[2003 - "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."(1)  

Wasn't this exactly what the President did?]  

Remember that before the war started, UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq turning up nothing because there was nothing to turn up. We now know that a lot of the WMDs that Saddam was reputed to have were in actuality only on paper; and they were only on paper so that Saddam wouldn't kill his own weapons developers for not developing those weapons. And all that documentation comes from before the FIRST Gulf War.  

Now, as for the second part; no, Bush didn't. Bush kicked out the UN weapons inspectors while the inspectors were getting the utmost in support from the Iraqi regime ... Saddam was cooperating!  

[In this debate, Sen. Kerry also said a lot of things that are clichés, like "reaching out to Muslims." What does reaching out to Muslims mean? Is that a new term for appeasement?]  

This is the language of diplomacy for "constructive engagement." And rather than to explain twice, I'm going to answer this question where your friend advises 'draining the swamp to reduce the number of mosquitoes.'  

[He said that he wants to enlist the support of all other countries in the fight against terrorism. What if other countries do not want to come aboard?]  

The biggest stumbling block to garnering support from the international community is; 'what's in it for them?' The Bush regime has locked out any benefit accruing to anybody but his 'bestest buds.' Further, his rebuilding plan follows an ideological argument that locks the Iraqi people out of rebuilding contracts. Let me ask you, WHO is it that is being attacked and beheaded on Iraqi roads; is it the Iraqis? Can you honestly tell me that no one in all of Iraq can drive a truck? This is exactly what is the Iraqis greatest frustration! After an invading army ousted Saddam, another invading army of contract workers ousted Iraqis of any means to earn a living from the reconstruction! So since Iraqis have absolutely no vested interest in the rebuilding, they don't care what happens to foreign contractors. And this ties in beautifully with your next statement ...  

[As one friend put it, "you cannot just sit with a swatter waiting to hit the mosquitoes that come into your house. You have to drain the swamp where the mosquitoes breed".]  

EXACTLY, yes and thank you, we do have to drain the swamp. And guess what that swamp is? ANSWER: It is the lack of any opportunities for Muslims to have any sort of life. What is its source? ANSWER: OIL! Look about the entire Middle East; which nations are most regressive culturally, which nations' inhabitants are most in poverty and lacking of any economic opportunity? Those nations that have OIL! And it is the petro-dollars that fund the regimes of oil sheikdoms to fund madrassas that foment extremism, and the ability to deflect blame for the oil sheik's ineptitude, malfeasance and corruption on the west in order to retain power.  

As Bush seized power, the first thing on his agenda should have been raising the gasoline tax to reduce demand. That reduced demand would have deprived oil sheikdoms of oil revenues, and thus cut the floor out from under all the props that hold Arabs down. With what revenues remain,

oil sheikdoms can invest in their populations to diversify their economic opportunities; and thus attaining real economic opportunities, dry up the source of terrorists.  

[The real battle against Islamic Terror is the ideological battle and this is not even being fought yet.]  

And no, it isn't. My friend, in all my travels around the world, there is one thing that has always stuck with me. No matter how different people are on the surface, they all want the same things in life; family, friends, a home to shut out the evil in the world and a safe place for their families, sufficient food on the table, and a means to pay for it all. Anything more is just manna from heaven. But when you take away all that, including their last shred of dignity and hope by disenfranchising them from society, you reduce them to living by the 'laws of the jungle.' And it is this that is the source of terrorism.  

Islam is that hope and dignity for these poor wretches. And just as we see with the way that the Roman church is addicted to the flow of cash from the coffers of community churches and church owned properties; mosques are every bit as addicted to the flow of cash from emirs and Middle East tyrants, so it is in the mosques' interests to maintain the status quo. But if the flow of petro-dollars from the west is interrupted, then how will these emirs and Middle East tyrants contain the natural eruption of hostilities from a population deprived of their last source of sustenance? ANSWER; they can't, they will fall.  

But, and this should be of interest to you, not only will those emirs and Middle East tyrants fall, they will change. Mosques, lacking of resources to entice followers, isn't much of an enticement. And should the citizens therein, and this is the 'big should,' opt along the lines that Iraq did before Saddam, or that several other Middle Eastern countries are doing that lack oil; then they will rebound with Islam playing a much smaller role. One Middle Eastern country, totally bereft of oil (perhaps you know which one), has mandated that scholars pursuing religious (read Muslim) studies must first pursue and attain a bachalareate degree in non religious courses. Talk about forward thinking; given the option between making a good living in a real career or becoming an imam, which do you think they might choose?  

And this should be our goal. Just as corrupt money has made the American government corrupt (see http://www.geocities.com/jurisnot/ ), so have petro-dollars in the Middle East. And the only way to return these countries to the courses they normally would have taken is to deprive them of those petro-dollars.  

But Bush won't do this, because he takes a cut of every petro-dollar himself. While the 'draining the swamp to reduce the number of mosquitoes' is a good analogy from my part of the (bayou) country, another from just a little west of here (and possibly coming from the Middle East) is to 'cut off the head of the snake.' Bush, and his adminstration is that 'head of the snake.'

I remain very cordially yours,

Terrence Robertson