"Raoul’s article presented a view of our country contrary to our own. I think its important to listen to these views and at least try to look at what we have done to propagate them and also why our friend finds it funny."

(Here comes the kiss of death. Sorry.) Exactly. The US has it's legitimate national interests, as does every other country and sometimes they don't match. We, the US, would be far better off by understanding, and then responding a manner which would be in the best interests of the US, rather than just reacting.

Much of US foreign policy in the last half of the Clinton administration was determined by Clinton having to take the public mind off Lewinsky. That was inexcusable.

I'm not proud of a foreign policy, either, which is formed by regarding every country which isn't in complete agreement with our foreign policy, even if it's contrary to their best interests, as our enemy. It's usually cheaper to understand and then attack, if necessary, than to just attack.

Those of us raised in Western countries generally have educations and an economic system which will allow for a middle class. Most of the world doesn't - a person who starts to accumulate capital has it taken away by the government one way or the other. Those people have a different world view than do we, and we should try to understand it.

If a country doesn't have compulsory, free education and a relatively free press, "democracy" won't work. To think it should under those circumstances is silly, too. It doesn't hurt to understand.

Arf