To: Raymond Duray who wrote (214498 ) 1/9/2005 9:54:24 AM From: RetiredNow Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572551 The problem with your analysis is that Muslim fundamentalists have no organized military, aren't the most powerful force in their own region, let alone the planet and don't seem to be interested in conquest quite so much as in containing America's rapacious imperial armies. Having no organized military to strike is exactly what makes the jihadis powerful. They're hard to pin down. So they are always a danger. They certainly aren't interested in conquest. They are interested in destruction. You can see it in Iraq. They would prefer Iraq descend into chaos, rather than allow democracy to blossom. As far as America's rapacious imperial armies...what evidence do you have of that? In every case that we fought back against an offensive power (e.g. Germany, Japan), we stabilized, organized a democracy, and then left. You call that imperialism? We're trying to do the same in Afghanistan and Iraq now. Unfortunately, the leaders of today don't have a tenth of the ability of the leaders in WWII. This is exactly the line of reasoning that worries me most. Many Americans have been lulled into thinking the jihadis aren't dangerous and that we can pull back into fortress America and we'll be safe. That's just not true. Also, everybody blames America for the problems of the Middle East, but a more accurate finger pointing may be towards Britain. They are the ones who drew the disfunctional lines that carved up the Middle East into its current faction. Unfortunately for us, we are blamed, which means we have no choice but to clean up Britain's mess, so that we don't suffer another 9/11. That's not imperialism. That's aggressive, long term defense of our own people.