Ian Graeme wrote:

Martin Hotze wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:


Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
stranger definition of 'winning.'


at best there will be a corrupt democracy, at worst it will be a
religious led country. The outcome will be more terrorists and more
terrorist attacks. And you will enforce more "security" and "defend your
country" in other parts of the world because of the rising terrorist
attacks. And then you will sit back and will wonder why less people like
the way you are acting.

NOT defending our country against terrorist attacks didn't work, so what
do you suggest is the solution?

Defending it using tactics that will actually result in a the reduction
and/or elimination of terrorist attacks.

Tactics like...
- recognizing that the "war on terror" isn't a "war" we can ever win with
the military.
- actually becoming neutral in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
- not accommodating the corrupt and brutal rulers in the provinces of
Afghanistan.
- practicing abroad what we preach here at home about due process and free
speech.
- sometimes we will have to swallow something unpleasant even if we don't
"have to".
- making sure what we want for other countries is in their best interests
also and then using our considerable talents at PR to convice other
countries/peoples of that.
- recognizing that there are times when we will not get our way.
- recognizng that our moral values cannot be superceded by our business
interests, no matter how much the lobbyists pay the politcians.
- get real value for our foreign aid by insisting on measured results, not
just dollars spent.

None of these tactics require the military. That's not to say that we don't
need them, but the current administration's inept handling of the whole
thing is mostly a lesson in what not to do.

Most of all we Americans must reject ideas that these issues are black and
white. Not every Muslim is a terrorist and not every American is a pillar
of Democracy.


--
Frank....H