To: Chas. who wrote (201 ) 3/5/2004 9:10:08 AM From: PartyTime Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1017 Chuck, I disagree. By doing what Bush did, Bush played right into the hands of Al Qaeda. He did exactly what they wanted him to do. He clamped down on civil liberties here in America, and he sent America's military into a region more familiar to the multinational Al Qaeda group(s). Why are so many Americans today dying without even a fight involved? Worse, Al Qaeda today is better able to recruit new membership and grow stronger than before, and anti-American targets become greater as America's military spreads out and picks up forces from other nations with those forces also becoming targets. In essence, Bush's response has given Al Qaeda more target capability and more recruitment incentive. Not only does this make matters worse today, they'll be even more tragic tomorrow if Al Qaeda succeeds in increasing its multinational strength. I submit a nation state is needed in order to do what you're suggesting. In fact, our new enemy comes from no nation state, but from its ability to draw new members of countries all over the world. One can cure a medical condition by amputating a limb; but when the condition is internal and viral in the blood it's considerably more difficult to cure. I'm convinced that the proper tools for waging this war are education, trade and sharing life-sustaining technologies. It worries me that I've seen not one American political leader in the aftermath of 9/11 ask: Why it happened? In the aftermath of 9/11, concurrent to going after the perpetrators, we should have immediately coordinated with the world's Muslim community and United Nations member states a worldwide focus on educational forums, learning forums, designed to improve America's relations. What Bush missed was diplomacy; what he showed was militarism. And of militarism? Think how the neighborhood views the bully! It's no different.