what happened? you got blasted this week in first call!!! here is the address if you want to check it out: http://clubs.wharton.upenn.edu/fcpaper (it's on page 6) wow, have anything to say in your defense? concerned Dr. Penn pennpundit@hotmail.com

Vinay is correct, the only way curb terrorist acts is for that meanie Bush to cease his antagonistic and oppressive actions. We should discontinue giving money to the poor, the sick and democracies like Israel and instead give all of our foreign aid to known terrorists in Palestine, Iraq and Iran. Only than will the terrorists begin to like us. And heÁøs right that because we supported Saddam in the 1980Áøs, we have no basis on which to criticize him now. And for that matter, the whole Cold War thing never should have happened because we were allies with the Soviet Union in WWII. It was so silly of us to disagree with them after the war ended. Vinay also hits the nail on the head when he notes that pre-Á¡liberationÁ± Afghanistan was much more stable than it is today. Perhaps we should ship all the Afghanis to North Korea where they can enjoy some more old-fashioned stability? In fact, with its low crime rate and strict enforcement of the law, maybe Americans would enjoy it as well. Beijing Alum

Vinay is part of the "Hate America First" crowd. It is disturbing to see people blame our President who has always done the right thing. United We Stand in the war on terror. Vinay also probably hates that the USA is: a Christian country, a Capitalistic society, a Democracy that has a Rule of Law and for the most part is conservative politically (low taxes, support your own family and teach children morals). God Bless, Sean Lee

Well, I've sent this off to www.andrewsullivan.com as a potential "Sontag Award Nominee". Complete and total drivel. Blogger

Like him or not, respect him or not...President Bush is acting in the best interests of the United States. In the post cold war world, threats have been mounting for the past 14 years. Bill Clinton and his inept Secretary of State and National Security Advisor ignored these threats. He conducted his foreign policy via polls and sloppy side deals. His administration never presented a vision, he simply reacted or more accurately did not act. President Bush, a mere 9 months into his term, was forced to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 and 8 years of inaction. Included in this aftermath Vinay, is the fact that America has enemies. These enemies hate us because of the freedoms we enjoy and the prosperity we provide, not only to our citizens but to the world. They hate you as much as they hate me and our fellow citizens. Your anger is misplaced. Your harsh assessment of the President's motives are not clearly reasoned. Iraq is a gathering threat to the United States and our allies. Iraq is in violation of 14 UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein and his regime are clearly pursuing WMD. Judging from his past behavior and I have a three suggestions for you. 1. Thank God you live in a nation where you can spew your anti-American pap and face no consequences for it. 2. Thank me...a tax payer...for the government backed student loans you received to pay for the education that has filled your head with all the absurd opinions you expressed in your article. 3. Thank the DP for not printing a counter point to your poorly reasoned article. Observation: Judging from your reasoning and logic skills illustrated above I do not believe you are fit to teach a dog how to sit. Joe Riggio New York, NY

With such a pacifist attitude like that, why don't you move to France. After 09/11/01, don't you think Bush has a reason to be a "bully"? As a US citizen, I'm still waiting for the major response to that attack. Payback's a bitch, and war w/Iraq as a starting point is about the one thing Bush has done right this year. andy-kin

So Bush has done good for us huh? Where? Is living in fear of being singled out airports because of your religion and ethnicity "cracking down on terror"? No. Is putting gigantic amounts of money into the military and cutting back our more pressing domestic needs good for us? Possibly, but not the way Bush is funnelling money. Is instigating a country that has only suffered the past 10 years due to sanctions and its oppressive leader smart? No. Get your heads out of the sand. Bush wants Iraq because Bush wants oil. His fortune lies in that. First Iraq, then the rest. Not because he wants to spread democracy or freedom. Not because there is some "link" between Saddam and terrorism. The idea that people in the Middle East don't like American values is misplaced. People around the world don't like American FOREIGN POLICY and until that changes from a bullying, parasitic position, then we will only continue to spread hate for ourselves and put ourselves in danger. And don't accuse me of being anti-American. The fact that the road this man is leading us down frightens me is proof enough I care too much about this country to be against it. Is there any way we can get Clinton back? Kash, Student Philadelphia, PA

Wow. This article is so terrible, it's tough to figure out where to start. 1. "For all of their barbarism and oppression, the Taliban brought a small amount of stability to this war-torn country, and the U.S. war campaign destroyed this stability without any adequate replacement." This cannot possibly be a serious argument. Yes, autocratic regimes tend to bring stability. What next, slavery was good because at least slaves had consistency and stability in their lives? Your article suggests you would have preferred to leave the Taliban in power, rather than setting up the basis for a new government, which, you might be surprised know, often takes more than a year to become stable (though maybe not as stable as the Taliban). 2. "So even though North Korea is just as repressive as Iraq's regime or the Taliban and is a far greater threat to its neighbors, the U.S. will not attack. Ultimately, this is not just a hypocritical stance -- it also illustrates the shortcomings of the bullying approach." So you prefer the U.S. to have one policy and stick to it for all situations. Great logic. North Korea and Iraq are different situations. They call for a different approach. People screaming for a non-war resolution to Iraq seem to question why we aren't bombing North Korea. Iraq is at the end of its diplomatic rope. The diplomatic approaches have all been exhausted. With North Korea, there are still conceivable resolutions. The situations in Iraq and North Korea are FAR more different than they are similar. Stop pretending they're the same. It's either dishonest or stupid. 3. "In expanding America's economic and military empire, Bush has pursued an aggressive, bullying approach to international affairs, relying on military force and intimidation. His polices exude hypocrisy and misrepresent a host of issues. And as we are beginning to see, bullying tactics always backfire in the long run." Hmm. I think by "Bush," you mean "Saddam Hussein." Saddam Hussein has certainly pursued an aggressive, bullying approach to international affairs, relying on military force and intimidation. Backfiring in the long run? Bush has been in office for two years. I think allowing Iraq to aid in more terrorist murders and continue to develop bio and chemical weapons would truly "backfire in the long run." 4. "For example, regarding U.N. weapons inspections, the president said that the burden of proof is on Iraq to show it has destroyed all biological and chemical weapons. But there is no real way to accomplish this." Oh. So Bush is being very manipulative in following the letter of UN Resolution 1441? The resolution UNEQUIVOCALLY states that the burden is on Iraq to assist inspectors and account for its weapons (funny, Iraq had some banned weapons several years ago. Where did they go?) But hey, let's not let that stop us from blaming Bush! 5. "...the only way to curb terrorist acts is to cease the administration's antagonistic and oppressive actions." I hope this is a joke, but I somehow don't think so. Eric, Alum Washington DC

Yeah, Kash. This war is about oil. That's why we took over all of Kuwait's oil back in '91 after the Gulf war. And that's why we've intervened militarily in Venezuela... Oh, sorry that didn't happen. We don't get oil from Iraq. France gets its oil from Iraq and that's why they are so supportive of the war. Oh sorry, it's the other way around. Gee let's see who has the reputation of trying to enrich himself from the presidency. GHB? GWB? Bill Clinton? Take a guess, or is your memory that short. Bill was they guy with the silverware sticking out of his pockets as he left office. Remember the Lincoln bedroom nightly rate? Try to accept that this war is about instituting stability, freedom and safety in the region. If cheap oil comes as a result, great. We live in a capitalist, industrialized society. Wake up. And as for Vinay's point about Bush's suposed hypocrisy vis a vis NK and Iraq. We have a military option to prevent things getting out of control in Iraq as they did under Clinton's watch with NK. In NK we have no military option. NK is not a "small threat". Last time the US fought a war there, close to 40,000 US GI's were killed in a conventional (no WMD)land war over barely 2.5 years. Compare this to Vietnam with 50,000 US KIA over two decades. Explain to me how our current stance vs. NK is hypocrisy. And finally Kash, if you have to spend more time at the airport getting checked, welcome to the club. Look at it as your small contribution to the safety of the USA. What else are you doing to help? Others are gladly sacrificing a hell of a lot more overseas away from their families and in harm's way than your petty inconvenience of wasted time at the airport. DSS

Gee Kash, now that you've exhausted your arguments you've resorted to name calling. Take a deep breath and try to explain to the forum in a reasoned manner how the American public and its government's desire for Iraqi regime change are motivated by "oil". This was your original contention. Please explain it beyond "The man's money is in oil." Sorry, the wildlife in Alaska argument is either funny or stupid. And since you, Kash, brought up the Japanese American experience in WWII and "how they felt after being detained". The fact is that the vast majority of Japanese Americans during WWII couldn't wait to serve this country even while their families were imprisoned. The all-Asian 442nd Regiment had the highest casualty rate of any American unit in the war. What's your point here? And as for your claim that "the majority of my great UPenn is made up of upper-class whites" maybe that's true. But the relevance of this point is lost on me. You sound like a racist. My ethnic background has nothing to do with my position on this issue. Do you assume a white pre-requisite for supporting the president? I am an American and I am an Asian. More importantly, I am a New Yorker who was on his way to work on September 11, but my subway stop at WTC/Chambers got blown up in front of me before I got there. Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States in 1993. That's how crazy he is. What would have been a reasonable response if he succeeded? Now he has WMD. Should we wait for him to attack us with WMD instead of suicide pilots and then debate it some more? If you don't get it by now, you will never be swayed even after a catastrophic attack. I'm willing to listen to reasoned arguments, but spare us the hackneyed "blood for oil" and a "white man's war" slogans. DSS, Alum

Bully? Take a visit to the World Trade Center site. Remember the attempted murder of over fifty thousand people. Remember the videos of people jumping a thousand feet to their deaths because they no longer could stand the pain of their bodies being on fire. Remember three thousand dead, there, in Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. If anything his response has been modest. John, Staff medicine

I oppose war, not because I am anti-American, or illogical or unreasonable, as many who have posted on this site probably want to believe, but because I am logical, reasonable, and afraid. Up until a few days ago, I thought I was for war. I believe that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and will use them in the future. I believe that the purpose of the inspections were for Hussein to prove the non-existence of these weapons (although I also believe that this "proof" would never be good enough for the US). What I do not believe is that war is the best and only way to deal with the problem, and have heard no evidence of this being true. War has always, and always will, spurn more war, death, and destruction. With anti-American sentiment so high, a war can and will only further ignite those sentiments. Right now, I think it is irrelevent to argue about WHY people hate us; the fact is they DO, and more importantly, they have already shown us what they are willing to do to show that anger. What are the plans to deal with the backlash after/during this war? Let us not forget that the purpose of war is to kill, this war is no exception and many lives will be lost. Not just lost in Iraq, where the war would be fought, but also when those who are angered by the war attack us, on our soil, something we have never truly experienced except 9/11. Usually, we can point at the loss of life and say, well at least some good came out of this war. Will we be able to say that here? Only 50% of Americans (according to Polls that I don't really believe in the accuracy of) are for war in Iraq. We are supposed to live in a democracy (I know it's a republic, but we throw democracy around all the time) where the peoples' voices are supposed to be heard, not just those with money or/and power. I don't feel I've had any say since Bush was elected(?) in 2000. There are millions of Americans' crying out for a peaceful solution, not because they are pacifists, but because they believe, as I do, that the strategy needs to be more thought out than just "let's go to war", as I have heard it. I need a plan, that looks far into the future, that says how my government is going to protect me during the inevitable backlash from those who truly hate the US. We are smart people, who come up with creative solutions to problems everyday. I am not ready to believe, with the price of my belief being my life and the lives of others, especially with no evidence, that the ONLY way to solve this problem is through war. LaToya Baldwin Alum ljb

LJB: What are some alternatives to war that are better ways to deal with this problem? Eric, Alum Washington, DC

In addition to my previous post, I must also say that I agreed with Vinay's sentiment in the original article. While I cannot confess to knowing the inner workings of our administration's minds and tell what the reasons behind the war really are, we cannot really claim to be fighting with war out of the goodness of our hearts for the oppressed Iraqi people; if that was the case we would cease the classist, racist, homophobic, and religious oppression of our own people. It funny how one of you said, of the arrests following 9/11, that "they are all arrests of individuals known to be plotting terrorist attacks." How could you possibly know that to be true when the gov't has released so little evidence against many of the people, denying a few even the right to a lawyer? Show me the evidence you profess to know, I'd love to take a look at it. While I will go as far as to claim your opinions are due to your white upper-class upbringing, I do think that how we think about the world and our gov't relies heavily on the experiences we've had through life. Some of us feel poorly towards our gov't because our gov't has behaved poorly towards those who look like us in the past, the present, and, if history truly repeats itself, the future. LaToya Baldwin Alum ljb

Eric: Unfortunately, I am not a world leader, spending many years involved in diplomatic and/or military relations. I usually hate it when people criticize without providing alternatives. But in cases where I depend on others more knowledgeable than I to protect my life, the most precious thing to me, I think I have the right to criticize until I am satisfied with the answers. I am of the opinion that most people like quick solutions to very hard problems. While I don't have clear cut answers, it seems too simple to me to just go to war. As I said before, what I am looking for more than anything is evidence of how this war will protect us in the future, as our gov't has said it will. I believe that terrorism is real, and deadly. Instead of fighting the effects of terrorism, such as weapons of mass destruction, the US should be more focused on fighting the things that spark terrorism in the first place, namely poverty. Look around, the countries breeding terrorists are the poorest in the world. By providing more support to NGOs around the world, who attempt to mobilize the people in poverty to better their worlds, the US would do so much more fighting terrorism than any war. Anti-american sentiment would change, slowly, as the people see, not the US military, but American people giving to help build their cultures to become self-sufficient. Terrorism breeds on misery. Eliminate the misery, and you can eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the terrorism. I also think the US needs to work more with the international community through the UN. The UN, as it stands, is ineffective. The United Nations is not ineffective just because, but because powerful countries, namely the US, have refused to participate in many resolutions in the name of sovereignty. Unfortunately, many of these countries who are torturing their people have refused to participate in the name of sovereignty as well. By strenthening the UN, international pressures would be much stronger if one country stepped out of line than they are today. Structures, such as the International Criminal Court, could be very effective if all countries stood by it. Leaders like Hussein could be prosecuted for their human rights abuses and defiance of international resolutions. I think these are more long-term, and would inevitably be more effective than a war today. LaToya Baldwin Alum ljb

Hey DSS, that's my whole point moron. We don't get oil from Iraq, and it's a concern to Bush and his pockets. If you don't remember, he wanted to endanger Alaskan wildlife in order to drill for oil. The man's money is in oil. Morals? What about being fair-handed in handling this great democratic bully we call Israel who has broken every international law and settlement all the while illegally occupying land and terrorizing its original inhabitants. Why don't you ask Mr. Bush to tell them to behave? What's that? Oh, the strong Israeli lobby would destroy him like they destroyed his father. That's right, I remember something about that... And though I wish Clinton was back, I recognize he had his faults. But understand this: the country was far better off with him around, and I'd feel much more confident in the handling of 9/11 if he was still president. say whatever you will about him, he was a smart man, and Bush is nothing but a puppet of the neoconservatives. The safety of America will not be won by bullying a country that has done NOTHING to harm America. As a Muslim, there are far more radical forces at work in the Middle East that he does not address, or goes about addressing the wrong way. If you think racial profiling is acceptable, then ask any Japanese-American who's old enough how they felt when they were detained. I am not complaining of additional security at airports. It is good that they are thorough, it gives me a better sense of security. What I don't like is illegal detentions of innocent men in jails solely because of the color of the skin. Do you know how many constitutional rights some of these men are deprived of? It scares me to think we're not living in the democracy that our Founding Fathers intended. And finally, as a proud citizen of this country that I have been born and raised in, and the country that I will always call home, I am proud of the sacrifices our soldiers have made in order for me to live the cozy life I do. What I am not proud of is how many unfortunate souls had to die on the battlefield because my incompetent leader had his own political agenda to fulfill. I shouldn't be too surprised by this support of Bush on this board, seeing how the majority of my great UPenn is made up of upper-class whites who will be the only ones to benefit from Dubya's Economic Stimulus plan. Hope you enjoy the new yacht your folks will get. Kash, Alumni Philadelphia, PA

Koch, all of those new yachts we rich upper class folk will be enjoying will provide jobs for hundreds and perhaps thousands of Americans. Glad to see that you are a supporter of BushÁøs economic stimulus plan. For a second there I thought you were in favor of extending welfare benefits ad infinitum, lowering the 0% tax rate on low income earners and the continued transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. But you should be condemned for your racist views. Unless I missed something, not only will upper class whites enjoy the tax cuts, but upper class blacks, Hispanics and Asians will also receive those benefits. Or was there some part of his proposal excluding minorities that I missed? Beijing Alum

I shouldn't be too surprised by this support of Bush on this board, seeing how the majority of my great UPenn is made up of upper-class whites who will be the only ones to benefit from Dubya's Economic Stimulus plan. Hope you enjoy the new yacht your folks will get. You know, it's funny. I go to Penn and I'm not an upper-class white who will benefit from Dubya's Economic Stimulus plan. In fact, I'm also of Middle Eastern descent. I went on a transatlantic trip a few weeks back (to Israel, no less), and, despite my complexion, did not once endure unfair treatment or discrimination. Wow, how lucky am I, seeing as how people like Kash, "[live] in fear of being singled out [at] airports because of religion and ethnicity." Charles Arnold, Student

A quick "fisking": According to Vinay, Bush is bad. Fine. That's your opinion. Let's see how sound your argument is. 1. Re: Bush's diplomacy in sending inspectors into Iraq: "Bush's rhetoric is a smokescreen; it tries to make him seem diplomatic while maintaining his pretext for war." Today's presentation at the UN by Colin Powell should allay these fears. Unless you buy Iraq's "fabrication" line. Which you probably will, now that I think about it. 2."Also, while noting that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in the past, Bush fails to mention that the U.S. government didn't care much while he did it. America supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Ironically, Iran opposes the proposed U.S. invasion of Iraq, even though it has suffered from Iraqi aggression more than any other nation." Iran's stance on the war is completely irrelevant. Yet it might surprise you to find that they are officially "neutral" and while the hard-liners in the government say that they want everything American to fail, all the Iranian people (to say nothing of the Iraqi people) and all the moderates in the Iranian government would like nothing more than for Hussein to be shipped off to Elba. As for the US government not caring about Saddam killing his own people, welcome to foreign policy realism, pal. The United States didn't do much for the Cambodians, the Hutus, the Tutsis, et. al. but, then again, neither did ANYBODY ELSE, eh? 3. "The arrests of 3000 "suspected terrorists" indicate only suspicion, not success. Since Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist acts against U.S. interests have continued in several countries, including Pakistan, Yemen and Kuwait." Wow, great point. I'm absolutely terrified that I, or any of America's 280 million other residents might find ourselves in Pakistan, Yemen and Kuwait sometime soon. The attacks on US interests in those regions (most of which boil down to hit and run murders) are so far removed from the US that it's a huge stretch to suggest that its indicative of a "failure" of the war on terror. Come on, get a clue. And don't take Bush's quotes out of context. The "arrests" he cited are not random captures; they are all arrests of individuals known to be plotting terrorist attacks (i.e. the seven North Africans caught with Ricin in Britain a few weeks back, the dozens caught intending to bomb American spots in Singapore, etc.). In fact, what has been the worst terrorist attack since 9/11? The attack in Bali, which afflicted Australians. What has resulted in the most American deaths? The attack on a Pakistani church that killed, if I remember correctly, three Americans. If this war on terror has been a failure thus far, call me proud to be on the losing team. 4. "Bush's rhetoric and actions have motivated many others to join extremist groups." How in the hell would you know that? You wouldn't, would you? Either you've got a vast array of connections in the Arab/Islamic/Anti-American world or you kind of pulled that out of your backside. I can see it now. Abu goes, "Did you hear that Bush? "Axis of Evil" my Aunt Fanny! Quick, what's Hezbollah's 800 number?" Face it: the only people Bush's rhetoric has motivated to join extremist groups are people who were extremists to begin with. 5. "Moreover, as Washington Gov. Gary Locke pointed out in his response to the president, the U.S. still has not captured public enemy number one: Osama bin Laden." Locke's motive behind that weak statement is political gain. What's your motive. Has anybody heard a peep out of bin Laden in the last year? Does it make any sense whatsoever to equate US success in the war on terror with the apprehension of one individual? Not really. Believe me, I want to see him drawn and quartered in Times Square as much as anyone but I think disrupting active terrorist plots and plans is more important than getting one guy. 6. Re: The instability that reigns in Afghanistan after the "stability" of the Taliban. Another ridiculous statement. I, for one, think the US should be doing more to stabilize Afghanistan. But that country was an absolute shambles and was not going to be resuscitated overnight. And the utter inanity of your arguments is really laid bare in your claim that the Taliban's "stability" is preferable to the present "instability." 7. Re: the hypocritical stance on North Korea Iraq's non-compliance has been around for 12 years. North Korea's has been around for 12 weeks. Different situations, you know> So, in sum, instead of trotting out the same old tired arguments of the knee-jerk anti-war left, why not do some deep thinking and present your ideas and opinions with more vigor. You really are doing the DP and the Penn community a disservice by writing this tripe. Charles Arnold, Student

Kash, you are a no-brain ass clown. if israel being a bully is such an OBVIOUS truth, then please help me answer the following questions: 1) Israel was chartered by the UN, but invaded by the armies of 6 Arab countries in 1948? 2) Why did Egypt close the straits of Tiran in 1956 and 1967--defying international safe-passage laws and constituting causus belli? And all before the beginning of "occupation" and "settlement"? 3) Was it Israel that attacked Egypt in October 1973 or was it the other way around? I can't remember? 4) Was it Israelis that used terrorism against civilians riding in planes and boats in the 60s, 70s, and 80s? Where were those Olympians competing in Munich from again? I can't remember, but then again, you don't seem to know jack sh*t. 5) Palestinians are the "Original Inhabitants"?! Oh, golly gee! I guess you win this debate, champ! And what about the Phoenicians? I'd also like to give a shout out to the Assyrians. Robbed of their lands, I say! As if this even deserves an argument. First of all, since when is freedom to settle limited to people of particular races? Should we toss all those annoying Jews out of this country, too... I don't think they were here originally? Oh, and I'm sorry. I forget when was the last time you apologized to Native Americans for living in the US? When did the Portuguese apologize to South America for exterminating its original inhabitants? Last time i checked, Palestinians have flourished in numbers (both inside and outside Israel) since 1948 and 1967, despite being bullied by Israel and blowing themselves up left and right. Wait, but did you know that Israelis legally purchased more than 60% of the land that became UN-chartered Israel (before there ever even was a charter!! how nice of them!). kash, you are so dumb, it's mind-boggling. explain to me, by the way, how Bush is gonna manage to make a killing on those Iraqi oilfields? maybe he'll put them on eBay? you really have a great point here. you know, i think i heard LBJ made a fortune from the rice paddies seized in the Vietnam war. maybe bush can build a billion dollar palace in texas someday, just like your friend Saddam? Kash, get a clue. your muslim heritage is going to the pooper because eventually the burdens of mass ignorance will lead to the complete evaporation of morals--of which you have none. guess what? history didn't start in 1967. Kash is a moron, Kash is a moron Reality

I have completely lost my faith in this country, and even its brightest inhabitants. It amazes me just how eager we are to accept what we are told by our government as truth, and how blind most Americans can be when it comes to Their national security. It took one severely frightening experience to turn a mediocre, somewhat embarrassing presidency into the march of a fearless leader into a war with Afghanistan. Tell me, how many people on this board, especially those of you who support an upcoming war with Iraq, can define the term "terrorist" without resorting to a thinly-veiled stereotype of Muslims/Arabs/Middle Easterners. How much information do you really know about the war on terror, or the threats posed by terrorism. Using fear, this Bush Administration has blinded this nation and has many of us paralyzed with fear. I don't know if I agree with Kash, saying that this war is about oil, but I do know that talk of a war with Iraq, and now the alleged ties between S. Hussein and Al-Qaeda, has successfully shifted the focus of the hunt - first we all wanted bin Laden's head on a platter, now we want to destroy all WMD. Did it ever occur to anyone that the world's largest producer of WMD (the strongest and most deadly of which being nuclear weapons) is the United States. Can you even imagine a situation in which Europe calls for us to abandon our Nuclear program in the efforts for world peace, or some similarly unattainable goal. Of course not. This war is not about spreading freedom, it's not about liberating a region from a evil ruler. To believe that would be foolish, without having a sufficient empirical rationale. At the same time, to believe that this war is just about oil might be similarly misguided. Everyday I wake up and try to come to some conclusion, or find some belief that will make be regain my faith and love for my country, and each day I fail. I wait for the day that Americans lift the veil from their eyes and begin to once again think for themselves and question those appointed to represent them. However, I fear that day may never come. Faithless American

I hate it when people seem to think that "free speech" means you can't criticize or argue with another's opinion. That's actually the very expression of free speech. Don't go around shouting "Free speech!" if you haven't a clue what it means. As for Faithless American, hope you get well real soon. Eric, Alum Washington, DC

A few people here have asked if there is an alternative to this stupid war we are about to engage in. I have one, and I am sure it will stop any terrorist attacks in the future and restore the prestige America had in the past. George Washington warned Americans in his farewell address not to become entangled in the internal affairs of foreign countries or to show favor of one country at the expense of others. This is not isolationism or peacenik talk. This is about a fair and just foreign policy. Warmongers get very irritated and accuse people of being anti-American or worse for even suggesting that this war is wrong. I have been called an idiot and worse for my views, but this vitriolic response only enforces my beliefs (and I did serve in the military unlike most warmongers). So here is the solution: end the sanctions that have killed up to 1 million Iraqis, pull ALL American troops out of Saudi Arabia, and be much more even-handed in our approach to Israel vis-a-vis the rest of the Middle East. I know all the believers of a Great American Empire desiring to spread (by force if necessary) "Democracy" to all of these "backward A-rabs" call me an appeaser of terrorism. This would be the case if only terrorists in the Muslim world disagreed with our current foreign policy. The truth is that almost all of the 1 billion plus muslims on this earth are angered by our one sided policies and our condescending arrogance to their faith and culture. Are their opinions and views worth nothing? Can they all be wrong? After this war, I promise we will start hearing about Iran's weapons of mass destruction and the need for American imposed "regime change" there too. Then we will hear the same about Syria and Libya and Saudi Arabia. Perpetual war and perpetual terrorism against America. Osama bin Laden (remember him?) must be just tickled pink. Also, let's hope North Korea doesn't decide to take out South Korea "pre-emptively" while we are bogged down in our little jaunts in the Middle East. All of a sudden, all you nice students at Penn may feel a sudden draft and end up on some icy mountain in Korea. I know, I am one big fat sissy who hates America. I'm just as bad as those wimpy Europeans and the 99% of the rest of the world who oppose the US in this escapade of death and destruction. To hell with world opinion, we have an empire to build! bc

Tarun is pretty dumb when it comes to foreign policy because he only sees things through his rose-colored glasses that paint America evil and the rest of the world peace-loving, kind and nonbelligerent, and he pays no attention to recent history. Although I have no details or facts to support my position I would like you to argue with me. Do you think you are the first person to be told to go back to your own country? It happened to my ancestors when they got off the boat and it probably happened to a lot of other peoplesÁø ancestors throughout our history. This is called Á¡freedom of speechÁ±, a right you proclaim to support in theory, but canÁøt put up with in practice. Beijing Alum

Beijing Alum: I don't think you really read anything I wrote in my post, but rather had your own "knee-jerk criticism" to someone who is against the war. First, I don't think anywhere in my post did I provide "knee-jerk criticism of anything Bush says as their guide." I stated several times that I believed Bush in that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, and that he would use them in the future. I honestly do not think I mentioned the Bush's name even once, and my criticism of his reaction to Hussein was not knee jerk, but a result of thinking and discussions over several weeks. Second, your statement "bin Laden and his kind use their large financial resources to attract poor, young males who have no jobs or money. And why are these young men poor? Instead of the typical left-wing response, because the United States' antagonism and oppression, think a little and you'll see that the answer lies in their own corrupt, autocratic governments," is exactly my point. I never blamed the plight of these countries on the US antagonism and oppression (although I could argue the point that the US does have some blame with you). I simply recognized that due to the poverty in their countries, young people are tempted to terrorism. Their countries are poor, in some cases, due to the corruptness of their governments. In making the UN stronger, these corrupt leaders can be held accountable for their crimes in a way that they cannot be today because there is no strong international justice system. You yourself say "Only by eliminating or replacing the maniacs who rule over Iraq, North Korea, Iran and elsewhere will these countries be able to develop." That is exactly my point again. I just believe that this can be done through an international criminal justice system, and does not need to be done by war, which hurts not just the corrupt people, but all the people in the country. Third, this statement: "Just a little more money and all the problems of the world will be solved, right? Well, we've given hundreds of billions of dollars to third world countries since WWII, and look what it has gotten us," also shows me that you did not read carefully what I wrote. Instead of just throwing money at problems, the US should think more about how it gives the money it does. By funneling more money to NGOs and not to corrupt governments, more good can be done. NGOs work on the premise of not just throwing money around, but using money to train and educate the people to decide their own destinies. Lastly you say that I have provided "No realistic solutions or alternatives? Just feelings, intuition and knee-jerk criticism of anything Bush says as their guide." Personally, I think feelings and intuition go far in this world. Given your statement, you seem to think that the only viable solutions are those that are non-feeling, void of any intuition, and complete and total adherence to anything the President says. That sounds like someone who is unable to think for themselves in a compassionate, humanistic way. I proud to not be that kind of person. LaToya Baldwin Alum ljb