John,

>[Well I'm glad you feel safer. In europe we had a '311' in madrid exactly one and a half years later, and the threat is going on. In Holland too there have been a few arrest of suspects preparing a hit on various important buildings like our national airport. More or less the same reports from various other european countries. I truly can't say we feel safer.]

>I note that you "can't say" on most of these items you post. All you can offer is puzzlement.

>[And I doubt that any american citizen feels safer. Before 911 they felt immune for terrorism on this scale, because it did not happen before in their own country. 911 made an end to this conclusion and all americans realized that the time of safety within their own country had changed radically.]

>Well, I am an American citizen, and I feel safer now that we have done the things I alluded to, I've also talked to hundreds who feel the same, so there goes your argument.

Well so long as there are no reliable statistics backing up your argument, you can say you 'feel safer' but really does not have any value. However In my case, I know there was a reliable poll indicating that people in holland are worried about terroristic attacks and muslim fundamentalism (this worry did not exist a few years ago). So in fact my indications above are backed up with fact. Can you backup your claim that the average american feels safer with a reliable poll or hard statistics?

>[I find it very ignorant of people thinking they can weed out terrorism by just military power: Very, very short sighted. ]

>Don't remember saying only a military strategy, that might be because that's not what I said. I simply said if we weren't strong, we'd have problems.

>[Bush is not your first man, but rather a puppet (how could he with the intelligence of a peanut?). Who is? Good question...]

>Care to offer some proof? I didn't think so, just trying to be "smarter" by playing to "facts" that "everyone" is aware of. Facts that don't exist, that is.

Well there are some fact to tell about mr bush. First of all he was not intelligent enough on highschool to earn a place on the universaty he went to. His prestations were simply to poor (Yes, that is a fact). It was only because his father was a powerfull man. He was addicted to alcohol and drugs (again a fact). Third, it is very unlikely he became the president of america if he was not the son of Bush sr.

Well go out to your book store and pull out some books (micheal moore?) which are full of facts about mr bush (I saw a few on Phillydelphia airport last week). Did you see the movie? Of course there I won't disagree that you could find some things to discuss about, but there are a lot of facts to find up there.

One fact is for sure. The average american does not have a clue of which forces drive your country. Some lobbies are very strong. Some very powerfull entities do provide the cash the US need to get going. What do they ask in return. It is well known that the weapon industry has a lot of power in your government, explaining why it is so easy for any lunatic to get a weapon very easily. Ever wondered why your government is unable to put an end to the palestinian conflict in the middle east? Just look at who has a lot of power and money in americas government behind the scenes.

>[The US is a member of NATO and the UN. If you're a member, you have to play the rules, or simply leave. The UN was right all along the way. There is/was no evidence of WMD in iraq. The US ignored because of their flood of testosterone. Now you're left with a record breaking dept and presence in two very unstable countries from which you cannot withdraw, sucking up even more money. So what did it gain? Reduced threat to terrorism ? I doubt.]

>The UN is a very corrupt organization.

Can you backup this statment with some proof?

> I'm still wondering why we belong? As for wmd's the jury is still out. This latest deal about the missing weapons, may have been wmds that were moved before the US hit the deck in Iraq. Time may tell, then again, it may not. It's conjecture on either side of the argument though. As for the UN dictating to the US, when we can defend ourselves, hopefully that will NEVER happen.

You seem not to understand the difference between defend and atack. The US did attack iraq for very doubtfull reasons. There was no evidence of WMD, there was no evidence of support of terrorism in iraq. That is a fact. And even bush can not deny it. Iraq was not a thread to the US. There are a lot of other countries who are [Iran, North korea, Saudi arabia]. Might it be that bush was finishing the job of his father ???

>We are a sovereign country and can defend ourselves without begging the UN, particularly when it is somewhat controlled by third world countries.

So, you're saying the US should leave the UN?? I wonder what the politicians say about that. Interesting observation about the UN beeing controlled by third world countries. How could a third world country have the power to control the UN ?

Walter,