Frank wrote "You don't believe that Islamic radicals were deterred by our takeover of Iraq, I do."

How can I? Iraq wa a secular state where the religious majority did not have power. Futhermore, the invasion has actually worked to the advantage of those seeking to spread islamic fundamentalism (the infiltration of the area of fundamentalists through Iran and Syria).

Frank Wrote: "You don't believe that engaging them on their own turf reduces the risk to the homeland, I do."

Demonstrate that Iraq is the 'home turf' of islamic radicals? Can you?

Frank Wrote: " You probably think we can negotiate with Islamic radicals, I don't. "

Nor do I- You should get over your pigeon-holing of me and my 'ilk'.

Frank wrote: "You probably don't believe that we can be pushed into genocide by continuing escalation of terrorist events in our country. I fear that we can."

On the contrary, frank, we are moving rapidly in that direction. Fact is, a terrorist attack led us to invade a country that had nothing to do with that attack. We also threw away a substantial portion of our global credibility and political power base in this rush to war. Furthurmore, we did so on obviously false pretence (the WMD and Terrorism thing), and our country is so polarized with anger that nobody cares about this or the problems arising from this action.

So yes, frank, not only do I think this country CAN be driven to genocide, but we have leaders who are driving the buss in that direction THROUGH the Iraq conflict.

Frank wrote: "I read somewhere today that a fatwah was issued against terrorism by a Saudi cleric. Let's see where that goes. That is the kind of thing that will change my mind."

This Fatwa was probably a result of AlQaeda bringing the war to SaudiArabia. So then, as a means to the combatting of global terrorism, were those terrorist attacks on Saudis and Americans in Saudi-Arabia then justified?

The means justifies the end here, according to what I understand of your argument... So?

Davin L.