Regardless of your position on the current war, one thing we can be certain about is when it's over there will be another one to follow.  There always will be until we change the way we resolve our differences.  Conflicts continuously rage throughout the world, and in any given week we can read about the uncovering of a mass grave, or the slaughter of another tribe or village.  At the time of this writing, In Africa, for example, the list of countries embroiled in war included, Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Liberia, Libya, Sahara, Morocco, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Congo, Congo-Brazzaville, Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia, and it’s been that way for years.  In a continent ravaged by disease and poverty the people are still able to acquire military weapons of mass destruction, many made in and supplied by the United States, so self-proclaimed propped up leaders can continue their wars of death on a part of humanity that has never had a chance at life or the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms we say we cherish.

Most wars fought during the 1990’s took place in countries that are to poor to buy weapons.  However, millions of small arms and light weapons are simply given away by militaries that are downsizing, or recycled from one conflict to another.  Assault rifles are so abundant that they are sold for as little as six dollars or can be traded for a goat, chicken, or a bag of clothes in some countries.  Experts currently estimate that approximately 500 million military style firearms are currently in circulation around the globe.  According to a writer at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway, since 1995 the United States alone has given away more than 300,000 rifles, pistols, machine guns, and grenade launchers, in addition to the weapons it has sold.  In some African wars, paramilitary groups have bought hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of small arms and light weapons with diamonds seized from diamond-mining areas.  How ironic that a gemstone traded for assault rifles may later be sold in an elegant jewelry boutique as an expensive symbol of eternal love!

Governments cannot war to the extent they do without military training and weapons of mass destruction provided by the United States and other major powers for financial gain and other sometimes-obscure interests.  From 1986 to 1995, the United States increased its control over the worldwide arms market from 22 percent to 49 percent.  90 percent of all land mines are made with American parts, and Seventy-five percent of all land mines activated around the world were made in the United States.  Shoulder launched missiles with the primary capability of shooting down slower moving commercial aircrafts are available on the black market for as little as $1000.00.  Millions starve to death while the powers-that-be fight their wars of devastation with weapons of mass destruction in sometimes far away places where if people were left alone they would be content to live their lives in peace.

We lost almost 3,000 people on 9/11 and it was truly a tragedy for America, but when put into prospective in terms of what is continually happening worldwide we have lost little over the past years.  Nevertheless, we respond like everyone else, we hunt down the terrorists because we want revenge!  That's always the response to attacks and the result is of course, more attacks.  You might argue that revenge isn’t our motive that our intent is to eliminate terrorism but attempting to eliminate terrorism by killing a few terrorists can only result in more hatred and anger, and inevitably more terrorist attacks.

Since the beginning of civilization governments have waged war for a multitude of justifications.  As a result we've developed ridiculously large weapons of mass destruction, which has resulted in proliferation by all sides.  This unchanging approach towards resolving our differences has justified the rationalization of war after war and the death and oppression of millions more people.

Terrorism has also been around since the beginning of civilization, but Terrorism is more feared and devastating today because of advancing technology, which has resulted in every day conveniences doubling as weapons of mass destruction.  Naturally we have adapted by attempting to protect ourselves using available technology.  Instead of food tasters we need radar; instead of moats around castles we require cameras everywhere; instead of free travel we and our belongings are searched and personal items that are not weapons such as cuticle trimmers and sewing needles are confiscated under the guise of safety.

Commercial airplanes were weapons of mass destruction on 9/11, so what is a weapon of mass destruction and when does it become one?  Incendiary bombing killed even more people in Europe during world war two than the Nuclear attacks on Japan.  Terrorists could easily burn a significant part of the western United States in any given summer (for the cost of a few matchbooks, using very few people, and requiring little instruction in those far away terrorist training camps that we feel the need to repeatedly bomb in an attempt to protect our freedom.  Based on the above examples should we bomb every country that has the technology of fire, or who owns a few airplanes?

If countries have the wherewithal to build weapons, they will have them and there is little we can do about it.  The genie is out of the bottle on development of biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons, and the United States, the United Nations, nor any bought and paid for coalition can never stop the proliferation of these weapons.  We can't put the genie back in the bottle and we cannot possibly kill everyone who we believe has decided to develop what we have defined as weapons of mass destruction when in the hands of others whom our government may find it convenient to consider our enemy at the time.

In high school I debated the efficacy of the United States military assistance policy and I supported our government. I was wrong to have supported the military policies of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and I feel I would be wrong to support those of The Bush administration as well.  Look at the parallels throughout a brief period of our history!  President Bush says that the terrorists hate freedom. President Johnson said that the Vietcong hated freedom and that the South Vietnamese people wanted freedom.  President Reagan told us that the people of Granada wanted freedom and President Eisenhower made the same statements to justify incursions into Africa.  President Truman also used similar reasoning in making the case for involvement of the United States in the Korean War, just a few short years after the end of the war that was supposed to end all wars.

It is likely that none of our so-called enemies nor many of our friends, much less the components of any bought and paid for coalition formed in recent times have the slightest idea what freedom is. If they did, they would probably embrace it, or fight to achieve it, not try to eliminate it as our Government accuses so-called enemy after enemy of wanting to do!  Furthermore, it's likely we couldn't get ten members of our Government to agree on a definition of freedom, providing we could convince our elected officials to give a strait answer, yet they don’t hesitate to send our sons and daughters overseas to fight for the interests of the American Government while the sons and daughters of our leaders remain comfortable here in America.

What our enemies hate is the aggressive policies of the United States and since they cannot battle us on the military front they are forced to resort to terrorism.  It’s not our freedom they hate, and it's not our people they fear.  It is not our type of government they despise, it is what our government has become!  The American Government does not appear to be hindered by morality or considerations of international law from carrying out acts of terrorism and destabilization of countries she does not like, and the killing of their leaders.  Ghana, Libya, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Chile, Brazil, Guyana, Grenada and Panama, to give but a few instances, bear silent, violent and bloody testimony to the ability of the United States to carry out acts of terrorism against others with total impunity.

As of 1998, long before the war on terrorism, under a relatively obscure 1991 law exempting them from many congressional and White House restrictions, American special operations forces had quietly established military ties in at least 110 countries, unencumbered by citizen awareness, thus intentionally minimizing public debate.  In totality, the United States has over 200,000 troops stationed in 144 countries and territories.  Meanwhile our own boarders remain haphazardly guarded and open, allowing anyone, including terrorists to enter the United States virtually unimpeded.

We are increasingly trying to control events by threats of, or actual, military force.  The priorities of our government are clear: in our federal budget at the time of this writing, $340 billion is allocated for strengthening our ability to kill other people while only $6 billion is designated for peaceful aid to other countries.  What might happen to the world's view of the United States if we turned these two figures around?

We have learned that wars and the accompanying devastation of civilian populations sow the seeds of bitterness and hatred for years if not decades after so It is not hard to understand why people desire revenge against us when, however unintentionally, we bomb Red Cross relief depots, hospitals and peoples homes.  What might happen to the world's view of the United States if instead we were building hospitals, schools and clean water systems in these very same countries?  Taking a longer view of history seems critical today, especially considering the increasingly devastating potential of today’s weapons, on people and the environment.

There are compelling reasons for focusing on the United States.  Without question we are the kindest most compassionate and giving people in history to others in need.  We are the first, sometimes the only country to respond with money, equipment and highly trained personnel in times of natural disaster or human suffering, anywhere in the world.  Our people are the most highly educated, wealthiest, and have the greatest opportunity to be fully informed of any country in history.  Our freedom and fortunate prosperity offers us unprecedented access to information, if we take the time to look for it.  Furthermore, we have emerged as the current world leader, and as such, we have a choice.  We can continue down the path towards imperialism that our predecessors have repeatedly followed, which appears to be what we are doing, or we could begin to take steps towards peace, by setting new precedence’s in our attempts to assist in resolution of global problems and local differences.

As world leader we need to look for commonality instead of conflict, and to learn when to mind our own business.  I would stop the CIA's supplying of weapons to each and every country wanting to war.  The CIA, under God knows whose authority, gave $76,000,000 to warlords, who are nothing more than common criminals, gang leaders, mobsters, in Afghanistan, supposedly to buy their loyalty.  It seems to me that if that kind of policy is really successful in achieving peace and stopping gang warfare, we might want to try it in Los Angeles where sixteen people were killed in gang warfare over the course of a weekend not long ago!  I would bring every American troop stationed in foreign lands home, and I would stop training soldiers of foreign lands because they happen to be our chosen friend of the day because history clearly demonstrates, time and time again, the likelihood that they’ll be our chosen enemy tomorrow.  In addition I would establish a coalition to stop the spread of guns and arms to every Tom Dick and Harry by the major powers for financial gain.

Unfortunately any attempt to implement the above suggestions into policy with today's attitude would probably meet with the same level of success that the Bush administration has in trying to create his coalition against Iraq.  By the way, have you noticed that the idea of a coalition dwindled from Bush's statements and those of his fellow warmongers as time went on?  It was replaced with the United States and our friends, and then, with the United States and like-minded countries.  One has to wonder at what point it will simply be the United States, which in actuality is all it has been for the last few wars.

Futurists might believe that technological advances will resolve world problems, and Christians might believe in the biblical resolution but Regardless of how the future unfolds it seems to me that until the answer becomes clear, man has a responsibility to himself, to God and to the future of humanity to attempt to survive and properly care for the things that we’ve been entrusted with.  I believe that means we had better try something different, and quite soon, before humanity destroys itself with the ridiculous weapons of mass destruction with which we seem so enamored.

What makes our country great and sets us apart from the rest of the world are the freedoms that the constitution guarantees us, not the bureaucratic interventionist government that exists in America today regardless of the party in power.  I understand that people disagree with me but if we don't try something different we may never know if we might have succeeded in taking humanity to the next level.  Perhaps humanity is destined to destroy itself but I see no reason to self-destruct for the sake of idealism.

When I was a child, one of the things I remember about the Christmas season was that every year adults expressed their hopes for peace and goodwill in the upcoming New Year.  At some point, after I had gained some appreciation of what they were talking about, I actually remember thinking as we entered a new year that maybe we would finally get it right.

Of course that hasn't happened and there is nothing any individual can do to significantly change the course of world events, but I believe that there are things we can do. We can start by thinking outside of the box!  For example, the Federal Department of Education will exist, regardless of how few people it actually educates, and its budget will continue to grow as politicians use education as a tool to get elected.  Likewise, the Department of Defense will continue to exist and drain tremendous resources regardless of whether it serves the soul purpose for which our constitution permits, to defend America.  It will continue to exist because the military is big Business!  It will justify troupes in over 144 countries and the sale or gift of military equipment to whatever factions around the world it deems appropriate at the time, for as long as we allow it to happen. 

Instead of accepting the facts we have the choice to think outside of the box. To think in terms of, is this war necessary, can it accomplish the outlined goals, what are the potential repercussions, are there alternative and perhaps less costly, more effective and permanent resolutions.  Most importantly, does it defend America?  Because if it doesn’t defend America, we have no business being involved!  We also might think about the necessity of stationing American troupes in countries across the globe, how does it relate to the defense of America.  Are our “peacekeeping troupes” helping to establish peace, or are they just enforcing it.  We might think about the numerous wars currently in progress around the world, and ask ourselves, and our leaders, if it’s necessary to provide modern weaponry of mass destruction to people who don’t even have the basic needs for survival.  We might think about a continent like Africa and how devastated it is and ask if the outcome of all of these wars is so vital to the interests of our country that we need to continue to proliferate numerous conflicts by providing weapons and training to military groups we cannot control. We might think about a country that chooses to develop what we consider to be weapons of mass destruction and whether those weapons will simply be handed over to us if we invade that country, or are they more likely to be used in desperation or anger or as part of a predetermined plan.  We might think about the justification for our country to stockpile ridiculous weapons of mass destruction, and how many chemical and biological weapons America possesses, and why we need weapons we can not afford, and can never afford to use.  We might think about whether we want a Government that has tried (usually successfully) to force "regime changes" in Panama, Grenada, South Vietnam, Cuba, Guatemala, Chile, Rhodesia, South Africa, Iraq (in 1963), the Philippines, Serbia, Afghanistan (twice, each time supporting different military factions) and Iran, to name a few.  We might consider how we feel when people try to destabilize our Government, and about how we would feel if foreign troupes invaded our country and your neighborhood.  We might think about 500 million weapons in the hands of so many unpredictable people while millions of men, women and children starve to death, or die miserably from disease that could be easily prevented relatively inexpensively.  We might think about all of those who are maimed and killed as a result of wars and warlords that our Government finances and attempts to control in every corner of the globe.  We might think about how many people could be fed, clothed, and housed for the cost of one cruise missal.  Lastly, We might want to study history and consider very seriously what happens to imperialistic powers when they become over-extended, In short, we might think about the real horrors of war and where not thinking outside of the box has gotten us, and then, maybe we can think about who exists in a vacuum, those thinking inside of the box, or those of us who think outside of the box.