One more thought on "rights and liberties" versus "peace and safety"...   I wrote in my previous comment that I agreed with you that the government is taking away our freedom, while I meanwhile implied in my original post that any government that tries to abide by Geneva conventions and avoid all spying on its own citizens and residents cannot maintain peace.

I still think that I agree with both sentiments... I'm personally wrestling through these issues... trying to figure out what is the best course...  At the very least, I think that the media and the American people should be honest with themselves - it is impossible to "have one's cake and eat it too"...   if one eliminates all government survelliance, then one cannot blame the government when terrorist attacks happen... a wide-open-"free" democracy is by definition wide-open to ALL people and activities, even terrorists and their activities.

So I think that we should be honest about that.   But as to where the correct balance is...?  I am not yet convinced either way.  I'm leaning toward a mixture of both (government survelliance/occasional-suspension-of-'Geneva'-conventions-because-they're-outdated-and-no-longer-work-in-a-world-of-terrorism, AND as much freedom/liberty/avoidance-of-dhimmitude/freedom-of-religion/BenFranklin/PatrickHenry-type-freedom as possible), with slightly more emphasis on the "freedom" part than the "safety" part.

So let's say for example that next year a gazillion more terrorists start blowing stuff up in all the major american cities, and the government is TEMPTED to enlarge itself immensely and spy upon all american civilians to try to stop terrorism.   I think that that would not be the best approach for the government to take to stop terrorism.  Yet the american public is liable to be fearful and mindlessly vote into/out-of office whoever promises to bring "peace and safety", and to blindly accept a totalitarian regime.  Hmmm.

What options really DOES the government have to stop terrorism?   What do you think? 

You wrote this:

> If we'd stop assuming that killing people all the time is the best solution, people wouldn't kill us for being the arrogant jerks we are.

This sounds like typical postmodern/liberal rhetoric... hopefully you can come up with something more directive and practical.  Let's analyze the statement together briefly... it is extremely problematic.

>If we'd stop assuming that killing people all the time is the best solution...

The problem is that this is a straw man.  NO ONE in any government, not to mention the current US administration, has ever believed this.    "...all the time" ?!? Come on.

On the other hand, sometimes "killing people" IS the best solution.  That's why I made the reference to Neville Chamberlain.  Do you know who he is?  You may recall that he kept trying to "appease" Hitler before the World War II...  in hopes that Britain would not have to go to war.  He tried the diplomatic route.  Unfortunately, looking back in hindsight, we realize that it only made Hitler much stronger... giving him money, supplies, and time to build war engines and fortifications.  All the time that Chamberlain was trying 'appeasement', Churchill was criticising him and telling him that Hitler's goal was to take over the world, and that a war (i.e. "killing people") was necessary.   Then on the eve of the war, when the British public became suddenly afraid that 'appeasing Hitler' was a VERY BAD solution, Churchill came into office and had to deal with the situation left to him by Chamberlain.

> "If we'd stop assuming that killing people all the time is the best solution, people wouldn't kill us for being the arrogant jerks we are."

Who is the "we" in this sentence?    Am I an "arrogant jerk"?   Are you an "arrogant jerk"?   Why?  What is your definition for being an "arrogant jerk"?   Are all Americans automatically "arrogant jerks" simply because of their nationality?   If so, then are there any nations which do NOT have this peculiar condition?  If so, why?

> If we'd stop assuming that killing people all the time is the best solution, people wouldn't kill us for being the arrogant jerks we are.

Finally, let's look at the actual logic and historical/political sentiment expressed here.   Why did Osama bin Laden and the 9-11 hijackers attack America?   For three stated reasons. (1) "U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula" (i.e. troops in Kuwait/etc, which entered AFTER Hussein invaded Kuwait), (2) "U.S. devastation of the Iraqi people and humiliation of their Muslim neighbors" (i.e. same as #1), and (3) U.S. support of Israel.    

Reason #3 is the main reason.  This is enormously complex, but here are some facets/questions to consider.  

1. Does the US actually support Israel?  (I think a supporting case can be made for this...)

2. What are Israel's goals?  (The surrounding countries claim that Israel is aiming to kill all the Palestinians.  Israel claims that its goal is to protect itself - to keep from being "pushed into the sea" as some Islamist leaders say.)

3. Who is killing who, and who started it?  (Both sides are killing each other, and the violence has gone on for literally thousands of years... it is quite probably the world's longest-standing battle/feud, and it started in Genesis 16 as a feud between the older brother (Ishmael, father of the Arabs) and the younger brother (Isaac, father of the Jews and the Edomites)... )

So I'd be happy to discuss this with you further, and to hear your clarifications on your plan to bring peace and squelch terrorism. 

If I may modify your sentence a bit, I could agree with this: "If we would stop supporting Israel (i.e. if we would allow them to be completely massacred) and if we would allow ourselves in the USA to be subjected to a state of dhimmitude/servanthood to Muslims and Islamists, under the rule of a global Muslim caliphate, then the terrorists would stop killing us."

Thanks for your comments, Sol.  I agree with many of the things you wrote... I think that giving people food and water is an excellent thing to do in general.  Indeed, I've been sponsoring a little child in a third-world country for quite some time myself.  But I do not think that humanitarian action will stop terrorism, neither in the short term nor the long term...  Rather I tend to believe that there will be no genuine peace on the earth until Jesus Christ returns to rule the whole earth...   ...though that shouldn't stop us from attempting to establish what my muslim friend calls "little islands of peace" wherever possible...

> We're not going to make things better by sending out 'peacekeeping' operations.

Have you ever seen the movie "Hotel Rwanda"?

> The US is being violent and arrogant by policing the world. People don't like that because it's meddling...

Hmmm.  There's a lot to think about here.  I agree with you that the US has been doing quite a bit of "policing the world" over the last century... in some senses.  There's been WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, and numerous other smaller places.  Actually, in some sense, every war in general could be considered "policing the world"...

Anyway... at some times the US' actions have been appreciated, like WWII by the beleaguered British, Gulf War by the Kuwaitis, etc.  At other times they have generally not been appreciated, as in the Vietnam war.

I don't know if you can make such an ironclad case that whenever the US sends troops somewhere in the world, that it's automatically an "arrogant" or "violent" or "destablizing" action.  History shows us that sometimes it is appropriate to conduct peacekeeping operations overseas.   As the world's most powerful military nation, surely we have a very large responsibility to assist poorer nations with security...  and if we didn't send troops in certain places/situations, we would face lots of international criticism.  (Darfur...)   (again, have you seen Hotel Rwanda?)

Actually, the US will ALWAYS face international criticism, no matter what it does, for various reasons.  One reason the world hates the US is simply that it is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, nation economically and militarily.  Other reasons are idealogical... the view that "fundamentalist america" is hopelessly backward, from the Europeans... the view that "the great satan america" is disgustingly immoral, from Arabia, etc.

So anyway, I agree with you that the US has been doing quite a bit of "policing", but I'm not sure I agree with you that such policing is necessarily "wrong" or "arrogant."   Notice that I said "necessarily".  I am not defending the specific actions in Iraq and Afganistan over the past five years.  I think that some of that was overly hasty and poorly managed, etc.  But I do not think that "necessarily"/"automatically", sending troops overseas to reduce threats to our populace at home (and the world in general) is necessarily wrong. 

And by the way, I'm not alone in thinking this way... for example (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp),

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
   
And this quote is particularly appropriate:

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton, Feb 18, 1998.

It is precisely as she said: Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here...  "policing" may sometimes be appropriate, despite the critics...  Men such as Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill had to ignore the critics in their day too...

> "In a lot of ways I AM an arrogant jerk, if you haven't noticed. I think that arrogance is pervasive, but most relevant here in those who seem to think that the USA is #1 and everyone else had better stay the !#$% out of our way or else."

I'm not quite sure if I yet understand what you mean by your term "arrogant jerk" (AJ).   It sounds like you're saying that you are an AJ and that most other people in America are also AJ's, but that you are not 'quite as much of an AJ' as 'those other people' because at least you don't think that the USA is #1 and you don't think that everyone else should stay out of your way.   If this is your view, then who are these 'other people'?   Were the 3000 people killed in 9-11   AJ's?   And if not, does that mean they were innocent?  

I don't mean to be disrespectful or put you down in any way.  You're raising some good points, though we disagree on some of these implications.  I've lived overseas, and I value people from other cultures highly, though that doesn't necessarily mean that I automatically loathe my own American cultural heritage.  Far more importantly than my earthly nationality, though, is the fact that since I have become a follower of Jesus Christ, I am a citizen of heaven, and that is where my true allegiance lies.  I will serve my earthly country wherever I appropriately can, but obviously my real goal is to advance the kingdom of heaven.

As the Bible says in Hebrews 11:13-16 and 13:14 -

 13All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
 14For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own.
 15And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return.
 16But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.

 14For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.
 
 
In fact, the question you brought up of "were they innocent" / "are we innocent" is a very interesting question.  (related to the Palestinian/Jewish conflict also...)  Ward Churchill and Osama bin Laden, for example, claim that American civilians are guilty in general... guilty of 'supporting war crimes' and 'neglecting to advocate on behalf of the Palestinians', etc.  And Osama would claim that Americans are not only guilty, but they're guilty enough to deserve death! 

But even if we might disagree with Ward and ObL, (otherwise we'd just all go commit suicide right now), it doesn't seem quite right to say that we are "innocent".  ...   Really we have some inner knowledge that we are NOT innocent...  and actually, if we were honest with ourselves, we know that far from being "innocent", we are actually and truly "sinners" - we scheme and cheat and hate people without a cause and covet and lust and tell little untruths, etc.   At least, I don't know about you, maybe you're perfect... but I am definitely a sinner. As the Bible puts it, "all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God."  (Rom. 3:23)  

So the far more important question than "who deserves to be killed or reinstated in the world's nation-state political struggles" is -       "Is there really a GOD to whom I am accountable for my sin, as the Bible claims?"...

 1 Corinthians 5:18-20 -
Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.