You are nuts!

Well, lets define "more dangerous". I offer 4 categories. 1. Volatility 2. Capability 3. Accountability 4. Actual Fatalities 1. Volatility - the US has waged more wars than any other country over the last century. Terrorist activity has increased lately. It is difficult to compare because the tactics are so different, but I guess the US often gives warning before it attacks. I'm not comfortable with generalizing about terrorist organizations, so I'll pick al Quaida - you know, the ones alleged to be responsible for attacking the US in 2001. I'm not sure that including groups like the Thamil Tigers or the Basque seperatists is germane to the general debate, but the US administration has become annoyingly vague about which terrorist group they are engaging. Britain must be looking forward to the day when the US announces it's intention to invade Ireland and dismanlte the IRA with little bloodshed, and to the great rejoicing of the people. I'll give even marks for the US and al Quaida to be fair. al Quaida doesn't often specify a target before striking. 2. Capability - It is said that al Quaida is attempting to aqcuire WMD. America has them in great numbers, and has used them, and continues to due so - depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs, napalm (of a slightly different petroleum base than used in Vietnam), not to mention considering the inclusion of so-called 'mini-nukes' into it's enormous arsenal. Assuming al Quaida did attack the WTC (which bin Laden perversely denies), they had to steal planes to do it and kill themselves in the process. The US can wreak similar destruction with the bombs they have, from a great and safe distance without sacrificing personnel. The USA can occupy a country - especially after muscling some of the most severe sanctions through the UN, and bombing the North and South of the country for twelve years without UN approval. It is unique in the strength of its firepower and range. The US takes top marks here by a landslide. 3. Accountability - Terrorists, to generalize, appear to be accountable to no-one but themselves. They would take the points, except that in flouting international law, the US has put itsself above the international body it is accountable to, being a signed and founding member of the UN and the Security Council, so it's a dead heat again. 4. Fatalities - The US has by itsself been responsible for about eight million people since the first world war (including the deaths the world approved of - we're talking about dangerousness, not legitimacy, which is too speculative for this analysis). It is highly unlikely that terrorism, even generally speaking, has been as prolific, but no one can be sure. To suggest that al Quaida, the group alleged to have attacked the US in 2001, might have killed ONE million people would be farcical. The US rates far higher. Conclusion and addendums. The United States is a very visible body on the world stage; terrorist groups act in the shadows. However, it is no secret (ironically) that the US has conducted clandestine operations, backing coups in other countries, sending agents abroad and generally creating mischief (resulting in death and injury) without declaring it. Past US operations fit the description of terrorism according to the US military manual. States may fear or hate terrorism just as much as the US is feared or hated for its incursions, past, current, and projected. The United States has destabilized international relations, and probably encouraged antipathetic nations to increase military spending, particularly with regard to nuclear weapons, as a deterrent to perceived US expansion. The reason North Korea is boasting about its Nuclear Weapons programme is to let the US know it means business if Washington continues to move aggressively against it. They have announced no plans for attacking anyone, nor, like Saddam, are they likely to, knowing that would legitimaze a US attack on this member of the 'Axis of Evil'. They're saying, "Back off or negotiate". If Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, who can blame them after cowboy Bush pretty much targeted them in his Axis of Evil rhetoric. It almost seems as if everything the US administration has said and done has been done purposefully to incite aggression. For rotten diplomacy alone, the US is surely the biggest threat to the world. The event that sparked the war on terrorism, was vile, criminal, and without justification, and it united the world in grief and determination. Since then, pretty much all the foreign policy decisions and international rhetoric from the Bush administration has succeded - almost wilfully - in demolishing that sympathy and multilateral resolve. The pro-Bush, pro-war faction argue for results based policies, as different from principle based policies (the US and the UN can be seen to be protagonists for each), and I have argued my case in similar fashion. Simple pragmatics. I suspect (morbidly) any argument against will move away from pragmatics and fall into the usual blustering rhetoric, but I'd love to be surprised. I would rephrase the discussion topic: For sheer fire power, America is the most dangerous force on the planet. Under the current administration, America is more dangerous than any terrorist group or groups.

America's degree of dangerousness has increased more than ever with the pre-emptive policy. That really scared everyone, democracies and members of the UN included.

An old Chinese adage sais: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR....Well, I got my wish-- George Bush became President. Now I am ready to go even with a Mrs. Clinton- Gen. Clark ticket, leaving the Democrats to take a crack at reviving America from the exanguination of power and dignity resulting from the influence of a shadowy cabal of not totally normal immature self-centered ex-Commie "neoconservatives." In obscure darkness, it seems, they rule American foreign policy. THAT IS NOT GOOD, IT IS VERY DANGEROUS. Yes friends, they bled it dry and ALL will leave Washington when Bush leaves office a lot richer than when they came in. That's because all these one time Bolshevik revolutionaries, in their old age, practice palm greasing baksheesh-seeking influence peddling, all the while urging America to impose "democracy" as if it were pork on the Muslims in order to make the Middle East safe for Sharon 's GREATER ISRAEL. These neocons were never elected to anything. Their existence is an unknown because they publish exclusively for some slick Conservative journals that no one reads. With the Red Danger of the 60s gone, the corporate magnates that funded the youthful right redirected their contributions. These slick publications went belly up, as did a lot of these right wing think tanks...The Iran-Contra scandal caused a lot of Conservatives to slink back into isolation. The sudden end of the Cold War confirmed the wisdom of that decision. And so everything went dead. The world was fragmenting while Monika Lewinsky did her thing. The right focused on President Clinton's bellow-the-belt White House activities, all the while China was making plans for its global hegemony 10 decades from now and Asian hegemony in the foreseeable future. It is then that one time Red and later long time anti-red Jewish activists-- labeled "neocons" as a pejorative by their liberal-left colleagues when the latter ostracized the former-- pulled together money from a number of Likudnik Jewish American and Zionist interests to take over the American right media. Suddenly one time Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW was spewing racist anti-Palestinian pejoratives like the WEEKLY STANDARD and the WALL STREET JOURNAL (paragon of the upright angelic stockbrokers). Once the slick side of Conservatism-- including a couple of moribund "think tanks"-- were taken over, the neocons went to the Southern-Yahoo anti-semite Christian right and offered a coalition. A couple of Bible passages later, presto...magic, alchemy...the laws of physics were turned on their head: anti-Jewish became pro-Zionist. Of course, for convenience sake, the second half of the Bible babble is left out: that the Jews will all perish when the Messiah RETURNS, for which a big fat Israel is a necessary prelude (good God what insanity!) If this seems strange to you-- and to me "strange" has become a relative term since the days of "sexual is-isms" and the "wide right-wing conspiracy"-- then consider how weird has been the Bush Era, beginning with the whole ballot chads issue. But Rice, Powell and Papa Bush's old team put together a global strategy for the son that neutralized China's takeover of Asia by surrounding it and expanded NATO to the Russian border, thus inhibiting both Euro anti-Americanism and Russian machinations. All this they did without charging the US Govt. a cent, simply as good citizens. Bush's inauguration was indeed an auspicious occasion. Who knew that the speech-writers of his inaugural speech would soon set up shop in his cavernous skull, to direct US foreign policy, fluff becoming policy. The trouble started when, to "whiten" up his black-made foreign policy, Bush injected into the NSC the WASP Sleaze factor, proven incompetents from the Vice President down . How the neocons got into DoD is also a peculiar story. Key to all this is a devoted American strategist and thinker-- a brilliant Jewish American-- who made a career speaking out his mind at DoD and to hell with the consequences. Paul Wolfowitz was seen as an asset by several administrations. Wolfowitz was never in search of a pat on the head from Uncle Arik Sharon or kudos from Cousin Netanyahu. He was/is/will forever be, a totally patriotic American and a humanitarian who feels great concern for all humans, including the Palestinians, his family having been touched by death and suffering in the Holocaust. Yet, when Rumsfeld took the helm at DoD, he was not about to accept being overshadowed by his Asst. Secretary. And so Rummy, as he is disdainfully called by our men in uniform, decided to dilute Wolfowitz in a sea of neocons. None of them were hired for their experience, technical expertise or mature outlook. All were so-so careerists getting their testosterone activated by making up formulas for how to barbecue Palestinians from a helicopter a 1000 ft. in the air, and posting these recipes on their Internet sites. Supporting Sharon-- whom Philip Habib (Reagan's peace envoy to settle the Lebanon war) called a murderer and a liar-- made these puny putzes feel like he-men. But this too they did utterly incompetently, leaving themselves wide-open to charges of "dual loyalty." However, ensemble, they drown out the uniqueness of Wolfowitz, and that's what Rummy wants. Now, everyone thinks that Wofowitz is just one of Rummy's neocons...he is not, he never was...Wolfowitz is Wolfowitz, the devoted American civil servant. However, writing incessant grandiose unrealistic hyperbolic memos for Rummy, they made Rummy look at least more prolific if not as intelligent as Wolfowitz. It took no time for Rumsfeld's flow of memos-- called "Rummy snowflakes" by the Pentagon staff-- to "snow" our "duhhhhh" Mr. President. You see, despite the efforts of his press staff to make him look decisive, Mr. Bush is a determined but indecisive man-- he know's what he wants done, but since he can't tell dumb from smart and has too limited an attention span to both read briefing papers and memorize fluff speeches, he can't tell if the strategies he chooses to get done what he wants to do are smart or dumb, making him look stupid. And so, he gives one to one side of the debate, then one to the other, then back again....That way, he thinks, he can have his cake and eat it too. So it went with the war in Iraq. First he went for the Rummy snow job...Then he went with the Powell arguments for multilateral ism...then he went with the "screw the UN" Rummy neocons...then he went with the multilateral force argument of Powell...(I could go on but I wouldn't want the pendular swing to give you motion sickness). So, we're running out of soldiers, out of funds and we are beating down the Arabs for being suicide "terrorists" while fully supporting Sharon behaving like a Zionazi. In the meantime, our nation is put through color coded anxieties, timed to remind us that it's not good to change horse-head midstream in the middle of a war on terrorism. Like conditioned Palvovian dogs, we are made to worry about what smart terror tricks alQaeda will pull on us so that we don't realize what dumb things the Bush Administration did or what smart things they didn't do. Mrs. Clinton may be a total phony and have a heart colder than a witch's tit, but she is not an idiot. Gen. Clark may not be another Ike, but his heart produces more than 1/3 the amount of blood needed to come up with a sensible thought. Consequently, we can expect him not to be taken in by Nathan Shcharansky's Zionazi babble as was VP Cheney. I expect that Wolfowitz will remain in his DoD post under a Clinton-Clark Administration because, well, she's mean but not stupid. Certainly he and VP Clark can do better than VP Ceney and the neocons. For me the Bush election was like a Second Coming. I was moved by his modesty, forthrightness about his past Schwarzenegger-like behavior in his younger years and was especially satisfied with his foreign policy team-- all of which will soon be out of the picture, resigning in disgust. On March 18, 2003, I realized that Bush is a ventriloquist's dummy. And, the ventriloquists are that bunch of shady types that are to this day too immature to separate out self-interest from national interest. Like Podehretz, claiming that by declaring "World War IV" on behalf of America against the Arabs he no longer feels himself the scrawny little Jewish boy getting his a*s kicked by muscular back teens, they feel tough calling for "preemptive war"-- give me a break!!!!Finally, Bush's inability to bring "killer-liar" Sharon's war crimes under control, allowing him to say that what the Zionazis do in the Palestinian territories is the same as what we do in Afghanistan and Iraq, convinces me that his presidency has been as dubious as his election. I URGE PRESIDENT BUSH TO PUT NATIONAL INTEREST ABOVE HIS OWN, RECOGNIZE THAT HE'S NOT UP TO THE JOB, AND ANNOUNCE THAT HE WILL NOT SEEK ANOTHER TERM IN TIME FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO FIND ANOTHER WORTHY CANDIDATE. HE OWES THAT TO THE MANY DADS, MOMS, SONS, DAUGHTERS, UNCLES, AUNTS AND FRIENDS WHO DIED AND ARE DYING NEEDLESSLY IN IRAQ. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF HE PUTS CHENEY TO PASTURE-- HE AIN'T NO SEABISQUIT!-- REPLACING HIM WITH CONDI RICE AS HIS VP AND CONVINCES POWELL TO STAY ON, MAKING WOLFOWITZ SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AND SENDS RUMMY AND THE NEOCONS BACK INTO THEIR HOLES ON WALL STREET, THEN I WOULD SUPPORT HIM FOR A SECOND TERM. But none of this is likely to happen. The Democrat field is straight out of the political cemetery and the bottom of the IQ list. Dean, for example, would leave the White House marked up by graffiti "art"!! So, considering this dismal array of Gingrich-like hollowness, Mrs. Clinton is beginning to look unappetizingly good. Together with Gen. Clark, they would make the future seem somewhat hopeful. Perhaps, as the first female President, she might acquire personality and gratitude for the opportunity ...might develop humility! Mrs. Clinton is a determined fighter. She's a pit-bull. She wants to get things done, not like Bill, only looking like she gets things done. She's not likely to be too preoccupied with her below the belt anatomy and has enough testosterone in her to scratch binLaden's, Kim Junil's and Katamnei's eyes out. She, probably, like none other, can cower Sharon as well. All in all, unlike the other Democrats vying for the Presidency, she has experienced the White House at a time of great personal humiliation. Yet she stayed steady on course. The lesson I learned is that post-Cold War politics are weirder and more unruly than anything any of us knew before. During the Cold War, the MAD system assured that no one would do something reckless. Those days are gone. Now, anything is possible. Consequently, we can't afford stupid leaders anymore. We need men-- or women-- who are wise and very knowledgeable. We need presidents who control their staff, not staff who control the president. Bush never learned that power is respected only when it is so respected that it never needs be used. The ancient samurai would feel dishonored and would kill himself if he had to draw his sword to cower a commoner. The fact that he drew his sword only proves that it was the sword, not him, that people respected. Bush has shown himself unable to distinguish between American greatness and Sharonist thuggery. He thus came to admire Sharon as everything his moral upbringing won't allow him to be. But when Sharon leaves office disgraced for his financial skulduggery, Bush will have to realize that he let himself be pushed into a war against one killer just to find himself endorsing the bloody crimes against humanity of another. It is not himself that he shamed in doing that, but the nation he represents. All his great ideas and successes, if any, are eclipsed by this sordid stance. Everyday that an American soldier dies in Iraq without advance on the Israel-Palestine peace road map is a day when American lives are shamefully wasted. The Zionazis, despite the massive support of Bush's road map by the Israelis and American Jews, have said that they will not allow the existence of a Palestinian state. Yet Bush goes on calling for terror to stop, as if it were all one-sided. Anyone who challenges Sharon-Likud on that gets branded an "anti-semite" or a "self-hating Jew." Instead of bringing this waste of American blood to an end by squeezing killer Sharon, Bush has repeatedly capitulated, betraying his own road map and his own soldiers in the field. Bush could never stand up to his Cabinet of proven incompetents and say: I'm in charge and I want peace now! Instead he makes musical chairs of policy, following no rhyme or rhythm. The neocons are nothing but conmen who brag to a few but sneak about in the shadows not to have to face the consequences of their policies or the scrutiny of the American public. Yet they have begun to pin the tail on the donkey, blaming Bush for not doing what they told him to do. That he is the representative of the American people matters little to them, they see themselves as prophets whose word is not to be challenged...Those who challenge them cannot have any legitimacy...they can only be one thing...ANTI-SEMITES....While I share the popular outrage with Bill Clinton's obscene behavior in the White House, I find equally obscene the foul presence of the neocons in the White House and the visits of killer-liar Sharon therein to intimidate the President of the world's largest power. I KNOW that neither the neocons nor Sharon would get away with any of this under President Hillary Clinton. When Sharon told the press, after his first meeting with Dr. Rice that it was hard for him to follow what she said because he was gazing at her beautiful legs, Dr. Rice said nothing. But had he said the same thing about President Hillary Clinton, I KNOW that killer-liar Sharon would have left the White House with a black eye. That is why I am willing to support her candidacy. She would not let America's honor be compromised by the shenanigans of a soon to be indited shyster. Mr. Bush had his chance, and he muffed it. None of Carl Rove's tricks can change that...I don't think he can win under present circumstances, so Mrs. Clinton is at the very least, the lesser of two evils....at the very most, the sky's the limit because, for better or worse, she is her own man! Daniel E. Teodoru

my god if u dont like america go live in a place like n korea or iraq or liberia! that is great. what u are forgetting is all the same wonderful juntas we have set up in latin america they could always go there. the only problem that is left out is that america fueled and armed these people. we have helped overthrow democratically (u know by the people) govt's to help secure american interest. funny i thought our interests were democracy. of the list prhoads leaves, well of the two, only n. korea did we not give arms to. we did to taylor and then we watched him walk out of power while we knew he was wanted for war crimes. oh well we didnt arrest all the germans either. if u can help we can overlook. just look at our space program. as for the other gov'ts we support against popular support just look at saudi arabia, or pakistan. hell before 9/11 we even gave money to help the taliban to eradicate poppy. that was helpful. but oh well look at what we do in south america in places like columbia and bolivia. and now we are against the iranians but we sold them weapons as well. so to voice disgust and impatience at a gov't like the one running america for the last, oh well lets say forever and be honest about it, isnt anti american, it is the continuing culmination of the idea started in france during the paris uprising and the american revolution. hopefully we will see the day that the idea is realized and we can have a social contract that limits the majority from coercing the individual (be it friendly or otherwise), and deals with the entire planet and not just the immediate environs around us. of course the american gov't is more dangerous than terrorist. we use dirty bombs all the time. we just call it depleted uranium.

Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, Denmark, Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Israel, the Phillipines, Holland, etc. are ALL free democratic societies thanks in large part to the blood and money of Americans. America takes actions to move the world toward freedom and prosperity.

> World peace is good for America, as is world freedom. > Communist governments are extreme. America supports freedom. Communism is the opposite of freedom.

It's a matter of degree. The USSR wanted a communist world. That was our top fear during the cold war, and that was the focus of our foreign policy, ie. ending the spread of communism. I think we made the right strategic choices overall, although individual cases can be argued. If communism had been permitted to spread, we would not have the ability to focus our energies on ending totalitarian rule as we are today. Chile is the most prosperous and free nation in South America today thanks in large part to US influence. The US doesn't want any nations to live under tyrants, but we must prioritize our efforts based upon our own interests. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

I would like to address this note to "My Fellow Americans", as LBJ used to say: Notwithstanding all of this moral posturing (U-S-A, U-S-A!), there is plenty of evidence available to anyone who is willing to look (and I suspect most of my fellow Americans are not) which clearly demonstrates a consistent pattern of American disrespect for "democracy" and "peace," and a willingness to embrace not just non-democratic forces but outright death squads, when perceived US interests are at stake: Iran, 1953, Guatemala, 1953-4; Vietnam 1956-75; Indonesia, 1965; Chile, 1973, Central America through the 1980s; these are the tip of the iceberg, and we're already talking about millions of lives lost and decades of brutal tryanny in places around the world: your tax dollars at work. We Americans have a long and ugly track record, and we should hardly be surprised if most of the rest of the world thinks it is pointless to try to reason with us so long as we persist in denying this record. Why do they hate us? If you really believe it is because "they hate our freedom," as President Bush says, then you are deceiving yourself and you will continue to be surprised by the seemingly inexplicable anti-Americanism our policies have engendered. Useful resources on this history include: William Blum, Killing Hope (Common Courage Press, 1995); Gabriel Kolko, Confronting the Third World (Pantheon, 1988); and just about anything by Noam Chomsky; and if you doubt that the US government has a track record of successfully (!) lying to the US people about its foreign policy, look at Daniel Ellsberg, Secrets (Viking, 2003). And by the way, the US is among the least generous of the rich countries in its foreign aid (most of which is in any case doled out to support US foreign policy goals rather to help the world's neediest. more shock and awe, Mark

Whether you feel America is more dangerous than terrorists depends upon your point of view. The question has not divided greatly from 2 years ago when Mr Bush declared, "are you with us, or not?". If you feel America is more dangerous, chances are you or your family has not been attacked by terrorists. The specter of militant Islam has not crossed your path, and there is a belief that if the terrorists are simply placated they will eventually go away. If you feel the terrorists are more dangerous then you probably have been touched by the black hand of terrorists, and realize they will not stop until you and yours are dead or converted to Islam. As an American I must say that I am of the second sort, and thank God he has given us Mr Bush to protect our citizens and to understand the exact threat which faces the modern world. It is actually more dangerous to refuse to see the threat, turn the other way, and wish for them to go away. To the Turks who stated they wanted peace, and got bombed this weekend for it. To the Saudis who first paid them off and are now the target of recent bombings. To the UN who pledged restraint and peace and in return were blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not showing any progress to try to be more understanding. They are not rational, and therefore need to be eradicated. They threaten all Non-Muslims, even moderate Muslims. They are the extremists, they started the battle. We will see to it that we end it, because the alternative would be too horrible to contemplate. The old adage still holds true. "Live Free or Die"

I was thinking of the number of people killed by the American government as opposed to Americans killed by terrorists. Last year, according to the US State Department Counterterrorism Office, 30 Americans were killed in terrorist incidents. This is not a very large number. Contrast this with the many thousands of Iraqis who have died this year as a result of the invasion.

Robert Luke, notwithstanding, even without considering, what you say about America as the champion of freedom, the US State Department Counterterrorism Office, supports my contention that America is more dangerous to human life than terrorists if we compare the 30 Americans killed with the thousands of Iraqis killed. Underlining that observation is the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq resulting from the invasion. America is not only more of a threat than terrorism but it even increases the threat of terrorism. George Bush may not be running the country. At least, we hope not, but this situation fits well with thought processes.

Benjamin, You say: "I am not saying Americans do not kill civillians, they do as much as any other country does in war. But the difference is in the intent. " What difference does it make if you kill thousands of civilians on purpose or out of callous disregard? Could you explain that to the bereaved? Especially, if you kill a far greater number with casual indifference than are killed deliberately. Your argument seems rather foolish as well as immoral.

Benjamin, You mention the number 3,000 as the number of Iraqi dead resulting from the invasion. Try 25,000 dead and 75,000 seriously injured. Is this justified? Would Saddam have done that, or anything like it? Nobody is saying that the situation of the Iraqis under Saddam was not dire. But it would have been improved by lifting non-military sanctions. America refused to promote a normalizing of relations with Iraq. The havoc of war and the horrors of sanctions supported by America are far beyond the 725 people killed in terrorist incidents in 2002, to confine ourselves to the comparison with Iraq.

I'd like to point some things out to Benjamin. One, the aboriginal people he refers to are the Beothuck, and Canada had nothing to do with their extinction, because the last of their race died in 1821, 46 years before Canada became a country. Two, there was no genocide per se. Most of them died of hunger and disease because as Europeans moved into their areas of habitation, they left those areas. They chose to not have contact with Europeans. Yes there was conflict, but to categorise their demise as genocide is wrong.

Few points that seem erroneous to me. "> There are only two choices: You supported Saddam's removal, or, you supportes Saddam's continued rule. That's reality, sorry." and... "> That is an empty argument unless you had an alternate proposal for removing Saddam's regime. What was your plan?" While it is not encumbent upon djeanroy to come up with an alternative plan - he's allowed to see the war plan as wrong without presenting an alternative - others have contributed alternatives. For example, the US may have made good there promise to back the Kurds in the North and the Shi'ites in the south in the post-war uprisings against Hussein. Instead of some of the bad sanctions which deprived Iraqis of food and medicine, the US (and UN) might have lent support to the middle class, strengthening it against the regime, particularly amongst those groups who hated Hussein. The legitimacy of this kind interference is questionable, but it may have obviated the illegal war which killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, deaths pro-invasionists seem to sweep under the carpet. Seeing only two sides to an argument, instead of many, is known as bifurcation, a common fallacy of reasoning, also known as the black/white fallacy. While the consideration is now moot, the discussion is still useful. "Most nations support our efforts to establish democracy in Iraq." Most nations opposed the war. Many nations do not want to see the US pull out of Iraq, or if so, to be replaced by a multi-national contingent. They are forced into this position by the exigencies brought about by the war, not because they support the US rhetoric on importing democracy through war. "If you feel the terrorists are more dangerous then you probably have been touched by the black hand of terrorists, and realize they will not stop until you and yours are dead or converted to Islam." This does not account for the large number of NY protesters who said "not in our name". An understandable, but false and emotional argument. "Now compare that to the ever increasing unknown amount of Iraqi's we have helped that aren't even born yet. And compare that also to the unknown and ever increasing amount of Iraqi's Saddam would be killing." There is no moral basis for arguing in favour of 'collateral damage' in this way. It supposes what it cannot prove, either, just infer from histoy. And it is not yet determined if Iraqis have been helped. While Iraqis continue to suffer, this is premature analysis. It is not yet possible to compare Hussein's kill rate with the body count since war began to the present, not that this would be a moral exercise either.

America puts many people in danger; however, I doubt that America is more dangerous than terrorists. America does not dip 3rd place Olympians in vats of acid, cut out people's tongues, cut off people's fingers, or make women walk around covered from head to toe. America is a stable place to live, albeit the economy is on the downside right now...but we have food, clothing, computers to post our opinions on, right? Right. On to a different note... If Saddam doesn't have the weapons of mass destruction Bush says he does, then we probably shouldn't be there. America serves too many times as the "police force of the world." WE ARE NOT! Vietnam, Iraq, what next? Invade Africa because we think that the Africans are uncomfortable running around with just a simple cloth? I mean...aren't they cold? duuhhhhhhhh... COME ON!! People are just fine without the US telling them when to go to the bathroom, and what to wear, and what is best for them. Let well enough alone. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In Iraq's case, I am relieved that Saddam Hussein is no longer running around trying to run his pseudo-country. I am perfectly happy with the idea of him rotting in jail for the rest of his life.

Just as an example of American military technology against Iraq achieving results which the torture chambers could hardly outdo, take the widely-reported story of Ali Abbas. "WAR CRIES By Mark MacKinnon The Toronto Globe and Mail April 12, 2003 BAGHDAD -- Ali Ismaeel Abbas lies back in his bed, powerless to cover his tiny, charred body from the prying eyes of strangers. There are just bandaged stumps where his arms used to be. From his upper chest to below his waist, the 12-year-old's skin is a myriad of colours, bright red to coal black, shades that speak of a pain that must be excruciating. But the burns, which doctors say cover 50 per cent of his body, are far from the first thing Ali is worried about. Ali is scared that without his arms, he will never be able to play with his friends again. And he's not sure how he'll live without his mother, father and younger brother, all of whom were killed when their house was struck last week by an errant American bomb. His six sisters were also injured in the blast."

Kingpin, the mere defination of terrorists is a vague and often debated one. But in reference to Al-Queda, they do not want to convert people to their warped version of Islam nor are they true Muslims. They are just murderers and thieves guised in the excuse of religious "duty". Have you ever wondered if the policies that President Bush have contributed to the rise in young Arabs joining extremists groups? Did you know that Hamas, a terrorist organistion, also gives food and shelter to young children much like another charity organisation? Sometimes, we can't simply shrug the issue to polarising camps and say, "If you are not with us, you are for us.", because the definition of "for us" and "against us" is too vague and blurred. Shouldn't Bush, as a leader of a superpower nation, be more inclined towards better ways to fighting terror than just military means? Remember, you are not only fighting a physical war, but you are fighting for the hearts and minds of those young children that are being fed by Hamas while being bombed by America? Who would they think, is the "good" one?

You mistake what I mean, eric. First of all, to clarify, when I meant the frontlines, I didn't mean Iraq. I was talking about terrorist organisations who train children as sucide bombers, foot-soldiers, etc. You are right to point out the Iraqi lives that were bombed by Americans during the invasion. You are right to say that American foreign policies are dangerous and bad because these policies have indirectly contributed to the terror the free world now face. But I disagree when someone tells me that America are more dangerous than terrorists. Why? America acts as a stablising force in other parts of the world. America is not defined by the Iraq war, nor is America defined by the Bush administration. There is also a powerful deterrence in America towards war-mongering and acts of terror against human lives (something that is obviously lacking in terrorists). That deterrence lies in democracy. Through democracy, people have the right to express their opinions. And with the age of the media, pictures & articles & video clips, are filtering through from Baghdad. Look at what you have cited to me, from the Toronto Globe and Mail, isn't that from a news article somewhere? Wouldn't that be the most powerful of forces that would sway public opinion and make Americans wonder why they are so despised in the Middle East, the Arab world and hotly opposed in European & Asian countries? I admit, at this moment, I seriously wonder if democracy is working. Bush has, in the course of his four years in office, have broken apart the U.N, torn away from treaties signed expressively to hold peace among nations, and brought America into war with a nation that had no clear present danger, inadvertedly drawing all elements of terror into that nation which has endangered the lives of the civilian Iraqi people and the American, British, Italian, Japanese troops stationed there. But can we then infer that terrorists are less dangerous? These people have been indoctrinated to think only one way, and no other way is acceptable. If they have a nuclear bomb at their disposal, they would use it. I think the only reason why terrorists can be portrayed as lacking in violence compared to America is because they lack the means to or are being detered by anti-terrorism efforts(to my own knowledge). Isn't that a good thing that they do not possess the means to kill on a even larger scale than they do now? So do not be mistaken, because terrorists are not going to hesitate to put a bullet in the head of a child if it would further their cause for terror. That is their aim. To end off, I mourn for Ali Ismaeel Abbas and other Iraqis who have been the victims of this war. But don't forget that at the same time, the Iraqis might have a chance to experience life apart from oppression, with the ousting of a dictator that murdered many in his reign. Still, I don't condone war, for the price is too great and too terrible.

To clarify yet again, America does not have a monopoly on democracy. I disagree with anyone who argues that too. America's superpower status does not give the legitmacy to dictate the form and shape of democracy in another country. Terrorism is fundamentally different than a nation's military exploits. True, both take lives on a massive scale, and so, could be compared based on the scale of lives lost to determine which is more lethal. But when a nation goes to war, or engages in military activities, there is still accountablity within the nation's political system and in the larger international world. You say that America has the means to inflict violence to any nation at any time it so wishes. But would America do that? It doesn't make good political sense. The president has to be accountable in the end, and if he sends the army on a large scale war, he would have to answer to the common people for his actions, not to mention the pressure that would be upon him from the international world. Don't forget, as the world is getting smaller with globalisation, we are becoming much more interlinked in our economies. Businesses tend to suffer when war erupts, and the economy would take a severe beating. Business in the U.S with foreign contracts would lobby political pressure on the White House & Congress. That is how democracy wo