It's not so much how we think about it, it's how the people getting bombed view it. Just listen to what the enemies are telling us. They tell us they are pissed off because we're over there. So let's not be over there and have a good portion of the problem solved.

Eh ... I never said the American, British, and Australian troops are all like that. Some are, though. A good many of those may be foreign mercs. You know, from South America or elsewhere. The US government often grants complete immunity to them, too.

Even if only a handful of soldiers commits atrocities, you can count on quite a few reprisals and that often leads to a vicious circle of violence. Especially if the occupiers intend to keep on occupying, with no end in sight.

But I waste my words: you are of the opinion that it's morally imperative to be over there, unless I am mistaken. I do not share that opinion. 'Us' being there is what I see as a major part of the problem, even if, yes, the extremists enforce(d) a dreadful regime on the people there. However, I think that has roots in western meddling in the past. It's like, if you pardon the analogy, plowing a field and then, instead of sowing seeds or planting trees, letting it fall fallow, and now and then plowing it again and again (or setting fire to it). You'll get lots of pioneering plants. Weeds, many people call them. Given time, these plants are later crowded out by fast-growing trees and shrubs. Later, slower-growing and long-lived trees will grow up and slowly a stable environment will establish.

Now, you might be countering with the following: why don't we Roundup (R) the weeds and plant date palms and sow grass for goats? Supposedly, this is what the occupiers are doing, according to our fine corporate media. Hardly. I might be willing to concede that a completely non-military involvement is useful, but that takes a completely different mindset than the western countries currently adhere to. All in all, it's probably better to set an example in your own country and let people carve out their own destiny.

I am sure the reason Glip the Martian won't give me the anti-gravity technology is because he knows that would really upset things here.

I think the whole notion of 'America leading the world' is rather pompous. By taking such a stance, one expresses moral superiority over others. A people as a whole may (for example) willfully choose to live in mud huts and eat roasted bugs and smoke weed all day long (swaying to the rhythm of the wheeling stars overhead), and they wouldn't be lesser people, I think, than the people who think they are 'leading the world' in the 'progressive movement.'

Now, I'm not jealous by any stretch of the imagination of what America has achieved. So the above is not meant as a disdaining shrug. I'm actually very much personally in agreement with many American ideals. However, I don't think it's of any worth to be leading the world. What, actually, is that, this 'leading the world?' I think that by sticking to your ideals, you set an example, and you have an identity, and in so doing you can be said to lead by example. But it's not leading in the sense of ramming your fist on the table or aiming rockets at people around the world, or by endlessly saying that America is No. 1 or 'Leader of the Free World,' especially not if America is for the most part the epitome of dissolution, and is (again mostly) morally bankrupt and politically corrupt, and, to boot, the biggest terrorist on this planet. You can argue it's the US government that does most of the harm, but that's due to the fact that the American people don't care. Again, that's a general state of things. I think that America has incredibly bright and good people (and involved), but they seem to be a small minority indeed.

A lot of others might be good people also, but brainwashed.

I seem to be digressing.

In closing, I'm not picking a fight with you. Just wanted to put forth a nuance. I could, if I wanted, comment at length on your thoughts what role (or non-role) religion should play in the 'ideal' world, but let's keep that short. Basically, in essence your thought may be correct, but it does read like you want to first snuff out religion before people (as a whole) can achieve something. That's all very collectivist, and I don't like it. As an atheist, I feel people are free to practice whatever religion they want, so long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights. To have the freedom to practice religion (or to be free from it) is a right. It's tremendously important for lots of people (religion is, and so is the right to be free from it) and should not be taken away. The religious could grow out of it, or grow into another religion. Considering it an obstacle to human 'progress' (or achievement) is off the mark, I think.

Carpet bombing Iraq villaiges, when did that happen?

We need to abandon religion? What are you, an Islamophobe? You got me sold, now go to Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and say that. See how far you get before your throat is slashed.