As for how to get there, I can assure you that the path does not lie with either of the above actions being sanctioned by either side.

Finally, something that I can agree with. Aside from the obvious connotation imparted the word "appeasement" by WWII, I don't anyone on either side promotes appeasement as a means to winning this war. I think your point highlights one of the main differences between the hawks and the doves. The doves don't agree that we treat these Arab countries with respect. Truly, can you name one policy that we've promoted that can be seen favorably from their perspective? I can name a number that are obviously seen unfavorably. It doesn't take a mathematician to add up those numbers.

My gut reaction is that "Arab rancor at U.S." is a positive thing. I have a very hard time believing that the average Arab honestly *liked* us before. We have little in common with them and their culture, and I suspect they have about as much love and desire for the average American lifestyle as the average American has for theirs.

In this case, I'd much rather be respected than liked. We aren't going to win the war by making them like us; appeasement is never the answer. The best we can do is to act responsibly, fairly, and treat them with the respect they deserve--but at the same time, accept that various aspects of their culture are producing an unreasoning hatred, bordering on insanity, that has gone on for hundreds of years. This is *not* a good thing, and may "cultural relativism" be damned to where it belongs.

I won't go into how many people get their news from Fox News, which has been accused of being a mouthpiece for this administration (granted, not quite state-controlled, but not too far from propoganda). The point I want to make is that it doesn't take very much propoganda by government controlled news agencies to turn public opinion against the US when there are things like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, thousands of civilians killed, and continued unreset and insecurity in the region. And that's just what our administration admits to.

"The majority also said they believe the United States invaded Iraq for oil, to protect Israel and to weaken the Muslim world."

Look at it from their perspective. Wasn't it made very clear to the American public before the war that Iraq will pay back the American taxpayer for the war effort in time via oil exports? This is something that is no longer considered significant, but it was said at the time. I imagine it was glossed over so as not to make it seem like we did invade for the oil. (BTW, on this point I don't necessary agree with them, but can see their argument). With regards to the point about Israel, I find it unbelievable that any hawk would argue that point. Lacking other proof that Saddam supported terrorism, hawks *always* fall back on Saddams policy of funding terrorist attacks on Israel via Mulsim guerrilla groups. So from their perspective, it's clear that part of this was to protect Israel.

"the metric is popularity in the world, then our efforts since 9/11 have been disastrous"

Why, oh why can't people just at least *consider the possibility* that our policies are indeed unfair and that account for some of the hostility? I'm not excusing terrorists, and I think we would have extremists willing to kill Americans no matter what our policies were. But what we are facing now is not limited to some extremists. We are facing entire nations who openly express anger towards us because of our policies. In other words, a few complaints can be dismissed as irrelevant. On this scale, as free thinkers in a global society it's our responsibility to critically examine our behavior. I hate to use the word, but this really is a hubris that we are unwilling to acknowledge.

"So to first hit Afghanistan was smart, knowing that these terrorists would scatter throughout Europe and Northern Africa and the Middle East"

I call bull on this whole line of reasoning. First of all, our intent was not to scatter terrorists throughout most of Europe and Africa. This was some combination of circumstance and poorly executed military exercises (on the part of the Northern Alliance at the very least). Can you argue that it's better to scatter bin Laden than to capture him? If Iraq and Afghanistan were part of some grand plan as this poster implies, the logical approach would have been to invade in the reverse order to control more borders that bin Laden could escape through. In other words, it was not orginally planned like this, it evolved as such for reasons that each side contends with zeal.

There is no way on earth we are going to compel cooperation from everybody between Morocco and the southern Phillipines by military force. Any one of those countries might by a haven for terroists, and we will find them only with cooperation. So where we cannot compel we must persude.

It's all very well to blame "media bias" for Muslim dissatisfaction with our policies, (Funny, isn't it, how that old bugaboo media bias is responsible for so much dissatisfaction both at home and abroad.) but it is still something we must address proactively to have any chance of effectively "fighting terrorism".

You guys DO want to effectively "fight terrorism", dontcha?

So maybe we should look a little harder at the policies that spawn such discontent.

I agree with your statement 100 percent. I'm sorry that so many Americans and citizens of other countries can't see the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. To look for meetings between these two is ridiculous--they meet in person or any other way as frequently as world leaders ever meet one another. But they share a mutual hatred of George H. W. and George W. Bush. There was a great deal of Al Qaeda infiltration throughout the Middle East--no country was spared. What we are fighting is World War II in that the enemy is all around us, uses highly advanced propaganda techniques, and believes in anihilation. But there are no heads of state involved that are identifiable so in another sense it is like waging war against organized crime (the Mafia, or the Mob). Our enemies are truly everywhere. George W. Bush took a true WWII general's approach to the situation that existed immediately before and after 9/ll. We needed a foothold in the Middle East, and Iraq posed a threat. So to first hit Afghanistan was smart, knowing that these terrorists would scatter throughout Europe and Northern Africa and the Middle East, countries in which they had friends and a presence. So after driving them out of Afghanistan, we needed to block them from setting up a base of operations somewhere else, which likely would have been Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a very weak leader, his inner circle associates have told us, so Iraq would have been a logical choice. Unfortunately, George W. Bush will get punished for being ahead of the game here. Interesting that some are tring to say he should have prevented the events of 9/11, but when he tries to take some preventive strategies, he gets crucified. It has been appalling to see the antiwar movement rise up against this president.