We could be seriously examining the contributions of U.S. behavior around the world to catalyzing asymmetrical warfare but we're not. We could be considering that the reason U.S. military are prime targets the world over for disgruntled foreigners is that we have armed forces in over 100 countries (mostly invited by "friendly" regimes on the dole who rarely find their own citizens supporting a U.S. presence). How many has Britain, France or Germany? When was the last time we heard of their troops being attacked outside of a war zone or former war zone? When was the last time you saw a British, French or German soldier walking down a U.S. street?------ Forwarded Message From: Marc Hedlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:13:11 -0800 (PST) To: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: The TIA and fighting terrorismWe could be taking this approach, but we're not. We could be improving the ability of local law enforcement to detect terrorism -- but instead we're degrading that ability, since we're shifting the FBI's traditional crime-fighting work onto local resources. The one method that has actually prevented a terrorist attack on US soil is not being used, and is instead being inhibited. We are focusing on centralizing intelligence and resources when instead -- or at least in addition -- we should be decomposing, distributing, decentralizing.
If we want world peace we must work for world justice. I suggest we cannot simultaneously have empire, security and liberty. It is time to choose.
steve
