I'd like to write about the heroism of all that
we saw.  Men whose job it was to go and risk their lives for others that
they did not no.  And they wren't doing to fight any enemy other than death.
 I can't.   I'd also like to write about how amazing it is to see everyone
come together.  To see differences put aside, if only for a short time.  I
can't write that either.  Or how amazing it is that everything changed for
everyone because of the acts of 19 evil men, and the acts of thousands of
good men.  I can't though.   All I can do is reflect, be amazed, scared,
moved, all at the same time.  Just like everybody else

I really don't want to say much today.  Too many
others are saying things better.  But I am struck by reading the the editorials
from around the world posted on the guardian.
  And conservatgive pundits like andrew sullivan also fall prey to some of
the same faults.  Or not quite faults, but biases.  It is a dangerougs (but
perhaps unavoidable) to ascribe why, rather than what, to people's actions.
 To Andrew Sullivan and others, we were attacked not because of any particular
actions, but because of who we are.  People seem to think that we were either
attacked because of reprehensible policies we have had, or because of what
we represent.  My guess is both.  Hatred, like most emotions has many levels.
There is most likely a fundamental opposition to who we are, as a secular
society.   Our liberal democracy is antithetical in many ways to other civilizations.
 But we are not the only "godless" civlizations.  Sinic society is just as
different to Islamic society as we are.  Our differences probably don't cause
great amounts of hatred, but they allow for very little empathy.   Add to
the mix our actions, which enflame many others.  We are responsible for many
reprehensible acts (I for one find it inexcusable to support Saudi Arabia,
and don't forget we supported Huseein heavily), and are reluctant to admit
them, while quickly pointing out the faults of others..  In addition, the
simple fact that the big dog wears the big target.  You can also add in relative
militancy.  I.  know many Muslims are peaceful, and it is not pc to say so,
but simple statistical evidence will show a correlation between violent actions
around the globe and Islamist insurgents, that far exceed that of other groups.
 There can be many reasons for this, but the fact that it is so can't really
be disputed (though it probably will be).   The point is there are many,
many reasons that we are in conflict.  And I think it right to examine all
of these causes, but the simplistic view that there is one cause annoys me.
 There are many.  And moreover, there are so many, that there is little chance
that we won't be fighting conflicts for a long, long time.  But the
complexity of our conflict also drives home the point for me that we should
be careful about the terms which we use to debate Iraq.  There are many moral
reaons for doing so, and probably more moral reasons for not doing so.  But
we won't be able to get to the center of these, or at least we won't be able
to win an argument about the moral clarity of the issue with others decisively.
 The debate should be in simple terms, the risks of  action (cornering a
rabid dog, and that dogs reaction; dramatic increase in instability in the
region; being outcasts from the internanional "order") vs. inaction (the
risk of many of our citiziens being fried to a crisp.)That being
said, I sure as hell am proud to be an American.  I love the freedom to debate
and the openess of our society.   My favourite quote from Winston Churchill.
 And I'm probably slaughtering it here.  "Democracy is the worst system in
the world.  Except for everything else".

Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus
A little academic, a little pedantic as my coworker says, but a well-written
nuanced view of the differences of opinion between the United States and
Europe. While it does have obvious anti-American bias at times, and reinforces
some of the simplistic sterotypes that are currenntly being used to argue
against the actions we take (or don't take) in the Middle East, it also
dispels some of the similarly simplistic notions we have of why Europe is
seemingly in opposition.





While the article has excellent analysis, I feel
that it is lacking in two areas.One is the problems that may arise
from the way that arguments are made by either side. Brashness and condecension
(I'll let you guess which is which) in the parties arguments result in a
loss of influence (look at me, I think that I'm smarter than people who have
inevitably been incredibly succesful and have studied their fields for years)
on the other party. Why couldn't Bush just say that there are some situations
which would allow us to not attack. He doesn't need to mean it. And the
French don't need to be so damn, French.(By the way, I was really impresed with what Dick Armey had to say.
I'm not sure if I agree with him, but I sure as hell am glad that some one
of his stature and affliitation is going on record with such a position.)



The horrors of two world wars after prolonged nationalism understandbly makes
Europe wary of unilaterlism. It should be careful of its condescension,
but it does have valid concerns as to the precendents that may soon be set.


Yet I still feel that their is a more simple reason that Europe and the States
are at odds. It is ingenious to claim that the threats of terrorism pose
as much of a threat to Europe as they do to the United States. While we
may actually be facing a clash of civilizations,
we, as Americans obviously have the bigger target on our chests. The fear
in the undercurrent here make us understandbly more willing to listen to
reasons to attak. At the same times most Europeans do not see a true threat
and therefore are more dismissive at the admittedly more morally demanding
position of launching a preemptive strike.

let there be light