Ideally, this should have been posted to the discussion board since it is more of a debate item than a question. But the person sending the question asked that I include the whole thing and wanted to post as a followup to her 4/10 question. As I wrote to Karen in an email responding to her post below, it is always difficult weigh the need to be inclusive and open to all questions and the need to edit and choose. For those looking to engage in dialgoues / debates / soapbox disccusions of this sort with folks on this list, I recommend visiting the message board found here:

http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3552689272 &cpv=1

Felicia, 37
Lowel, MA USA

Okay, I'm as disgusted by this question as I was by the last one by this nature--and frankly, I'm shocked that Felicia sent us even ONE of them, because I thought she avoided offensive questions. So see 4/10/03 for my response and for other responses akin to mine!

This "question" was not really a question, but a case of someone standing on a soapbox. It may be
acceptable to bring out the soapbox in responses to questions, but it is not acceptable to bring it out in the question itself! If I wanted to be preached at, I'd go to church.

Also, what is the deal with excluding list members from other countries? Their forefathers may have done similar things, but I suspect you're referring to American forefathers. . .so what are they supposed to say to this question? And why would you assume that everyone from the list has the same type of forefathers? Maybe there are some 1st or 2nd-generation immigrants on the list. Does that make them less worthy than someone like me, who has an American family history going back to early colonization? And what about the people "our forefathers" repressed? Many of them have LONGER lines of American ancestors than someone like myself. I never thought I'd say this, but if questions like this continue, everyone can consider me to be off the list. . .4/10's question was bad enough, but today's is the same thing. . .only longer. Felicia, if you're lacking question inspiration, let us know and I'm sure we can all make an extra effort to come up with some
NICE, NEW questions.

Karen, 23
Ames, IA USA

I'm uncomfortable with this questions for several reasons: 1. It assumes that everyone who responds to 2000days.com questions are from the United States. 2. There is an implied connection that the events of September 11, 2001 are tied to the regime of Saddam Hussein. 3. Also implied in
the question is the assumption that U.S. foreign policy decisions are altruistic.

I don't expect other people to see my point of view. However, I make an effort to read about and understand other cultures by listening to the BBC, NPR, reading the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and occasionally other news sources such as Al Jazeerah. To rely on a limited and biased source of information is naive.

Laura, 38
Lowell, MA USA

Most of my forefathers did not believe in freedom of expression or religion. Most had not heard of the freedoms and rights that Americans believe in. However, I can see the American point of view, without war or death. Why? Because I was raised in America and had the opportunity to learn about freedom and human rights. My basic needs for food and shelter and education were met, so I had the luxury of thinking about things other than survival. We will see more peace in the world when we can help other nations to a better standard of living and give them the opportunity to learn more about foreign cultures and ideas. If I were starving, I wouldn't give a hoot about democracy either. If I had only one source of information and never heard another viewpoint, I'd
have a tough time understanding the other side, too. Peace is possible but it is much more likely when certain conditions exist.

Cathie, 53
Novi, MI USA

The person who posed this question pays tribute to the four freedoms (actually articulated as such by FDR rather than our forefathers). Unfortunately she doesn't seem to realize that not all Muslims are "mongers of death by religious beliefs".

When George W. Bush declares "crusades" he becomes a monger of death by religious belief--in this case militant Christians are wielding the sword. I did not vote for GWB and I do not share his crusading fervor.

As I remember "bizarre" means "odd, not normal". Therefore war since war is a "bizarre human instinct", peace must be a normal human instinct.

I don't consider myself particularly naive--I wasn't a bit surprised by the passion and shallow thinking behind this loaded question.

Jill, 61
Saylorsburg, PA USA

I think that the idea of peace, not war, is an inherent human quality, regardless or race or religion. I think it is only a few from our population of billions who are "mongers of war." Unfortunately, these few also happen to be the ones with power, so the average human who desires peace can do nothing but follow what is to come.

Tam

I tend to agree that many don't realize not everyone even has a vision or inkling as to the true meaning of peace. People who are born into worlds without enough food, medical supplies, or means to make a living...probably aren't going around fantasizing about world peace. They can't. They don't even have a clue. They grow up indifferent to world issues. Some wind up angry and hateful and particularly envious of anyone who has everything at their fingertips, as we do. So peace to them is a five letter word ~ nothing more, nothing less. Those who become violent and take an active role in terrorism (mostly out of envy) need to be stopped and unfortunately,
they can't relate to peace-talks and compromise. Their minds don't work the same way ours do. They can only relate to the kind of violence they themselves instigate. It's unfortunate for the people stuck in the middle who are willing to live day to day without taking an active role in destruction and terrorism. But when we see the pictures on TV ~ women wearing long robes in
100 degree weather, holding dirty children who they aren't even allowed to bathe or feed properly, we have GOT to keep in perspective that they did not start out like we did. This is their life. This is what they know. I will not apologize to anyone for having been born in America in a secure, clean and healthy environment. Do I wish better for these people, you bet your life. Do
I honestly believe that my hopes of a better world for them will come to fruition? Not even for a second. It's been a vicious cycle for thousands of years, and peace signs aren't going to break it. It's called harsh reality.

Fisch, 47
Preston, CT USA

I don't quite understand this question and I haven't got the time to study it out, so I won't be able to
answer.

Reba, 57
Gaithersburg, MD USA

Is this a joke?

Aly, 17
Cardiff UK

It's very difficult to respond rationally to an emotionally charged question. I do not accept the premise that war is a basic human instinct, but even if it were, that doesn't mean that it cannot be controlled. Furthermore, I do not believe that war should ever be considered an option until all
peaceful alternatives have been exhausted, and there are many people from all over the
world who would share my view that these alternatives had not been exhausted before we invaded Iraq.

Jane, 63
West Linn, OR USA

Good thing you are not a journalist. That is certainly a loaded question. And I am not really sure what the question is. War is a necessary evil. Modern war is the most clinically accurate ever and
yet I still am left with a sick feeling, knowing that we targeted specific people for death. Just as I trusted that my parents loved me even when they did things I hated, I am trusting that my country knows what it is doing. There is no doubt that the majority of Iraqis are glad to be freed from the regime of hate. What comes next will probably flavor history.

Cindy, 41
VA USA

Is it just me are the questions getting really long here? Back to question, or at least to the extent that understood it: Will wars happen? Yes, so will disease. Guess what? They're still looking for cures.

Alias Irrelevante

what does war and death accomplish? enforcing more fear and hatred? different cultures dont see eye to eye, and perhaps peace isnt something ever attainable, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt
strive for it. the less violence and hate and anger the better.

Cara, 19
Valparasio, IN USA

To the question that made disclaim of peace vs,war: It was not my intentinon to cause discord. I don't know what to say, I was just pissed off from 9/11, and the non-patrioticisom of America, and what people of the USA believes in.................scared me. But peoople responding. still make me believe that normality is not the question.

Christine, 37
Syracuse, NY USA

I agree exactly.

Keri-Jade, 23
Brampton, Ontario CANADA

Yesterday / Tomorrow