Gee, I guess I did tramatize you... Take it easy, this is just a written debate.

If illogical claims designed to bolster the reputation of the Bush administration were enough to traumatize me, I would have been institutionalized years ago. Do not mistake my vigorous defense of the truth for trauma.

But I would propose to take seriously any threat they may pose to my country, hence the Iraq invasion, and the Afganistan Taliban effort. This is called, "self defense". For Iraq, it is also called, "very poor Intelligence".

Quick correction of a technicality: Iraq does not and never did belong in the "self defense" column. It was always in the "bad intel" column. The fact that this bad intel, for a time, made warmongers appear to believe that Iraq was a matter of self-defense does not change this fact.

That the Middle East countries are not perfect is not America's fault or problem - it is their's.

Primarily, those countries are responsible for their own future, sure. However, you cannot so easily claim that America had no hand in their current troubles. Iraq and Saddam? He could never have gotten so far without our help. Iran? You don't suppose our forced removal of their democratically-elected leader and installation of the Shah had any effect on that country? Naw...

Pakistan on our side? Sure it is; Look at what they do with their military and diplomatic efforts - that is what counts and that is all that we can hope to influence.

Funny. That's just what they said about Iran. I guess that's why Iran has been such a true and loyal ally all these years, eh?

I wish all the young people in Pakistan wanted to wear western jeans and watch Hollywood movies, but what they actually do, and the consequences thereof, is fully in their hands.

What they do is in their hands, to be sure. The consequences thereof, one can't be sure. Once a Muslim population throws off the yoke of its American puppet regime, all bets are off. Again, see Iran.

Incidentally, the Paki coworkers that I have do not echo your relatives; big country I guess.

The fact that you call them "Pakis" says a lot about your level of knowledge of these people. It's as if I said "Hell, all my nigger co-workers just loooove that fried chicken."

Anyhow, I'm marginally interested to know what your dear Paki friends have to say about the current affairs in their country.

I don't mean to take unfair advantage of you, but your youthfullness is very evident. I came of age back in the mid 60's. The cold War (global), the hot war (Vietnam), the Ugly American...

I'm 41. Not exactly a spring chicken. And as for your claim that your age makes you knowledgeable, the content of your "knowledge" does not support it.

The WTC attack could certainly happen again, just as the embassys/WTC/ship bombings happened in the 90's.

Praytell how? Are you saying that 19 Saudis armed with box cutters could take over 4 more jets, while American forces were given firm orders to stand down? That kind of stuff only happens once.

That they have not done so is due to the competance of the Bush Administration in general Foreign Diplomacy and homeland defense - after all, the results describe the efforts.

If you include the whole shoe-removal ritual at the airport as part of homeland defense, then I agree that that has probably helped prevent more attacks. On the other hand, according to our own National Intelligence Estimates, Bush's foreign "diplomacy" has actually created more terrorists and made us less safe.

Your attempt to draw a causal relationship between Bush's blundering and a lack of attacks is intellectually dishonest, particularly given the intel that indicates the opposite of your claim.