Bret,

You said: We were on the receiving end of a favorable emotional response that helped us a great deal and now is all but lost.

I say: Yes, it gave us a nice warm fuzzy feeling to receive worldwide condolences if that's what you mean by "helped us." As far as the US "needing" other countries to execute on national security or survival, all I can do is chuckle. It is clear to me that the US is fighting a war today. We are fighting a war on terror where identifying good and evil is a trivial task. The US is fighting evil. When other countries recognize this and lend us support and want to join in the fight, that does give me a warm fuzzy feeling that there are other nations that understand the difference between good and evil.

You said: If you think the current demonstrations (of ill-will) by tens of thousands isnt going to affect the leaders of those nations and our relationships with them I think your mistaken.

I say: I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, the demonstrations are miniscule. They will have no effect on the future and have already been overshadowed by the actual war events.

You said: Do you really think Tony Blair will be around next term? Do you really think the next PM is going to stiff his constituency as Blair has?

I say: Actually, I think he will. Nothing is certain, but I think he now has support of the majority of the British people. To put things in perspective, you say there are tens of thousands of people who are demonstrating against the war. Let's just say for grins that all of the protesters were in the UK. For grins, let's say that we pick the upper end of your size estimate: 100,000 people. The UK has a population of ~60 million people. That's less than one fifth of a percent of the entire population actively opposing the war. Even if you say that 100,000 people in the city of London (population ~7.4 million) are protesting, that is only 1.35 percent of the entire population of the city of London that opposes the war. For this reason, I think you are grossly exxagerating the effect that war protesters will have over world opinion. (especially once the war is over, the Iraqi people are free and all of Saddam's atrocities get out)

You said: Unfortunately Bush has been more than a little outspoken in demonstrating that international opinion means little to him in spite of his trying to make the Iraq thing an international affair.

I say: That is not true. The fact that Bush put the responsibility initially on the UN to disarm Bush shows that he does value having the world work together to fight evil. What he is opposed to is putting the United States' national security in the hands of the UN.

You said: You may not mind taking off your shoes at the airport now, but will you mind when they listen to your phone calls, or interrogate you about what you thought were your own personal affairs, etc.? It would be naive not to think that powers such as the HSA releases will only snowball (the power to keep tabs and control is already in there). 15 years from now when some new administration you disagree with profiles you as a potential threat for whatever new reason I wonder how supportive of these changes you will be? The danger is in the precedent this administration has set as to how involved the government will be in our individual lives in the future. I say its already too much and its gonna get a whole lot worse.

I say: Point well taken. I, too, do not want to lose my liberties. I don't think we have reached that point yet, but I appreciate and respect all those who wish to safeguard the liberties and freedom of America.

You said: In theory you are absolutely correct. UN waffling "empowered" Hussein. In principle I completely disagree. This whole issue is what baffles so many of us trying to find justification for this war... Empowered him with what? WMD?

I say: Ego. They inflated his ego to think that he could control the world by lying and running circles around the UN security council. If we backed up our ultimatum with unity and threatened force as a united world front, there is a chance he would have backed down. (we still may have been required to attack, though, we'll never know)

You said: OK, supposing he has them, based on this justification to strike, who else violates our principles and international laws concerning WMD? How about Isreal? How about Korea to name a couple? As I said in an earlier post, it becomes apparent that human rights, liberation, WMD, nonexistent ties to Al Quaida (my opinion based on the evidence and lack thereof), etc isn't the real issue.

I say: Israel isn't a threat to the American people. Israel isn't a threat to the world community. Israel is a threat to the well-being of Palestinians. Militant radical Palestinians are a threat to the well-being of Israel, Americans and the rest of the non-Muslim "infidels." This case is complicated. Bush wants peace in Israel and a Palestinian state. I hope that there can be peace in Israel, but, as I stated in previous posts, there will probably have to be a decisive victory where one party completely dominates and controls the other before there will be peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.

You said: WMD aside, how has your life as an American in any way been affected by Hussein's continued control of Iraq? 90 miles worth of rocket propellant hasnt kept me on edge all that much <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

I say: It has concerned me, my family and many of my friends. We weigh the possibility of terrorist attacks when we plan vacations and when I travel overseas. Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, all of the countries/groups that compose the axis of evil contribute to feelings of insecurity since these countries/groups have been identified as either sponsors of terrorism or suppliers. I will feel better when there is a democratic Iraq. I won't feel the security I felt pre-9/11 until there are no countries left that sponsor terrorism.

you said: Our war on "terror" is only instigating more resolve to inflict more attacks against us. As I see it, your logic is missing a fundamental gap unless you believe A. We will someday eliminate every single individual capable of being a terrorist. B. Our punishment of known terrorists and/or sympathetic countries and individuals will create mass repentance from "evil" ways of hostile humanity and turn all to warm and sympathetic love toward us.

I say: Your reasoning here is greatly flawed. It violates laws of human nature. If people are evil and decide to do evil, you punish them and make examples of them to others. If evil is met with destruction at every turn, eventually, future evildoers lose the resolve to do evil. That's how "law and order" works. Your reasoning applied to the case of punishing evil in the United States would mean that we should let murders and robbers to roam free and just try to avoid them and lock your doors. Please let me know in advance if you decide to run for Mayor of Atlanta. I need time to move.

You said: Your logic has been applied in Isreal toward the Palestinians for some time now - and how safe are they over there?

I say: No, my logic has not been applied in Israel. Yasser Arafat is still in power. Hamas roams freely in Syria and is free to cross the border and conduct attacks and supply Palestinian suicide bombers with munitions to wage terror. When this logic is applied to Israel, Hamas will be destroyed, Arafat will be gone and there will be a democratic Palestinian state and a safer Israel.

You said: Our macho, tough guy approach toward humanity at large, thier problems and struggles on the other side of the world make me wonder why people less fortunate than us and who have found themselves in path of our indignation really dont like us. Doesnt take much to figure out that this method isnt going to keep us many freinds.

I say: Why, thank you. I appreciate the nice words. I've always considered myself macho and a tough guy. Unlike many neutered males in the world these days, I wear those titles with great pride! Have you ever travelled to the third world? Africa? Maybe India or the Middle East? If not, you don't know what real poverty is. People in these countries, with the drive to succeed, are forced by poverty or other circumstances to scratch an existance from barren earth. They either develop the drive to get out of their circumstances and flee to the free world or they develop a strong hatred for the free World. (we are the symbol of the free world to them) You have to improve living conditions for these people in order to eradicate this hatred. Removing evil dictators and bringing democracy to these nations, along with aid, will go a long way to fostering respect from these peoples.

You said: And freinds ARE important these days - look at Pakistan post 9/11. Think we would have caught these creeps without thier help?

I say: We would have had the same results in Afghanistan without the "help" of Pakistan. Having allies is helpful but not necessary for success. We are the sole "hyper-power" in the world.

You said: All I'm saying is evil is a very relative term when it comes to these sort of things.

I say: May God have mercy on your soul. If you can't tell the difference between good and evil in this war, then there is little hope for you. I'm sorry to be harsh, but it has to be said.

You said: Japan, Germany are nice examples for your point but one I think your missing. The WORLD agreed that domination and defeat of Japan and Germany were critical to everyones survival and everyone worked TOGETHER to bring it about.

I say: No, that is wrong. There was similar opposition in both World Wars. (of course, France and Poland asked for help after Hitler invaded) I'm running out of steam and don't have the energy to look up the countries, but suffice it to say that there was similar waffling with Hitler and Hirohito. There were no pre-emptive strikes and the war came to our allies.

You said: Of course money is power and the new support of war in my opinion is simple resignation to the fact that what is started cant be undone and if there is any gain to be had by supporting the US now then go for it. You say 40 nations have joined in support? Please tell me Botswana is in on this because where will we be without them!?

I say: Now you are reading the minds of world leaders? I don't think we should assume that money is their sole incentive for joining us. I give them more respect than that. You should too. Relatively speaking, Botswana has just as much value to us as an ally as any other nation in the world. We can do it alone, but would prefer that the world join us in fighting evil.

You said: This wears me out. I'll chill for now.

I say: Amen... me too. (I'm allowed to say that after typing all of the stuff above, right? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> )

Powell