America Alone-A review of ideas in Mark Steyns' book

I'll be back to comment...have to do the dishes...:)

This assesment of things is about the gloomiest I've seen on the subject...and unfortunately it sounds very likely if we have a weak president who doesn't understand evil, along with a demsocialist majority in the Congress...

but also very compelling...one of the challenging things that I think few other than Newt Gingrich seem to grasp is the connectedness of every issue. McCain is strong on completing the job in Iraq, that is important. But he does not appear to recognize that every statement has a reaction.

When McCain says close Guantanamo, Islamists do not see humanity and compassion, they see a weakness they can exploit. They see that POWs and incarceration of enemy combatants bothers McCain and to accuse him of brutality to prisoners is to weaken his on the war as a whole.

They see him call for a "League of Democracies" to replace the UN, and they know that many of those democracies (France, Belgium, Germany, etc...) are over a barrel. Between the demographic realities in their nations and the need for middle eastern oil for their economies, and their natural antipathy towards America because of its superpower status, they can be made into a reliable anti American block of votes and they have the leverage to make a new League of Democracy into a brake on American projection of power.

They hear the calls for a new Kyoto and again have the leverage to convince many of the nations given equal status to America to make this bill a limit America first legislation.

And McCain is the best of the three. It will take understanding of a Churchill to deal with the complexities of the world we face....our best hope is that McCain appoints defense officials who get this...Obama and Clinton are much much more deluded on these issues.

Those who advocate exceptionalism for any nation, as you do for America, rest their argument on two points: 1) they are exceptionally good and, 2) the other guy is exceptionally evil. Nazi Germany did that throughout WWII. While telling its citizens that Germany was defending itself and fighting for its freedom and survival, it was actually acting as an aggressor and thus was storing up for itself the vengeance of the world.

It is the protest against this exceptionalism that is at the heart of what you call "anti-American" sentiment. The notion that America must be accountable for its actions challenges the assumption that America is exceptionally good. To apply the same standards by which we judge our enemies to ourselves challenges the notions that we are exceptionally good and they are exceptionally evil.

The fear that exists in Europe regarding America is that America is falling into an American fascism as Germany fell into its fascism. Europe knows, better than America, the signs of fascism. And Europe knows, better than America, the results. And, perhaps, their criticism of America's reckless militarism is from an acceptance of the Russell-Einstein manifesto that says in the light of the world's WMDs, we have a "stark" and "inescapable" choice, we either abolish war or we will fight ourselves into extinction.

From dictionary.com...fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

"The fear that exists in Europe regarding America is that America is falling into an American fascism as Germany fell into its fascism"

So is America showing signs of an "American Fascism"? Lets see:

Hitler won a rigged election in 1932 appealing to antisemitism and Nationalistic pride.

Bush won a "rigged election" in 2000, and a year later used the excuse of 9/11 to call for nationalistic pride (or defending ourselves, depending on perspective).

Hitler forcibly oppressed opposition by having his political opponents jailed and/or executed.

Bush passed the Patriot Act, which allows wire tapping and spying. To my knowledge, no political opponents have been executed or even jailed in the last 7 years.

Hitler nationalized industry, the media, and began a systematic confiscation of wealth from its Jewish citizens.

Bush is a president committed (as much as any politician is these days) to reducing regulation and taxes on industry, and has not once called for "reducing one racial group to its proper place in the economic system" as Hitler did.

Hitler invaded Austria in 1936, Czechoslovakia in 1938, and Poland in 1939 before the rest of the world acted. Onced invaded, these nations were essentially annexed into "The NAZI fold"

Bush invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, AFTER the 9/11 attack, a culmination of over 20 terrorist attacks my militant Islam against Americans dating back to 1979. Since toppling the regime of Saddam, he has made every effort (many would opine too much effort) to give Iraqis freedom as quickly as possible. There was no Military Governorship as we had in Japan for 9 years after they surrendered, we turned the country over to elected Iraqis very quickly, and since have been engaged in stabilization of the elected government from outsiders. Same in Afghanistan.

If these characteristics constitute new Fascism, then fasicsm needs a new definition.

If anything, most Americans are insecure about Americas relative greatness, you don't year boasts like "The Sun Never Sets on the American Empire" or "We are entering the century of Pax Americana" or even that we have a "Crusade to conquer the Holy Lands for God and the True Faith".

You keep repeating the mantra "Europe Knows..." Europe knows the perils of Fascism, and Europe knows about reckless militarism, and Europe knows about good and evil...well Europe knows because of repeated centuries of mistakes since it became the dominant continent after the Dark Ages. Europe knows because most of the worlds fascism has ideological roots in Europe.

Europe abdicated itself to a secondary role in World Affairs after tearing itself apart time after time in brotherly power struggles, and exporting those struggles to the rest of the world through colonialism. Europe saw its revolutions (The French and Russian) turn from hopeful liberations of oppressed people into xenophbic bloodbaths where dissent and diversity were purged and statist totalitarianism rose up to replace monarchial totalitarianism, and only slowly and with much help has some form of democracy come to exist.

America is not perfect, culturally, much America produces is shallow and much else borders on the profane and obscene, , religiously, the vast majority of its "faithful" are 2 hours a week believers and their faith does not effect their lives, politically, the fights are often ugly and corruption is pervasive, but in terms of government structure and human rights, America has, despite its formation by slave owning, elitist, white men, one of the most effective systems of governments the world has ever seen.

In that respect, America is exceptional, and should desire to export this exceptionalism to places where it could be helpful, or where threats eminate from.

We have three choices in the world we now live in:

1) We can preemptively destroy anyone who appears the least bit threatening, before they turn their weapons on us. Despite the "fears" of Europe, we are nowhere near doing this.

2) We can take action to slow the spread of nuclear weapons, and in the meantime, defend ourselves when attacked or credibly threatened.

3) We can accept that nuclear weapons will be available to every government in the world eventually and try our best to placate everyone from the Russians and the Chinese to Syria and Sudan.

You cannot placate insanity. You cannot convince a man willing to walk into a disco and blow himself up that you are just like him and deep down, you should be friends. Option 3 will not work, despite Europes protestations. It did not work in the 30's, it still won't work.

The flip side of evil is good, and the flipside of good is evil. Yes, Caday5, this is an exceptional nation, and we stand on the side of good - - - I believe there are very dark forces out there, and Satan is the god of this world currently, so gloom is on the horizon, especially for Christians. However, that does not mean that we stick our heads in the sand, or compromise as you have to aid and abett. We must fight the just war, fight against the dark forces as they use political correctness to push Christians further and further off of the edge of society, and we must do what we may to continue to share the light that is Christ.

and much more succinct than mine

But who is insane here? Is it the nation who hypervigilance leads it to paranoia or is it the nation that believes in law and can trust those it cannot control?

Who is good here? Is it the nation that declares itself to be good and expects others to agree without question or is the nation that adheres to the same standards that it expects others to follow?

What you are proposing is what Christian philosopher Os Guiness calls "dualism." Dualism says one side is good while the other side is evil. Jesus and Paul present another picture of evil. Both are in one accord in saying that good and evil are in all of us.

The list of Europe's sins that you mentioned occurred prior to WWII. It is that up close and personal experience that qualifies Europe as a valid, though not only, source of input.

America's attitude is different. It is summed up and evaluated by the following Martin Luther King statement:

"The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just."

Though above it says "western arrogance," it could just as easily apply to American arrogance. Plus, in a world where all nations are equal, Europe abdicated nothing. Your statement assumes a hierarchal relationship must exist between nations. No nation can either promote equality or spread democracy with such an assumption.

There are those who, as the pharisee in Jesus' parable of the two men praying, self-righteously charge the other side with sin while exonerating themselves. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty here. Either conservatism or Liberalism can self-righteously promote totalitarianism.

Bolshevism and Cuba shows how the left can fall to the temptation of totalitarianism. The Nazis, were correctly classified as a right-wing group even before coming to power. Their emphasis on German Nationalism and "traditional values" is parallel to the what is emphasized by American conservatism. Nazi exceptionalism, which is what made the Nazis notorius, premised on a belief in their superiority more parallels American Exceptionalism. The difference between the two is that German notions of superiority were racially based while American notions of superiority are morally based. Wars of aggression premised on the right of "anticipatory self-defense" parallels the Bush doctrine. But it is not too far off from the policies of Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. It is only the Left, not Liberals, who are protesting these wars. It is former Nuremburg prosecutor Ben Ferencz who is warning us that we are becoming ominous similar to the Nazis here.

The Nazi preservation and use of private property and industry distinguishes it from the left. Support from industry leaders for Hitler because of the immediate corporate benefits, though it put at risk the country's financial status in the long-term, can parallel either Republican or Democratic administrations.

gotta feed the kids and hang out with them before bed. But i'll be back to debate after they go to bed.

Caday5's comments are another inversion, ascribing to Europe a perspicacity and nobility it does not deserve on historic grounds. They have no moral standing to pronounce judgment on the United States. They know fascism? If they know it, it's because they invented it, plunged the World into war over it, needed the United States to pull them out of their self-initiated death spiral and protect their behinds ever since for free.

In the interim Europe has viciously bitten the hand that fed it with the Marshall Plan and like a spoiled child has spent its entire defense savings on socialist candy that is now giving it a giant stomach ache. In socialism, (creeping communism), Europe has promoted a cousin to fascism in the totalitarian family. This time they cannot be saved from their masochistic addiction to totalitarianism with the best will in the world, mainly because their suicidal attitude has infected the left half of Americans as well.

The United States was willing to keep its own perceived goodness and successful habits to itself until it was attacked on its own soil by a truly supremacist movement. Spokesmen for a billion Muslims (not contradicted by the majority to date) declare that their perfection is such that they deserve to rule the world! Those are your supremacists, and you can't bring yourself to recognize them because they're not white.

These days a "red-neck" seems to indicate some working grey matter left in the form of common sense whereas liberal "mush-brains" cannot claim the same. I only hope there are enough rednecks with enough guns left to cordon off some part of the United States to which those of us who love freedom can migrate.

I say this as someone who has watched Europe make the same mistake twice, accepting loss of freedom through sheer cravenness.

There is a warped mirror. It belongs to those who are content with their own proclamation of righteousness. The reason why such a self-assessment is important is because if one nation can feel that they are righteous, they will give themselves permission to step beyond international law without need to be accountable for its actions.

We know from Jesus' parable of the two men praying, it was the religious man who went home condemned because he proclaimed his own righteousness. It was the lowest of the low, the tax collector, who was forgiven because he confessed his sin. Paul adds to this when he opens Romans 2:1 with the admonition not to judge others because those who judge are not just guilty of the same sin, they lag behind the ungodly when the ungodly obey their conscience and do what is right.

Certainly no one's assessment of a nation is infallible, but the moment we disqualify another from giving us feedback, we resemble the religious professional who proudly proclaimed his own innocence.

BTW, with regards to the US, we have often fired the first shot. Our shots include overthrowing Democratic gov'ts(Iran, 1953), enabling violence so that one group can commit ethnic cleansing (Israel against the Palestinians), performing acts of terrorism against Muslims, supporting oppressive regimes (The Shah, Saddamn, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia), and instituting sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. And now we have committed what was called the supreme international crime by the Nuremburg trials. We have prosecuted a war of aggression giving the same excuse as the Nazis gave for invading Eastern Europe and killing Eastern European Jews--that defense is "anticipatory self-defense."

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye" Matthew 7:5

Yes, all have evil within them, all have sinned as it says above. This is in the context of individuals though, not of countries. America has flaws, America has made mistakes. But you seem to be saying because America has flaws it has no right to act in self interest, to defend itself from those who threaten it. This is insane.

You state that because part of Europe became fascist and the rest of Europe either lost to fascism, was ambivalent towards fascism, or in only the case of Britain held off and helped defeat fascism, they are the only ones qualified to speak of it.

But Europe in the name of tolerance and peace allowed Fascism to flourish, to build up its military, to spout the insane rhetoric of antisemitism, to take three nations violently before it acted. And even then, much of Europe rolled over and played dead, hoping the monster would eat elsewhere. And this is who we are to emulate?

Actually, we are learning from Europe...when Britain and France left the Middle East, they left assuming the people could not handle Democracy. They left the Hashemite Kings in charge in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Transjordan. They assumed these outsiders (they were the main rival to the Sa'ud Family in Arabia) would rule justly, not favoring any one of the rival powers and be accepted by the Levantine and Iraqi Arabs. They assumed wrong. Everywhere these kings were deposed, everywhere except Jordan, and the regimes that replaced them were totalitarian, friendly to the USSR, and while secular in nature, spoke in the rhetoric of Islam to appease their masses. In each of these four countries, both the initial monarch and in the three who have changed, the post-monarchy regimes have undertaken brutality against their own people and their neighbors in the name of stability.

George Bush believes (like Woodrow Wilson did 90 years ago) that all people long for and deserve as much freedom as possible. He learned from Wilsons example though that the Old World is a cynical obstructionist place. Wilsons ideas for post Ottoman nations may have worked, and we might live in a completely different world had they been tried.

Bush did not invade Iraq to colonize, he invaded to liberate a people that has never known freedom because some of those people were hopeless enough and angry enough to sign on for Jihad and fly planes into American cities. You may believe like the Europeans that Islam is incapable of democracy and a benevolent dictator who keeps order and gets there with little or no American input is preferable to an elected government. Britain and France tried that and failed. Oddly enough, France placed a monarch over Syria and tried a power sharing arrangement in Lebanon. Lebanon worked for about 20 years....until its neighbors infiltrated and turned political strife into civil war. Bush is attempting to do in Iraq and Afghanistan what France attempted to do and partially succeeded at in Lebanon. If this isn't learning from history, I do not know what it is.

No one said America doesn't have the right to act in its self-interests. But those actions are limited by international law and is accountable to the international community just like every other nation is limited in its actions and is accountable to the international community.

Certainly the context of what Jesus and Paul said was individual sin. But nations are made up of individuals and history has taught us that all nations are guilty of gross sins. Whether it is our ethnic cleansing of Indians from the land to our enslavement of Blacks to our persecution of Blacks after the Civil War. And those were our domestic sins. History also records our sins of foreign policy. A small fraction of these have already been mentioned.

Certainly Europe is also guilty of a host of sins. Its vicious anti-Semitism that existed for many centuries and peaked in the Holocaust. Its colonization of Africa and Asia were horrific. Its world wars.

The result is that all nations have sins which is a reason no nation should act above another. This is why our accusations must be proved to the international community--that was something that was not done prior to our invasion of Iraq. And less we act as a brutal empire, which has even more devastating effects than any nation's fascism, we need to allow others to limit our actions as we implore others to do the same. It is called leading by example.

You can really equate Sudan where slavery is still practiced with America? You think Venezuela and Columbia are equals? If you cannot see a difference between countries based on motivation,you have a serious problem and I guess there is no use talking to you. Europe gave up on Colonialism in the 20th century. Great, colonialism was a system with many problems that perpetuated a racial and class divide. But when they gave up their colonies, they also stopped paying to defend themselves. They allowed America to take responsibility for their defense, so they could spend their tax money on social programs.

Now America and Europe are like siblings. Europe is the sister who dates a drunk and gets beat up, America is her younger brother who picks a fight with her abusive boyfriend...she resents it and is embarrassed, but deep down she knows she should dump this loser, but she's addicted to the drus (oil) he sells her.

is that when a town of 100 people enact laws and expect the laws to save them, without enforcement, laws mean nothing...have you ever seen the movie Demolition Man? The peace loving people who bought into the system and expected someone else to protect them were absolutely incapable of self defense. The police were advised by their computers how to approach a hostile and sound really mean, and they were gunned down when they faced a real criminal. Europe, the UN, these are the police in that movie. They couldn't even handle a strongman in Southern Europe who was killing hundreds of thousands and creating a refugee problem with the potential to destabilize all of Europe, they had to call in the American Calvary. And you want to give these people veto power over American foreign policy?

depends on who the others are....that was what allowed Nazi Germany to become a monster. Had Europe put its foot down over Austria, either Hitler would have backed down, or the war would have been much shorter and less brutal. We did not fire the first shot in Iraq. Saddam did in 1990, then he continued to by flouting the rules of the international community you hold so dear. He broke 14 UN RESOLUTIONS. That is not disputed by the Un or Europe. America saw him as a threat and wanted to hold him accountable for his violations of UN resolutions. Much of Europe lacked the stomach for it.

whether we will act as a strongman to protect ourselves or will we rely on collaboration? Yes, Europe failed. But why? It allowed one nation to believe it was above international law and to break treaties that would have ensured peace. The current direction of our gov't is to break treaties not only to defend ourselves, but to grab as much as they can for themselves.

The collaboration cannot be strong if the most powerful nation forsakes it. Not only will that disturb the order that collaboration would bring, it provides a precedence by which other nations will follow suit. That is what we have with Turkey and Columbia and Israel. We also see the same actions by China in Tibet and Russia in Chechnya. In addition, we have renewed an arms race with Russia and China.

BTW, before we get so impressed with ourselves regarding WWII, remember that with Germany invading the Russia, it is realistic that we may not have succeeded when invading on D-Day. The Eastern front is the front that began to fail first for Germany and it drew millions of Germany's troops away from Western Europe. VE was a team effort.

"The current direction of our gov't is to break treaties not only to defend ourselves, but to grab as much as they can for themselves."

What have we grabbed for ourselves? Oil? Not hardly. had we chose to, we could have easily set up a massive drilling operation and taken from Iraq all they have...What else does Iraq have that we want to take...babylonian artifacts? goats?

"The collaboration cannot be strong if the most powerful nation forsakes it. Not only will that disturb the order that collaboration would bring, it provides a precedence by which other nations will follow suit. That is what we have with Turkey and Columbia and Israel. We also see the same actions by China in Tibet and Russia in Chechnya. In addition, we have renewed an arms race with Russia and China."

Turkey was crossing the border to go after Kurds long before we entered Iraq. Israel, like us, has every right to defend themselves, when their entire existence has been a long string of threats of annihilation and attmepts to complete that annihilation it is a little presumptuous of those of us in relative safetly to spout one sided UN proclomations at them. Columbia had enemies raiding across a sovereign border from a country unable or unwilling to police itself. They repeatedly asked Equador to deal with it, repeatedly warned Venezuela, they too have a right to forcibly defend themselves. Seems like you have a problem with any nation that desires self preservation, not just with the US. Just like Turkey, Chinese and Russian actions far predate our Iraq war. and by the way, those who "condemn" China and Russia for these actions, what have they done, wrung their hands? Scolded? Said play nice in a really firm voice? If there is no stick, law means nothing.

Read Suzanne Fields article and get back to me. When one side plays by "the rules" and the other does not, how foolish is it to let yourself die for the sake of rules.

We have been pressuring the Iraq gov't into allowing foreign oil companies, especially British and American companies, to have control over a majority of Iraq's undeveloped oil fields. Note that control is the issue, not revenue. Control is the issue because we can then have economic leverage over the economies of other countries. Both the majority of Iraqis and the Iraqi Parliament reject this privatization of Iraqi oil resources. And now we are trying to go outside of the "democratic" process in Iraq to get the Iraqi oil minister to enact this directly. So yes, oil is the issue in Iraq.

As for Turkey, all through the 90's, Turkey has been sorely persecuting its Kurdish population, and we helped. Back in the 90's, we gave Turkey military aid to help them oppress its own kurdish population. As for Columbia, they have been using paramilitary organizations to terrorize and even assassinate its own people. If Turkey and Columbia are truly interested in self-preservation, then perhaps they would stop persecuting their own people. BTW, did you know that in Turkey, it is illegal to say that Turkey is guilty of committing genocide against Armenians.

I wanted to thank you for the tone of this conversation. It has been respectful and focussed on the issues.

They are far from a model nation. They have outlawed use of the written Kurdish language, Kurdish holidays, and been crossing the border into Iraq and Syria for the last 20+ years.

My point is, during the Cold War, and even since, we supported people like this saying he's an SOB, but he's my SOB. Better a tyrant than a communist. That is why we supported the Shah in Iran (Until Carter) Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, unpleasant strongmen in Somalia and Central America...we felt the end of stopping communism justified the means of supporting evil. I have a major problem with this, though I understand we can't fight everywhere at once, I know that to support tyrants anywhere eventually comes back to bite you. But be honest. Is the International Community really the answer? Consensus seeking on Darfur led to nothing, people still die there. While the International community dithered and complained massacres in East Timor, Rwanda, and Congo were never really stopped. And where Bush41 and Clinton did act in Somalia, the allowed action was so limited, Somalia ended up worse after our intervention than before. If you are objective about it, the Iraqis are far better off to this point than the Somalis

as a science teacher, I encourage debates about issues like Global Warming, resource use, and other relevant topics in class. I don't require the kids to agree, just to be respectful and relevant when disagreeing. There will come a point I suspect, where we will agree to disagree and let it drop simply because I have other things to do (like correct papers).

I hear ya...yup we have a major challenge on our hands...not too many people seem to grasp how big a challenge it is...

Hopefully, Mc will have people in his cabinet and as advisors that will get it, and will be a positive influence in areas where Mc might be wably...

I have heard Mark on Hughe's show...he is a very bright man, and I believe he sees things accurately, which will definitely be a challenge for the next pres (and for our country, if it's Ob or Hill).

As you can see by the post, I got very negative after reading this book. It was well written and compelling, but its easy to get overwhelmed when you see such a bleak portrait of the world.

At Church today, we had a guest speaker who is 48 and has terminal cancer. His attitude, and his unshakeable belief that God is in control and wants to use him during this time of physical trial was very powerful and made me realize that getting down is one thing, how you respond is what shows where your faith lies.

Yeah, the world can look pretty bleak, it's true...but we can trust in God and His promises.

Sounds like a very touching service...

The one thing we know is, knowing Christ we cannot lose. The young man has a strong faith and he knows there is a future for him...it doesn't end here on this earth...a place in eternity is promised to those who trust in Christ.

Interetingly our service was about how we might change our priorities knowing we had only one month to live...

I enjoyed the book very much and you did a good job reviewing the material. No one has all of the answers.

I am currently reading Goldberg's new book "Liberal Socialism". Goldberg puts forth the argument that there is no clear definition of fascism, or rather more problematic, everyone has a different definition of fascism.

I am not prepared to offer an opinion of his book at this juncture beyond saying that he makes a good case on this single point.

Do you have a link for Suzanne Fields' article. I have never heard of her. But I will ask this, are we always being attacked by those who have no regard for the rules or because we first broke the rules? Even if we need to break the rules to win then we end up claiming that the most moral country in the world is the last one that must follow the rules. A contradiction?

Regarding Turkey as a flawed ally, I am afraid we are repeating the mistake we made in the Cold War. Certainly we looked at the Soviet Union's expenditures in Afghanistan as contributing to their collapse, but it also gave rise to the next enemy. As Chomsky noted in '82 that the harsh treatment the Soviet Union gave to the Afghan resistance insured that only the "harshest" of the fighters would survive who would then commit their own atrocities. This is indeed what happened.

I disagree with our gov't, and you correctly see the tradeoffs inolved, and its foreign policy. It seems that they are attempting to interpret the world filled with continuous values using binary arithmetic.

Wil, Steyn is a great author and his message should be paid attention to. The Leftist here with the relative slant to morality fails the basic test. The question is, if we are born free, and all we can do is band together to protect each other's freedom to succeed or fail on our own efforts, then who DOES want to help protect our freedom? Iran, China, Russia, Venuzuela, Cuba? Or Great Britain, Australia, Canada and some European countries and others.

The issue for leftists isn't whether we should band together to protect our own freedom, it is whether we have the right to interfere with or even take away the freedom of others.

You have my sympathies. Good article btw, I've read the book as well. It paints a pretty bleak picture.

You know I never signed a contract so I could come back at any time

"The issue for leftists isn't whether we should band together to protect our own freedom, it is whether we have the right to interfere with or even take away the freedom of others."

Removing Saddam and stabilizing the country to put in an elected government takes away their freedom? Arresting or fighting against those blowing up Iraqi civilians is taking away their freedom?

And if you support banding together to protect our freedom, but you are opposed to interfering in other countries, just what would you suggest....Tell me, what should our response to 9/11 have been? For that matter, what should our response to Beirut 1983 have been, or Pan Am over Lockerbie, or the 93 WTC attack or the Saudi barracks, or the Black Hawk down incident, or the 98 Embassy bombings, or the USS Cole, just to name a few of the times we were targeted...should we pack up and come home like Spain did? Please, give me a viable and realistic alternative to war, to losing 4000 of our best and thousands of innocents, and I will support you whole heartedly.

The problem I see Caday is that there is no realistic alternative being suggested. Vague blusterings about multinational agreements and the rule of law and chastizing "rogue nations" for their roguishness does not accomplish anything. This might. Offer a DETAILED alternative, please.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/SuzanneFields/2008/04/07 /teaching_violent_intolerance_the_tiny_ticking_time_bombs_i n_the_middle_east

Sorry I don't know how to clean this up.

Neither is building permanent military bases and insisting that the Iraqis privatize their oil reserves, both are opposed by the majority of the people, a part of liberating the Iraqis.

So how should we respond to terrorism? First, we look in a real mirror, as opposed to the magic mirror in Snow White, and ask ourselves: Why did they attack us?

There is plenty of documentation that tells us why. For example, Robert Fisk reports, in his book "The Great War For Civilization," that Bin Laden attacked us for 3 reasons:

1. The sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children

2. The unbalanced support for Israel that enables Israel to oppress the Palestinians.

3. Our presence in Saudi Arabia.

The last one was a response to Saddamn Hussein who, btw, would not have been in power or as dangerous without our help.

Jason Burke, in his book on Al-Qaeda, mentions other reasons most of which are secularly based such as our role in polluting the world.

Thus the first response to terror should be that of listening to grievances.

The second response is to take our evidence for what Bin Laden did to the World Court. By doing this, we would be setting a tremendous precedent for the rest of the world when other countries have grievances.

The third response, pending the World Court's decision, would be to invade Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11--you can watch Bush say that in the movie "Why We Fight."

I am sure that some might be laughing at some of the non-macho responses. But realize that after 7 years in the war on terror, we still have the same number, if not more, of enemies to fight and our military and economy are drained making us vulnerable to attack. In addition, we have lost standing in the world because of our immoral invasion of Iraq. I would not call our response thus far a solution.

I will check it out late tonight after I finish teaching.

Why aren't all countries equal? Can we reach equality when the "best" examples of what countries can be look down on others? And what shall we say when the "best" countries take action against those they look down on? Since the end of WWII, we have overthrown over 50 gov'ts. Many of the gov'ts we overthrew were democracies. We overthrew many of these democracies because we didn't like their domestic affairs. So when the "best" countries want to dictate terms to others, then perhaps the "best" countries also practice slavery.

Besides, how else can we teach democracy than to practice it in our foreign policies?

Her article reminds me of some kids I use to work with when I was a social worker. I am thinking of instigators who loved to tell on others but forgot to mention what they did.

How long have the Palestinians been oppressed by the Israelis? How long have they lived being humiliated by the checkpoints, being divided up geographically, having their homes demolished and sometimes without warning, been shot at by IDF snipers, having their electricity and food supplies shut off?

It is not that the Palestinians are innocent themselves? But neither are the Israelis and the Israelis are posing a realistic threat to the existence of the Palestinians--that is something that the Palestinian have no capacity to return the favor.

This past week Hamas made its second offer (the first occurred in mid 2006) to fully recognize Israel if Israel returns to the '67 borders. How this offer is met tells us why Palestinians do what they do against Israel.

With regards to Iran, how would we respond to a country that threatened us with nuclear strikes for doing something that was legal? Their nuclear program has always been in compliance with the IAEA. And how would we respond to a country that attempted to overthrow our democracy and install a puppet leader? That is what we did to them in '53. And how would we respond to a country that helped another country attack us and supplied that country with materials for WMDs? That is what we did to them when Saddamn attacked Iran.

We cannot take our own actions for granted and take exception with the actions of others and expect to succeed.

I'll be on a marine biology trip with the sophomores from my school through Saturday, so I am unable to respond right now...needless to say, I think you are somewhat delusional on the whole purpose of foreign policy, let alone specifics Caday, but you have debated on topic, which few liberals seem to do....I'll be back Sunday to have another go at this.

Have a safe trip, then we will discuss

There is no reasoning with a moral relativist. I will say it is hard to interfere with other's freedom when they don't actually have it.

thanks for the summary, Wil.

But isn't there a relationship between nationalism and moral relativity? That is, the more patriotic one is, the more they engage in moral relativity. That is because the more nationalistic one is, the more issues of right and wrong are determined by who did what or who was the victim rather than what was done.