’t commit the army until you commit the nation!—is the quintessence of conservatism. Powell’s belief that war is a last resort, but that if we must fight, we go in with overwhelming force, win, and get out, is also faithful to U.S. traditions from Washington to Wilson.

Looking back, it was the conservatives who kept us out of the bloodletting in France until 1918, out of the League of Nations entanglements and commitments, out of World War II until Hitler turned on Stalin and the bloody partners tore each other to pieces long before the Americans arrived on the coast of France in 1944.

Looking ahead, there is no threat on the horizon to justify World War IV. Not China, which is contained by her neighbors. Not Islamic fundamentalism, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Afghanistan to Iran to Sudan. As in the Cold War, with patience and prudence, America can outlast them all. And in the struggle to prevent the rise of an empire that will surely collapse in blood, Colin Powell is true conservatism’s ally.

[redman]

OK Professor ASF, what's your response to 9/11 now that you've told us (through Buchanan's words) what you wouldn't do?

[Prosperity]

Well i suppose he believes there would be no 9/11 if we were not so entangled in the Mid East

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

Well i suppose he believes there would be no 9/11 if we were not so entangled in the Mid East

Bingo.

Originally posted by redman

OK Professor ASF, what's your response to 9/11 now that you've told us (through Buchanan's words) what you wouldn't do?

Equality made the key point, which is that our Middle East policies created 9/11. (That's true even with a conspiracy view regarding the powers behind 9/11.)

As to what I'd do in response to 9/11....

• Approach the attacks as a criminal justice investigation. Follow leads like the massive pre-9/11 dumping of airline stocks -- the money leads to those in the know. Adopt Bush's "with us or against us" rhetoric in pursuing international leads, punishing countries that oppose the investigation with severe economic sanctions.
  
• Go to war against illegal immigration. Deport all illegal aliens. Seal the borders. Tighten legal immigration with fingerprinting, periodic checks, etc., so we have a very good idea of what legal immigrants are doing, especially in their first year or two in the country.
  
• Get out of Saudi Arabia, to stop one provocation of Muslims.
  
• Get Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. Buy an island with all the perks and make him an offer he can't refuse. End the sanctions after he's gone, ending another provocation for Muslims.
  
• Pass a U.N. resolution to restore the occupied territories to Palestinian self-rule and, immediately thereafter, create a Palestinian nation. Pass it with a U.N. guarantee for Israel's security. Enforce the return of the territories with U.N. troops. Ignore Israeli opposition. If the Israeli opposition becomes extreme or military, cut off all U.S. aid to Israel. Use U.S. troops if necessary to enforce the new order. (Yes, it's U.S. intervention, but it is to address past U.S.-backed inequities.)
  
• Invest heaviy in alternative energy research and development. Pay for it with a gas-guzzler tax on low-efficiency vehicle sales. Goal is to reduce or eliminate U.S. dependence on Middle East oil, and ultimately to disengage from the Middle East.
  

Those are just a few items, but they're the first that come to mind.

[chiefhogskin48]

ASF, those sound good to me, if slightly unorthodox. The one about Saddam and an island is a pipe dream, though.

Alos, I don't have the ill feelings towards illegal immigration that others do. Immigrants are harmless and provide cheap, effective labor for a service economy such as ours (ie the jobs that no one else wants to do, whch follows a long American tradition of the "hard-working immigrant").

[Larry]

I'll volunteer for this one. My response to 9/11 would be: nothing. (Which, if you look at it, is exactly whet our current administration has accomplished: nothing. He's conquered two countries, which didn't attack us, and claimed that, therefore, he's hurt the (still unseen) people who actually did attack us. But, that's a side issue.)

Despite the twitchy people who want the government to do something, quick, 9/11 wasn't a military attack. (And can't be solved by military means. The "War on Terror" is a joke that's right up there with the "War on Poverty". You can't fight a War (capitol letter) against an idea, only against an army.)

The purpose of a War is to force another country (notice, there has to be another country involved) to do what you want, by commandeering that country.

The purpose of terrorism is to get a country to do what you want, by intimidating it's citizens into using the people's power to change the government. (The terrorist doesn't attack a country's army, he attacks the people's minds.)

In short, the attacks of 9/11 weren't "an attempt to undermine the very fabric of our nation". They were a publicity stunt. The weapons of 9/11 weren't boxcutters, they weren't airliners, they were TV sets, continually showing the colapse of a national icon.

(And, those same TV sets were also showing graphics of the southern US, with a picture of Air Force One, carrying audio-only messages from our President, "from an undisclosed location".)

My immediate response to 9/11 would be to go as quickly as possible to the White House. If it's possible, I'd have arrainged a live interview from Air Force One. (And if it's not possible, then I want to know why not.) My first goal (after receiving as much info as I could get) would be to get those images off the TVs, and the only way to pre-empt that coverage, would be to replace it with coverage of me.

My message to the American People would be: we've lost a lot of people today. (The exact number won't be known for some time.) There may still be another attack out there, but all airliners in flight have been accounted for except (however many), and they're being checked while I speak. I suspect that what's happened is an attack conducted by foreign terrorists, and that their mission isn't to blow up some buildings, it is to scare you, the American People. Whether the terrorists win won't be determined in New York, or Washington. It'll be determined in your hearts. (I'd make certain to refer to the actions of the terrorists as "a publicity stunt".)

My message to the terrorists would be: Well, your plan kind of worked. You got our attention, (but I don't think you really wanted it, that way). But, I wouldn't start trumpeting your success, just yet. If you thought you were going to scare our country, then you're dumber than I think you are. If you think you've hurt our country, then I know you're delusional. Frankly, you're not capable of hurting our country, because the strength of our country isn't in the Pentagon, or the World Trade Center. It's in every one of our people. And, frankly, you aren't tough enough to scare us.

My message to the World would be: A lesser country, if stung like this, would feel obligated to lash out somewhere, quickly. (Some countries would even use an event like this as an opportunity to engage in attacks that they've wanted to do, anyway.) I want to assure the people of the World, the US does not feel we've been attacked by the people of the World, and we do not intend to simply "retaliate" without cause. In particular, I announce that the US will not be making any strategic response at this time, and will not initiate any military response for at least 48 hours. This is a time which calls for reasoned judgement. If I should find that these attacks were actually assisted by a country, then I will regard these events as an act of undeclared war, and will respond accordingly. At present, there isn't suffecient evidence to justify that level of response. (And, if your country has assisted in these attacks, you'd best hope I don't find out. And, we're pretty good at finding out.)

------------

As to the long-term response, internationally: I haven't seen evidence enough to justify either of our two invasions. (The Al-Qeida bases in Afghanistan would shure seem to indicate a link to that country, except for the fact that they were built by us, rather than the Afghanis.) A great many people who have seen the evidence say there's no real link to Iraq. (Not near as much as there is to, say, the Saudis.)

My standard would be: If I could take this (classified) evidence to a jury, could I prove that country X supported terrorists? (It's tough to prove: For example, can you prove that the US (as opposed to a few people in the US) supported the Contras?) Nations have gotten very good at deniable funding. They've likely learned some of it from us.)

And, if I did decide a War was needed, I'd really try to explain to the people (and the World) why. I understand about protecting assets. (We seem to have so few. I guess, if you can't see it with a satelite, then it isn't important). But, we've been investigating Saddam for 12 years. Do you expect me to believe we don't have any evidence we can reveal where, say, the source has died, or something?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by chiefhogskin48

Alos, I don't have the ill feelings towards illegal immigration that others do. Immigrants are harmless and provide cheap, effective labor for a service economy such as ours (ie the jobs that no one else wants to do, whch follows a long American tradition of the "hard-working immigrant").

What's wrong with "hard-working legal immigrants"?

This isn't about whether there should be immigrants. It's about whether there should be undocumented foreign nationals wandering into our country at will. It's an obvious risk (for terrorism) and a huge economic burden as well.

[fansince62]

larry...that's unadulterated horse*hit.........the NYC attacks...and the other attacks....were calculated to strike at key financial and political nodes: information warfare is part of any operation or strategic campaign, but it is not the lone or even overriding concern. and it is a good deal less predictable than many think it to be.......there has been some publicly released information vis terrorist intentions to use WMDs....these are tools of war.......you are drawing an artificial distinction based on process

you have no idea what information was seized in Afghanistan...so why make blatantly ignorant assertions? Taking out the terrorist training camps was a certain check in the asset column. eliminating the Taliban had positive ramifications as far as the local citizenry were concerned....a minor detail to folks suchas you...I know......

[PCS]

This could be a little OT, but I believe that Bosnia, was a NATO campaign and did not have UN approval as well. Much like Desert Fox and the latest Iraqi action.

[JackC]

Originally posted by fansince62

tut tut JackC...we all know you're anxious to return sexual harassers to the White House and restore murderers to power in the Senate........you will be proud again!!!! don't be so impatient for depravity!

I would rather have a President who lies about sex than one who lies about WOMD to go to war. You pick your own poison my friend.

Who is the murderer?

[Tarhog]

You know, some of the tripe you guys have been shovelling of late is truly exceptional. Larry, you win the award for this week! The Bush Administration (with full Congressional and generally bipartisan support I might add) has apparently done something right as we've not suffered a SINGLE domestic attack since 9/11. They've made hundreds of arrests of highly suspect individuals. They whacked an oppressive regime in Afghanistan that openly supported and enabled Al Qaeda. And your assertion that 9/11 was nothing more than a 'publicity stunt' is ludicrous. Ask New Yorkers who lost loved one's, friends, co-workers if they agree with you? No doubt you have a point that its primary power nationwide stemmed from the sheer shock value of those images. But the cost, both in human terms and financial ones was devastating, and it blows my mind to hear a fellow American, regardless of political stripe, minimize the blow we absorbed. I don't believe you'd reduce the losses at Pearl Harbor in this way, and I consider the fact that we suffered similiar losses in NY and the Pentagon by unconventional means irrelevant. By your own definition only countries which supported such an attack would be worthy of a military response...so how exactly do you define the Taliban's support of Al Qaeda as anything but state-sponsored support and approval? Your approach of 'keeping the high road' in your response (or lack thereof) to a brutal terrorist attack would show only that we lack the resolve and will to respond. The irony here is that most energy on the left has been expended at criticizing the Bush Administration for going 'too far' while simultaneously lambasting them for not combating terrorism effectively. The bottom line. The Taliban is gone. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. That equals one evil terror-supporting regime devastated, one evil potential terror-supporting dictator running for his life. And not a SINGLE domestic terror attack on US soil since 9/11. I think I'll take the current approach over your Superman IV United Nations speech (don't forget to fly into the sun with all the world's ballistic missiles when you're done) if its all right with you.

[Larry]

Well, after a line like

larry...that's unadulterated horse*hit

, the tempting response is "Jane, you ignorant slut." But, let's stick to actual arguments.

the NYC attacks...and the other attacks....were calculated to strike at key financial and political nodes:

Just out of curiosity, can you name one vital economic function performed in the WTC? My assertion is that a lot more economic damage was done to the US by people cancelling family trips to Disney World, than was done by the destruction of two (admittedly big) buildings. (The terrorists can't hurt us, but scared citizens can, and that's why the terrorists take their attacks to the people.) Please explain to me your assertion that these attacks directly caused any noticable effect whatsoever on our economy. (Or, that the terrorists thought it would.)

And, as to the Pentagon attack being targeted on a "political node": well, can I say "horse*hit"? The Pentagon isn't a political structure, it's a military one. (Actually, more of a bureaucratic one.) But, even if they thought they would completely destroy the building, I don't see any evidence to assume that they thought doing so would affect our military in the slightest. Our military structures are designed around the assumption that that entire building (and the surrounding city) could disappear without notice at any time. Our military considers the Pentagon to be expendable.

(Granted, I'm not an expert on the thought processes of terrorists. I'm simply assuming that they're not stupid, under the assumption that there aren't any stupid, 30-year-old, middle-eastern terrorists. I know that blowing up the Pentagon won't hurt the military, so it seems reasonable to conclude that the terrorists know it, too.)

So, moving right along,

you have no idea what information was seized in Afghanistan

And, neither do you. Which is why I told you, not what my decision on Afghanistan would be, but what standard I would hold such evidence up against. As I stated, I am a little suspicious that none of our evidence can aparantly stand the light of day. (Hence my question: Don't we have any information where, say, the source has died, so it doesn't matter if we reveal it? (Or, a situation where one of the source's coworkers has died, and we can say we got it from "Joe"?) I hope we have info that I haven't seen. But, when the administration refuses to reveal any, then I tend to suspect that what we've got is very little.

And, when this administration choses to defend their WMD claims by saying that they spent three days in a closed room with their intel people saying "Can we say this?", "How about saying this?", then what I conclude is that the administration's goal with these claims wasn't an accurate description of the "Best Opinion" of the threat: The administration was asking "How far out on the tail of the bell curve can I get, and still claim I'm not just making it up?"

I'm not the one who's making blanket decisions from a position of ignorance, here.

[NavyDave]

My troops are still in Bosnia and Kosovo and that is still an european issue.

Pull them out and see what the europeans can do.

Dude enough of the code words.

Neo conservative means Jew and Buchannan has always been seen as an anti semite especially when he questioned the validity of Ethiopian jews being abused.

A stable, safe, middle east is a good thing.

The only empires are the one the Europeans are desperate to create to defeat us economically.

We cant lose militarily so the most obvious way is one making the global currency the Euro and making strong economic allegiances with latin america, asia, russia and eventually africa while trying to lock us out.

None of these are gonna happen with a president with a backbone who doesnt kiss the a$$ of the frogs and other wannabees leaders of the free world.

[fansince62]

Larry......I'm not going to do your homework for you....go back and review what systems were actually damaged in NYC. Plumb the Internet for resources that describe the actual costs in lost productivity and repairs that flowed from the WTC attacks. Go back and review published Al Queda statements as to their objectives. Ask yourself why Al Queda planned to fly into the White House. Ask yourself why the WTC was such an important target. Why did they select the particular wing of the five sided building in DC that they flew into? Your overly simplistic notion of what these brave young warriors for justice were after 1) defies imagination; or, 2) belies a certain lack of depth of thinking; or, 3) reflects a lack-a-dasical approach to information discovery/access.

Bin Laden himself has been recorded as stating that part of the terrorist strategy is to elevate economic costs to levels that weaken the ability to respond. PR is of course important to influence folks like you who believe that "Rousseauian social contracts" can be negotiated with mass murderers. Others have a different attitude.

Are you sure I have no idea of what information was seized? I'll take this bate....but only once....you're wrong: not an uncommon condition I imagine. even you should have some knowledge given public resources.

please Larry....step to the rear of the bus and leave the driving to us.

[redman]

Originally posted by Larry

Just out of curiosity, can you name one vital economic function performed in the WTC? My assertion is that a lot more economic damage was done to the US by people cancelling family trips to Disney World, than was done by the destruction of two (admittedly big) buildings. (The terrorists can't hurt us, but scared citizens can, and that's why the terrorists take their attacks to the people.) Please explain to me your assertion that these attacks directly caused any noticable effect whatsoever on our economy. (Or, that the terrorists thought it would.)

Your assertions are about as ill conceived as it gets.

We have 12 or so aircraft carriers. They are the single biggest assets the Navy has, and are the center of most Naval operations and key tools of our foreign policy. Losing the World Trade Center economically is akin to losing an aircraft carrier. The fact that we have eleven more is what you're focused on. Essentially, you're saying that "it could be worse". Are you f*cking kidding me?

If you want to see a report on the economic impact of 9/11 and the loss of the WTC, start by looking here; start reading on page 5 in particular. More on the economic impact.

Here's another take on the economic importance of the WTC and the effects of 9/11.

[luckydevil]

Larry that type of attitude is exactly what led to 9/11. For years we did nothing. We did not respond to terrorism, launching a missile into a tent is not fighting terrorism. Bin Laden did not attack us because we were an overbearing power, but he saw us as a paper tiger. He often pointed to Vietnam as an example and the numerous terrorist’s attacks during the 90's. How I do know this, he wrote it down. By the way he was right. Are you really that naive to believe that there was no link between the taliban and Al-queda. By the way we did give the taliban a chance to survive; we asked them to deliver Bin Laden. They refused to.

The thing that is really disturbing is that you and ASF come from the mindset that 9/11 is our fault. We are the oppressors and they are the oppressed. I am willing to concede that we are at some fault behind 9/11. The problem with us is not that we are an overbearing power, but we are too nice.

The truth is the Arab/Muslim world is backwards society. Where values like liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are embraced by Western Civilization, they reject it. Just look at the way they treat each other. It is society that is humiliated and in shock. In reality it is a society that has failed to accept responsibility.

Envy is a very powerful thing. I thought this little snippet by Ali Salem was a very good description. “But beneath their claims is a sadder truth: these extremists are pathologically jealous. They feel like dwarfs, which is why they search for towers and all those who tower mightily.”

Instead of embracing our ideas, culture, and ideals or even being indifferent towards it, they have chosen to lash out. And it is our duty to respond back. Will we ever win the war on terrorism, no. But the consequences of doing nothing are far worse.