[iamthewalrus109]

In regards to comments made about the Bali bombings, Madrid, etc.
these bomings, although terribly tragic in their own right, are not the level of impact psychologically on the world that the 9/11 attacks had, nor were they to the scale and size! Furthermore, with the exception of the Madrid bombings, none had any long lasting effects. Accordinly the Madrid bombings were not as successful as hoped, in that other European countries didn't fold on the coalition deal. The only true effect it had was on Spain in the end. Aside from confirming France and Germany's stance on involvement in Iraq, it really only impacted the country of Spain and it's involvement in Iraq, not to mention the fact they wouldn't have been there in the first place if the US hadn't gone in. Apart form the US and Britain, the coalition is really just a dummie coalition anyway.

Now, as far as Al-Quieda, Jihad, and any other organized terror group, their members need to be destroyed obviously, but to discount pacification of potential areas of recruitment is ubsurd, that is if you value life as we know it. I mean you can't kill every Arab family in the middle east and make sure to wipe out every Shitite Muslim from London to Manilla, just to make sure there's no more terrorists. Pacification of the population is an integral element of the equation, either that or non-stop war and security checks, which are only postponing the inveitable anyway, ultimate destruction. America needs to rethink its trade policies and its stance in these hot bed areas. Maintain a firm hand, but not be so intrusive and aggresive in its global trade policies. While were playing around in the sand in Iraq, the Euro is pounding us, the Chinese are screwing with Eastern currencies and not accepting US goods as heavily in their markets as we accept their's in ours.

The US needs to become more self-sufficent, period. A global economy and global free trade attitude further attaches us to situations in other areas of the world that we wouldn't need to be involved with, especially in the case of our energy needs, which in the end has spurned the issue of global terrorism. They see us as much of a threat as we see them. Pacification of other populations is depedent on a scaling back of global efforts and serious efforts to maintain our country's needs through internal methods. America has so many other natrual resources, most of all food production. With all the knowledge and know how in this country I find it hard to believe that there can't be a way to inovate and arrive at alternatives to foriegn energy products, namely oil. When you think about it this lies at the heart of the issue. America's fight against the Soviet Union and it's intercession in Iraq in the early 90's has been two of the main reasons why Osama Bin Laden chose to attack. Implicit military support to a country is one thing, but having a standing army on the soil of Saudi Arabia was another. Of course it was another Bush in all this. Reagan would have never done anything like that, nor would Dick Nixon, it was inconcievable. Granted the UN had lost much of its ability to resolve such conflicts, but tradionally that's how it was done: Military support and Security counsel action . Forget this business about the "permission slip" or the Bush Doctrine, the bottom line is: our meddling looked capricious to most due the oil issue. I mean give me a break, risk thousands of US troops to save the soverignty of tiny Kuwait from Saddam, but yet then do nothing about Saddam in the end for what: to keep the status quo. Keep Kuwait and the Saudis safe to produce oil and keep Saddam at bay with sactions and limited Military force. All we needed to do was go once, and keep acting arrogantly about what we want from these regions and kaboom! rationale for attack, and further attacks, and our reaction, grounds for even more, until every impoversihed Arab, Muslim and extremeist member of the third world wants all Americans dead.

-Walrus