It's only been in the last 30 years that Americans turned into the
pansies of the world. What you now call "justice" and "nobility" most
of the world called "stupid" and "ineffective".

Of course you can provide objective evidence to substantiate that
claim. :-)

Yep. A prime example was called "The failed Clinton Administration."

In any event, just because most of the world is still in the dark ages
culturally, doesn't make their opinions more valid than ours; quite
the contrary.

Agree 100%, but we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about
actions. The 1990s weres a period of American inactivity and
impotence that set the stage for 9/11.

Even if that were true, it would have been an incorrect opinion
obviously. Someone I admire once said, "Walk softly, but carry a big
stick."

Teddy Roosevelt well understood the concept of power diplomacy.
Sadly, Clinton and his "launch a cruise missile to divert media
attention from Monica's stained dress" strategy only showed bin Laden
and his ilk that Americans were more concerned with blow jobs than
terrorists.

I prefer that policy to tramping around loudly rattling
sabers (at enormous cost in lives and money) and having nothing but a
display of bravado to show for it in the end.

What "policy"? Do you actually think that Clinton's approach was a
"policy"? You have clearly mistaken a president reacting to the
latest opinion polls for policy-making and leadership.

Clinton never led anything or anyone. He followed the polls, period.
He was immensely popular with our allies because he asked for -- and
did -- precisely nothing. He was a nice-talking, chubby stuffed
shirt that they could put on their podiums without fear of making
waves, or stirring thought. He spoke in platitudes, and proposed good-
sounding, unrealistic tripe that no one could object to, because
everyone knew it was just silly stuff.

He was a feel-good guy in a feel-good time -- and he utterly failed to
see the storm brewing.

Even the Coalition's stunning success in Kuwait, during Desert Storm,
didn't fully dispel the notion that we wouldn't fight back.

I would characterize that policy of limited engagement as prudent,
effective, and smart.

Sadly, our enemies did not concur with your assessment.

Guys like Sadaam and bin Laden were encouraged by our failure to finish
the job.

What failure? The job was finished. Saddam was reduced to a
militarily impotent potentate keeping the "peace" in the middle east.

Right. Saddam was able to spin our "retreat" after Desert Storm into
a "victory" that only cemented his place in Middle Eastern
hierarchy. He was the guy who had successfully stuck his thumb in
the eye of the Superpower, and got away with it.

Apparently you have already forgotten the way he took great pride and
pleasure with throwing out the completely impotent United Nations
"inspectors" -- making the US (and UN) the laughing stock of the
world...

Invading Iraq has been precisely as costly as the military knew it
would be, given the relatively tiny commitment we were willing to
make. Personally, I would have much preferred taking out Saddam's
palaces with massive air raids, and then installing a puppet
government like the British used to do. Sadly, that would have taken
many more troops than we were willing to commit.

Had we followed the British recipe, we would be on our way home by
now... Now, we can only follow the strategy of fomenting unrest
between ethnic and religous groups under the cover of democratic
reform (also a British strategy, BTW) -- which will ultimately work
but will be MUCH messier.

Now the equilibrium is upset, and fighting is breaking out in Turkey,
Lebanon, Syria, ..., and probably Iran, Jordan, and elsewhere soon.
Not too smart, if stability is an important part of the goal.

"Fighting is breaking out" in the Middle East? Stop the presses!

:-)

Violence begets violence. America's reaction to attack is a natural
human one, but a THINKING leader could have found cheaper, less overt
and more effective methods to neutralize terrorist organizations (for
example not releasing the Bin Laden family to fly out of the country
during the grounding of all civil aircraft immediately after the
September 11, 2001 attacks), if that was truly his objective.

I don't think it's possible to argue with success. The fact that we
have not been attacked since 9/11, despite massive efforts by the
enemy, speaks volumes as to the effectiveness of our strategy.

Since then, the terrorists have been completely neutralized --
truly a great, historic American victory.

Well, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! :-)

Terrorism will never be neutralized. Where did you ever get that
idea?

Of course it's an ongoing battle, with fluid tactics on all sides.

But I think it's safe and proper to declare "victory" every five years
or so. Pat yourself on the back and then get back to the war... We
have "won" the first five rounds.

Violence is the sole effective weapon against indifference the
disenfranchised possess. Until (and if) that changes, and the
Russians run out of weapons to supply our enemies, terrorism will
continue. How naïve can you be? (shaking head in incredulity)

Which "indifference"? Ours? Theirs?

Terrorism will continue until the futility of it all is made clear to
our enemies. It will not stop one minute before that revelation is
made.

Of course, the liberal media won't present it that way, perhaps ever.

So you have firsthand information that contradicts the mainstream news
media? Tell me more...

You don't seriously believe that the mainstream media would *ever*
report success in the war on terror, do you? I really didn't think
you were *that* naive!

I spent 21 years in newspapers, working closely with the newsrooms. I
can personally attest to the fact that there wasn't a card-carrying
conservative in the newsrooms at any of the four newpapers I worked
for and with. These people would rather die than admit that ANYTHING
G.W. Bush is doing might be working.

Bottom line: Bush can claim victory until America is successfully
attacked again. That's the only measurable in this war.

Remember, this is the same group that can't see Korea and Viet Nam as
anything but "American meddling in civil wars." Students of history
understand the significance of these battles, and the fact that they
were, in fact, different fronts in our (victorious) decades-long Cold
War with the Soviet Union and China.

That war still seems to be alive and well today to some extent. It
would be a mistake for America to believe that we have won a complete
victory in the cold war.

True enough. Russia seems to be stumbling back onto the world stage,
like a drunk after a 3-day bender. And, of course, China has
discovered the way to beat us at our own game. But they are hardly
the same country as Mao's Red China....

It is unfortunate indeed for America to have such an ineffectual
Gilligan at its helm during this important period in history. The
sooner he is replaced with an intelligent, knowledgeable and creative
leader that other world leaders can be seen publicly respecting
without fear of reprisal from their constituency, the sooner progress
toward peace may resume.

If by "peace" you mean "retreat" and if by "creative" you mean
"isolationist", I agree. Cuz that's precisely what is coming down the
pike... If our next president is a Democrat, that is.

As long as the same corrupt and inept people continue to occupy their
Congressional and Executive seats, little will change.

You still haven't come to grips with the fact that our government is
only marginally controlled by elected officials? It's the "corrupt
and inept" career bureaucrats who run virtually EVERYTHING, and
patiently roll their eyes every time some new Gomer is elected,
knowing full-well that they are invulnerable to every attempt at
"reform". All they have to do is bide their time, and wait for the
next group of Congress-critters to roll into town, not knowing where
the rest rooms are...

Until THAT changes, NOTHING will change.

Imagine if that huge amount of money had been used toward reducing
class size, and increasing the skill level of personnel involved in
public education, real research to replace petroleum as our nation's
fuel of choice, infrastructure maintenance, and fundamental scientific
research, instead of being flushed down a toilet called Iraq. Our
nation would become invincible instead of insolvent. But oh well....

Or the space program. Or any of a zillion other things. Or -- better
yet -- let "We the People" actually KEEP our money? Wouldn't THAT be
nice?

I hope you never find yourself the subject of a police arrest by an
LEO who mistakes you for one of those "scum." Or perhaps it would be
a fitting irony.

You need to ride with a cop for a week or two, preferably at night,
preferably in the inner city of a medium-sized (or larger) American
city. Within ten minutes you will be able to pick out the bad guys,
and even you will shake your head at how they control the streets.

Then let's talk all your nice feel-good BS, and we'll see how it
stands up to real-world scrutiny.

Regardless, ALL persons deserve to be treated with respect and
dignity, even murders, felons, and even illiterate, impoverished
rednecks. The price of that respect isn't nearly as high as the price
of the Gestapo's lost of respect for citizens.

No one said anything about not treating them with respect or
dignity. That has NOTHING to do with taking back our streets, and
our inner cities.

It's quite possible to treat perps with dignity and respect, as you
walk them into a prison cell.

Perhaps you see the Amish, who forgave the killer who coldheartedly
murdered their children recently, as stupid. I see them as
enlightened and noble. We need to surmount or primal instincts and
use our intelligence to learn a lesson, IMO.

Forgiveness is an admirable trait; it has nothing to do with
justice. I would forgive someone who stole my car -- but I would also
demand they do prison time.

A lack of arrests doesn't increase street hazards; it just doesn't
reduce them.

WTF? With that way of thinking why have police at all? Let's just
forgive all the bad guys, and quit ****ing away billions on police and
prisons.

Because you haven't lived under an arbitrary system of (in)justice
that behaves as you seem to prefer (guilty until proven innocent), you
don't really have any idea of the consequences of what you seem to be
proposing.

I want a fair and equitable legal system. Right now, the perps have
all the "rights" while the victims are ignored or worse. The pendulum
needs to swing...again.

The police have my utmost respect.

Some do and some don't. When I see a LEO needlessly using his
authority and might as an excuse to vent his vicious tendencies
against a helpless citizen overwhelmed by blue-suits, or the planting
of evidence on suspects as occurred in the LAPD Rampart case*, it
makes me cringe, and it should make you feel the same.

Perhaps the situation is different where you are, but citizens in Los
Angeles County and neighboring counties have almost as much to fear
from the LEOs as they do from gangsters and criminals.

People in Los Angeles County have turned paradise into the hell-hole
it is today -- an area where no good citizen may tread without fearing
for their life.

If the people there fear the police more than gangsters, I think it's
pretty clear why. Or are you that naive?

It's time the people of our nation halt its progress toward
intolerance, retreat from the rule of law and justice, and demand they
be respected as set forth in our nation's Constitution: all created
equal. As soon as a privileged class exempt from obeying the law
emerges, the beginning of anarchy will be neigh.

The only "privileged class" that exists in our society today are the
inner city criminals who so out-number the police that the streets are
like Baghdad, where the "good guys" can only control areas for a few
hours before retreating to safe havens. This "class" knows full well
that they are immune from justice, cannot be prosecuted, and are able
to terrorize and convert any good folks who may still live in their
neighborhoods.

It's a national catastrophe that BOTH parties are ignoring -- with
ultimately long-term horrendous consequences.

In any event, it is unfortunate that the unruly airline passenger (who
apparently threatened no one) died at the hands of Mounties in the
airline terminal. The incident should serve as impetus to refine
arrest methods and procedures.

Agree.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"