howdy

1. even worse peanuts have consistantly killed hundreds of people every year without a sign of ever slowing down, and over the years peanuts have killed many more people than terrorists have.

2. The want to kill us because we are over there, they want to kill us becuase we've supported corrupt regims, they hate us becuase we've given guns to their enemies, and they hate us because we've been meddling with their affairs.

1. All accidental.
2. We were not "over there" at Sept. 2001.
They hate all "Non-Muslims". Read what statements you can find by Amhedinjhad. Or Bin Laden.

The number of peanut related deaths is irrelevant when discussing the reaction of people to a radical sect devising and carrying out the murder of thousands of people or, just a few people.

your wrong, it is very relevent. The whole point is that something that looks so harmless as a peanut actually cause more death than the terrorists that our administration has got us all fearing, the truth is that alot of this fear is blatant exaggerations.

Governmental follies have occurred through out the history of man. The U.S. is not immune to mistakes. Nor do the nations who judge America have pristine histories that make them qualified judges, juries and executioners.
Assuming the role of executioner of Americans, will bring hell fire upon one's homeland. America doesn't present hell fire for any reason less. Unless Bill Clinton is running the country whereas bombing the hell out of Serbians seems perfectly acceptable.

Should we then not strive for betterment?



Brazil, can't tend to it's own business therefore it has never been a factor on the world stage.

Brazil seems to be doing alot better than the US in many areas. Brazilian students seem to score a hell of a lot higher on standardized test than american students, they are also completely self-dependant and produce all of their own energy, and thirdly they don't have to worry about terrorist attacks! Why is that? Just like you said, they aren't on the world stage, they don't go around policing the world and interfering with other nations affairs and so for that reason other nations don't hate them like they hate America, maybe it's time we take apage from their books.

Japan has had it's moment of power. It chose to torture, exterminate and make sport of it's occupation of China as it raped Nanking killing 13 million innocent victims. Then paid for it with hell fire.

I never said the Japanese were perfect, in-fact they are far from it but the fact is that they don't interfer with middle-eastern affairs and so for that reason they don't have to worry about middle-eastern retaliation.

Point being, Arabs, can make headway with America with some effort on their part. But, they have no intention of giving an inch in relations with any western nation. Unless you can present some offering of an olive branch by one Arab which wouldn't carry a billion dollar price tag.

You are right, it doesn't seem like the middle east is offering an olive branch, but yet the United States is guilty of the same thing.

1. You're wrong, it is very relevent. The whole point is that something that looks so harmless as a peanut actually cause more death than the terrorists that our administration has got us all fearing, the truth is that alot of this fear is blatant exaggerations.

2. Should we then not strive for betterment?

3. Brazil seems to be doing alot better than the US in many areas. Brazilian students seem to score a hell of a lot higher on standardized test than american students, they are also completely self-dependant and produce all of their own energy, and thirdly they don't have to worry about terrorist attacks! Why is that? Just like you said, they aren't on the world stage, they don't go around policing the world and interfering with other nations affairs and so for that reason other nations don't hate them like they hate America, maybe it's time we take apage from their books.

4. I never said the Japanese were perfect, in-fact they are far from it but the fact is that they don't interfer with middle-eastern affairs and so for that reason they don't have to worry about middle-eastern retaliation.

5. You are right, it doesn't seem like the middle east is offering an olive branch, but yet the United States is guilty of the same thing.

1. There is nothing a government can do about the peanut issue. Making it irrelevant.
The administration has no one fearing anything. They are simply exercising America's right to kick the ass of anyone who dare attack it.
2. Of course we should and we do. Striving to be better does not mean to sit back and allow the murder of our people without hostile reaction.
The point is that not one other nation has a pristine past and think they have the right to pass judgment on America. Who in it's history has been a greater asset to the world than any of them.
3. I will concede that perhaps America should take a step back on the world stage. Except in violent reaction to those who do harm to it's people.
But, on the other hand, I personally wish America or Brazil would do something to ease the grief and suffering of the common folk of Africa. Which I know would turn into a massive replay of Mogadishu.
4. Sure they do. If ragheads weren't so focused on America, the would play in Japan and other nations. Are you aware that Muslims are currently involved in no less than 50 military conflicts as we speak? They hate a lot of people.
5. The U.S. offers olive branches constantly. In the form of foreign aid. Much of which goes to unworthy Arab nations. 400,000,000 a year just to Palestine. Who attacks our ally on a regular basis. That 400mil however was cut off when Hamas was elected into control.

1. There is nothing a government can do about the peanut issue. Making it irrelevant.
The administration has no one fearing anything. They are simply exercising America's right to kick the ass of anyone who dare attack it.

2. Of course we should and we do. Striving to be better does not mean to sit back and allow the murder of our people without hostile reaction.
The point is that not one other nation has a pristine past and think they have the right to pass judgment on America. Who in it's history has been a greater asset to the world than any of them.

3. I will concede that perhaps America should take a step back on the world stage. Except in violent reaction to those who do harm to it's people.
But, on the other hand, I personally wish America or Brazil would do something to ease the grief and suffering of the common folk of Africa. Which I know would turn into a massive replay of Mogadishu.

4. Sure they do. If ragheads weren't so focused on America, the would play in Japan and other nations. Are you aware that Muslims are currently involved in no less than 50 military conflicts as we speak? They hate a lot of people.

5. The U.S. offers olive branches constantly. In the form of foreign aid. Much of which goes to unworthy Arab nations. 400,000,000 a year just to Palestine. Who attacks our ally on a regular basis. That 400mil however was cut off when Hamas was elected into control.

1. I'm not asking anyone to solve the "peanut issue" simply stating that our government would have us percieve Islamic Extremism to be a greater threat than it actually is.

2. we wouldn't have to worry such things had we of not "provoked" them.

3. same as #2

4. The Middle-easterners probably are violent, but it's because we don't understand them or the reasons for the things they do that we have these problems. The American foreign policy is in shambles becuase we don't strive to understand things from the perspective of other people. Why do you think arab people are violent? The truth is, they are running out of options, the education system is virtual non-existant and good jobs are a rarity so the only real alternative is extremist religion, if we would actually address these problems instead of declaring war on every nation we even suspect of having WMDs then things will only get worse.

5. Money is not an olive branch, we can give them all the money we want but if we nuke the **** out of them it really isn't gonna make much of a difference, is it?

1. The problem is, Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, nor did they have any WMD's that we did not give to them. If the terrorists had come from Panama, would you support invading Venezuela, killing their leader, installing a puppet govt, and providing police indefinitely? Because that's what happened with the Iraq war. How dense will you remain before you realize the incompetence of the US govt. and their inability to prevent attacks, properly respond to attacks, and their utter failure at foreign policy. Your acceptance of the pitiful status quo sickens me and is most unpatriotic.

2. The hostile reaction should be appropriate and directed at the actual perpetrator of the attack.
America has been a great asset, but that is largely due to the vast amount of natural resources we possess, it has nothing to do with our supposed moral superiority or superior intelligence.

3. America needs to completely remove itself from ALL entangling alliances *cough*Israel*cough*
Africa's problems are Africa's problems. If humanitarian agencies wish to offer aid, more power to them, but the US govt. has no business trying to cure the stupidity of other nations.

4. How many military conflicts is the US involved in? How many of these conflicts are "retaliatory" and how many of these "retaliations" are retaliations of retaliations and for how many centuries more will we perpetuate this foolish cycle of pointless violence?

5. If you're saying that the U.S. needs to needs to restrict/eliminate foreign aid, then I say hell yeah.

1. But presenting peanuts choking people to death is not something a government could incite the people to fear.
Any death of an American by a hostile entity would induce fear, hatred and a thirst for revenge in the average American. "Fear" being the least of the emotions felt. I disagree that people fear future attacks. But most damn sure demand preventive measures be taken. Along with punitive action.
2. Interacting with nations different from ourselves carries some risk. Are you suggesting that the U.S. quit interacting with other nations? I suggest that other nations be more attentive to their citizens offending a nation that can be a dear friend if treated respectfully.
3. Same as #2? Will you not address my comment on helping the most downtrodden people in the history of modern man?
4. I will agree that the absence of education is the biggest problem the ME has. I do not believe it is America's duty to fix that problem. The fat cats of the Arab world have found that the ignorance of their people works in their favor. A select few reap all the rewards of what little the ME has to sell to foreign nations and they let their own wallow in dust. It would be a good thing to address that major issue, but, would that not be meddling also?
5. Nuke? When was that mentioned? We know that "I" did not suggest such a thing. Has some politician suggested such? Why would you pitch such an accusation knowing that it has not been considered?

1. I never said Iraq was involved in 911. Iraq simply refused to abide by the sanctions placed on it by the U.N..

The great thing about Iraq is that it gave AQ someplace to focus on instead of innocent American civilians.

The incompetence of the U.S. government? Let's hear how a competent government would have responded.

Unpatriotic? Surely you're just trying to fluster this veteran.
Foreign policy can never be perfected. There is no text book that will work for each and every nation alike. You must surely have one in the offing.......?

2. The hostile reaction has been as accurate as militarily possible without developing a WW.

The resources that are America's have been a factor in America's greatness but, the generosity of Americans has been the greater factor.

Now, answer the question. Who in their past has been a greater asset to the world?

3. This statement defines you. You represent America as a selfish little man.
Your opinion likely carries little weight even among those you think like you.

4. Two. Justified conflicts. Except to those who believe freedom to be free.

5. No. I'm not saying that. Foreign aid constitutes 2% of the U.S. budget.
I refer only to aiding known enemies of the U.S. and her allies.

1. I never said Iraq was involved in 911. Iraq simply refused to abide by the sanctions placed on it by the U.N.. The great thing about Iraq is that it gave AQ someplace to focus on instead of innocent American civilians.
The incompetence of the U.S. government? Let's hear how a competent government would have responded.
Unpatriotic? Surely you're just trying to fluster this veteran.
Foreign policy can never be perfected. There is no text book that will work for each and every nation alike. You must surely have one in the offing.......?

2. The hostile reaction has been as accurate as militarily possible without developing a WW.
The resources that are America's have been a factor in America's greatness but, the generosity of Americans has been the greater factor.
Now, answer the question. Who in their past has been a greater asset to the world?

3. This statement defines you. You represent America as a selfish little man.
Your opinion likely carries little weight even among those you think like you.

4. Two. Justified conflicts. Except to those who believe freedom to be free.

5. No. I'm not saying that. Foreign aid constitutes 2% of the U.S. budget.
I refer only to aiding known enemies of the U.S. and her allies.