Hi John,

>>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?

>"Reliable poll", it's kinda like jumbo shrimp, isn't it. Then there's the issue of who's doing the poll and what built in biases they have employed, etc. I'm confident of what I said based on personal observation.

Then at least give me some real world statistics. All I've got now is your own words. Really not much to base anything on. I've seen no poll at all indicating it is safer or not. Representing your own perception of beeing safer and project that onto 300 million american would go a bit far wouldn't you think. Look I'm doing scientifical work. I only care about numbers. All I see is perceptions of individuals or numbers from which the calculation is missing (75%). As a scientist you don't give much to run on.

>Yep, I thought so, you are a follower of Michael Moore and his spinmeisters. His entire diatribe has been totally discredited. It's Fraudulent 911!

Absolutely not. To be clear. My opinion was drawn far before Micheal Moore released his books and movie. Mine is 90% based in what I see on the news here in holland. And we have a tradition here in holland (unlike in the US) that the news on the TV are unbiased. The newspapers might have a political background but the news on the TV does not. However, there are not much differences to find in the perception of american politics in our parties.

I take you're a republican and always have voted republican. I'm neither one of them. I've got no personal gain depending on which president is choosen. The news shows the events of elections
every day on the news here, so we know a lot of your country. I've been there quite a few times. I have american friends and colleages with whom I also talk about politics. I'm able to compare the US elections (one big hollywood show) with those that are common in Europe or Canada. Are you?

>Well, yes I think there is more than adequate proof, here's a few examples from the american daily at http://www.americandaily.com/article/2330:

The UN is like a small country and indeed has its shortcommings and failures. Now that beeing said. We could easily draw a parralell to american politics.

>1. The most well-known moral failure of the UN in recent memory took place in Rwanda, in 1994. UN peacekeeping troops did nothing to prevent Rwandans from being slaughtered in a spasm of "racial cleansing." The UN did worse than nothing -- Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was ordered to withdraw UN troops as the killing began. Soldiers and civilians of the Hutu majority killed more than 500,000 minority Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus in 100 days; an estimated 800,000 were murdered altogether.

Well lets see. You remember what happened in somalia? The US stepped in (I don't remember whether or not under the flag of the UN) to stop the genocide in Somalia. All it resulted in was that the war lords united against the US. The US eventually decided it was not worth the lives of american soldiers: There was no economical interest there.

>2.The government of Sudan is obstructing the flow of aid to the people of Darfur. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he "cannot call the killing a genocide even though there have been massive violations of international humanitarian law." Apparently the phrase that became the UN's motto after Rwanda, "Never Again," meant "Until Next Time."

See somalia. The problem is that you cannot control war all over the world. It is a myth you can. From a humaninity aspect it is absolutely terrible happening there (though recent indications it is a bit better now), but the alternative is somalia, or on a larger scale iraq or vietnam. Worth the cost?

We in holland have our own shame as well called sebrenica. The dutch UN troops in sebrenica were suprised by a huge attack of the serb to the muslim stronghold. They were in no position to fight back. They asked for air support (From france and the US), but did not get. They felt they had no choice than to step asside: Result. Tents of thousands of muslim man were murdered by the serbs.

>3.As far as morals are concerned, the UN certainly has no right to claim the high ground. Sexual predators thinly disguised as UNHCR aid workers took advantage of their positions of power in West African nations to demand sex from children as the price of aid for their families.

Hmmm reminds me of a high number of american priests.

>The BBC reported in 2002 that workers in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea had been exploiting those people who came to them for help. Now the sexual abuse in return for protection and food has moved to the Congo, where the 4,000 UN peacekeepers stationed in Bunia have fathered an unknown number of illegitimate children on unmarried girls.

Too easy. This is not the whole story. You have to keep this in perspective. If you base any military whether the UN, the US army or any other army anywhere there will be incidents. Especially on the sexual side. Packing up thousand of men for a long period of time is not a benificial factor. You cannot require anyone to be a munk, so there will be sexual events between the two sides. Sexual abuse should be bannished for sure, but don't forget there might a big percentage of sexual events that don't fall under the category 'abuse'

>4.The UN is also the seat of world-class fraud and corruption. The massive oil-for-food/oil voucher scandal (often nicknamed "UNSCAM" or "oil-for-fraud") is only just beginning to make a dent in the "mainstream" news. Powerful and influential figures in UN member states, especially France and Russia, received millions of dollars in discounted oil vouchers, which could be sold on the open market. The list of 270 recipients (which covers just the year 1999) includes politicians, religious figures, and heads of corporations, many of whom figured prominently in the opposition to the liberation of Iraq. One name that stands out on the list is that of UN Undersecretary General Benon Sevan, head of the oil-for-food program that was set up in 1996 to guarantee that humanitarian aid reached the Iraqi people through the UN's sanctions. The UN itself oversaw each transaction, and took a 2.2% administrative fee, amounting to $1.2 billion over the years. Under UN mismanagement, deliberate or not,
>Saddam Hussein managed to siphon off over $10 billion with which to buy palaces, illegal weapons, and the United Nations.

Indeed sad, if true.

>So, you think the UN is a good thing? Hmmm.

The UN has good sides and bad sides. Now ask your politicians what to say about the UN and listen to their answer and draw your conclusion. Give me a reason why the US does not break with the UN ?

>>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 ???

>No, I understand you can defend yourself by attacking someone before they attack you!

Ahhh. I see.... Isn't this what happened in Vietnam and Cuba? And now in iraq? Beeing paranoid (or force by other invisible forces (weapon industry)) and use that as an argument to attack?

Sure you can attack to defend, but then you have to have the hard evidence the other side is a thread to you. In this case it was not the case. It was not proven. There are other countries beeing a bigger potiential thread.

Walter,