...is that he took Iraq from Saddam and gave it to Al Qaeda. All he can do now is try to hold off the day that Al Qaeda will take full and undisputed possession of their territory.

Bush doesn't know how to win the war in Iraq or how to get out of it. Hence he's going to "stay the course" until the next president takes over and then he'll try to blame that president for losing Iraq.

Bush is fighting terrorism in a way that practically guarantees victory to the terrorists. Americans are supposed to maintain their resolve forever, Iraqis are supposed to establish 'freedom and democracy' in a country that never saw either, and the terrorists are supposed to quietly give up and go away. But all the terrorists have to do is not quit! If the terrorists can make freedom and democracy impossible in Iraq, then how long can Americans stay resolved?

We didn't win the Cold war or WW II by hoping our enemies would be nice enough to let us win. We didn't put our fate in other people's hands. Yet this is EXACTLY what Bush is doing in the war in Iraq and in the war on terror: he's hoping the terrorists will give up, that the Iraqis will pull their country together, and that Americans can win just by wishing hard enough and long enough and strong enough. But this is just crazy.

One way or another, we need to rid of Bush before we can make any progress against terrorism.

"It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation."

Yes, we need to teach those terrorists not to bomb us.....by bombing them. Yah, that'll work. And meanwhile we will create countless generations of terrorists in response. It is not the terrorists we have to fear as much as their children, and their children's children, etc. This all makes about as much sense to me a parent spanking a child who got sent home from school for fighting.

I think Wendy made a point that no one in politics has the courage to make for fear of being branded an "appeaser".

It is literally impossible to prevent determined people from killing other people. Explosives are easy to make for anyone with a High School Chemistry book. Guns, knives, rocks, garotte are just as easy to obtain or manufacture. When a person is willing to die in the process of that act, there are very few places that can be hardened against their presence.

Violent Criminal behavior is usually driven by socio-economic disparity. I don't think there is any difference here. Yes, that violence is being harnessed within a cultural-religious context, but that only enables techniques such as suicide attacks.

Hawks blustering about "Shock and Awe" are either deluding themselves that this conflict can be resolved by violence (which it can not, short of genocide), or they are knowingly pandering to counterproductive baser instincts for political gain.

The Cold War wasn't one through violence either. Cultural forces such as Coka Cola, McDonalds, and Blue Jeans did more to win the cold war then anything the government did.

We have to understand the Islamic socio-economic situation and try to make their mean quality of life better, so that their resentment and discontent will not be harnessed against us.

Right now, we're just manufacturing terrorists for generations to come.

This President is the most disastreous one ever.

His ability to spread terrorism and hate is mind boggling.

Also, is maiming young Americans and Irakis his concept to

protect America and the world? There is just one answer to

that: STOP HIM by all means, not only him but his buddies,

including the lying Rice.

The GOP surely knows that boxing up this so called Global War on Terror in well

polished and used many times successfully Cold War terms and context is an ever

green polictical tool.

One they appear very willing to milk for all obvious advantages and not so obvious

ones.

War is very profitable for a sizeable component of Amercian Corporate and Capital

interests. It can be shuttled back and forth thru the Federal money machine many

times over. Highly profitable for the big players.

In Mondays Washington Post W.Kristol calls for more troops to subjugate Iraq. This

guy knows what side hes on. Too bad he doesnt go to Iraq in support of his so

deeply held convictions.

He sure talks the game. Dont ask him about the walking part tho.

The author characterizes 9/11 as "the worst day that most of us can remember".

Well, I can remember a few days...

I can remember October 8, 2005, when an earthquake in Pakistan killed around 70,000 people.

I can remember December 26, 2004, when the largest natural disaster in living memory, a tsunami, killed around 230,000 people.

I can remember December 26, 2003, when an earthquake in Bham, Iran killed around 40,000 people.

And yes, I can remember September 11, 2001, when attackers in the United States killed around 3,000 people. That was a horrible day. But was it really the worst day that most of us can remember?

Mr. Shapiro is on to something when looking at the Cold War comparisons that the Bush administration is using to promote the Terror War. You can substitute “Communists” for “Islamists” in the following paragraph.

President Bush in his 9/11 address to the nation describes the enemy as “evil and [who] kill without mercy”, and “extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam”, whose “goal is to build a radical Islamic empire” to “launch attacks on America and other civilized nations.”

Cold War propaganda concentrated on the God-less communists. Now the Terror War propaganda concentrates on similar God-less people, Islamists, who, like the communists, do not worship the Christian God.

Another 50 year war between God-full and God-less people, as if there was not enough angst generated during that half century. I suppose this is something that older Americans can share with their children and grandchildren.

1) In an ideological struggle, how effective are bombs?

2) Athens prevailed in its struggle with Sparta, historically; but both city states were rendered moot by the conflict.