Research is a wonderful thing. It allows us to see both sides of the arguement. In theory, everyone is right, but thanks to those nutty Greeks (souvlaki, anyone?) we have Logic, Pathos, Retoric, and a structure for arguement.
If so, then why attack the World Trade Center? Why not a football stadium, where you could get more kills probably more easily? The World Trade Center was an internationall office, and I remember hearing that a great deal of the people who were killed there were not actually American.
Or perhaps not. I’ll have to do some research on that. . .
For that matter: Trust nothing I say until I do more research.
The attack on the world trade centre was Symbolic. I trust if Superbowl was a bigger influence than international trade, the attackers would have hit a football stadium on Superbowl Sunday. Like I said: the terrorists in question are against the Western world because they hold the US and their allies responsible for displacing a people from their homeland.
I trust what you say, dude! It comes from the right place. IMO, nobody would vote for Bush if they didn’t think he was right. It’s a big-ass world, and opinions are like assholes: everybody’s got one. 
I actually like Bush, though. . .I mean, I live near a nice news-talk radio station where the people are kind enough to not have giant egos and extreme liberal biases coughdanrathercough. . .so I get a different picture. . .
I’m an Aussie, so you’ve got a better picture being closer, prolly.
Wouldn’t work. He would still be impeached within minutes, so Congress could try him for treason quicker
Well, like him or loath him, I still think his actions (or rather the actions of his administration) are questionable, and if other world leaders can be held for crimes against humanity, he should not be immune.
But back to the topic!
Of course, charts and economic projections aren’t everything. Even given that, there are other patterns. Why did China fall behind the West? one argument is that it was too good, too early in its history, it was precocious. They were so far advanced past anything in the west, (seriously, the chinese fleet was several times larger than the entire continent of Europe would see for centuries, and their ships at least three times as large. If they had wanted, they could have easily expanded and dominated the West). However, being so far advanced, it decided it needed nothing from the World and was content where it was. The entire fleet I just mentioned, poised to spread out over the world, was grounded and dismantled. china turned inwards, and thus it fell behind.
We can actually see some of those same patterns happening in the US. Only 200-300 years after its creation, it has risen to global dominance. Looking around though (I live in the US), its really easy to see that same subconscious arrogance though. Most in the US don’t know squat about other countries and global issues, some don’t care too (not everyone is like this obviously, but a lot are).
Jeez, zdk1, could you stop making so much sense? It’s hard to debunk anything you say, you party pooper! lol! I do believe you have a point: rising world powers could be a threat bigger than the US. My reasoning is motive. On the subject of China, am reading a really interesting book called “1421 - the year China discovered the world”. It’s all about how the Chinese circumnavigated the globe 78 years before Columbus and Magellan, and even discovered australia 300 years before James Cook. Unfortunately, most of the records pertaining to this were distroyed when China wanted to rewrite ints own world history without the rest of the world. (or something like that, could be wrong on motive). Asian nations have always been far in advance of Western nations, technologically, so this does lend some credibility to your arguement.
Ehhh. . .although I guess in your post you didn’t take sides. . .
) and we defended ourselves. And since then, a lot of countries are now actively going on the offense against terrorism, even places like Pakistan that used to help them.