The thing I miss most from the American (and British) politicians, and many of the posters here, is the ability to look at a conflict from the other side. You might not agree with the other side, but a bit of thought as to how things look from their point of view makes an enormous difference in settling any disagreement. After all, you do want all sides to reach agreement, don't you?
After continual harassment and oppression from the West (lead by the USA, with Britain following and the rest of the West tacitly agreeing) and from Western supported regimes, freedom fighters ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter") tried fighting back by bombing a ship. Since the USA refused to do the right thing and pull out, they bombed an embassy. Since the USA still refused to listen, they had no choice but to get serious, and make a bit to hit the USA where it hurt most - in the purse. It cost thousands of innocent lives (first westerners in the USA, then Afghans and Iraqis), but that's collateral damage in the war.
I don't agree with al Quida's aims or their methods - but I don't agree with the USA's aims or methods either. But I know for sure that the conflicts will *never* stop until each side starts looking at things from the other side's point of view. There is little doubt that bin Laden knows far more about the American way of thinking than vice versa
- he has had plenty of contact with Americans over the last twenty years, and as a result has been playing Bush for a fool.
*Sensible* responses to terrorist acts reduces terrorism. Every terrorism expert in the world will tell you that the Iraq war has resulted in far more terrorists, who are better motivated, have better training opportunities, and have more popular support than before the war. Arguably the invasion of Afghanistan was a sensible move to combat terrorism, if it had been carried through properly instead of dropped half way when Bush changed attention to his pet hate.There are two reasons why there have been no new terrorist attacks in the USA, and only minor "reminder" attacks in other countries (London and Madrid victims might not consider the attacks "minor", but compared to what they could easily have been, they were minor). First, there is no need - their aim is to economically damage the USA and to alienate it from its allies. The US administration is currently doing this to itself at such a rate that al Quida don't want to unbalance it. Secondly, a major attack on the US would increase sympathy for it, which would be counter-productive.
If you think that the USA's attack on Iraq has made the USA, or the world in general, safer in any way, then you really are living in a box. Al Quida could easily cause all sorts of attacks on the USA if they choose - the attacks on London were a demonstration of this power.
And for your information, it is the USA who is the bully that was hit in the face. It hasn't backed down yet - we can only hope that the other children will have the courage to persuade him to mend his ways before a victim brings a knife to the schoolyard.