So ... if your little "refresher in American behavior and values" is indeed indicative of the true state of America, then just why is it that Uncle Rummy finds it necessary to say that these atrocities are unamerican? If America genuinely is the moral cesspit that you imply, why isn't he instead saying "Dig us!" and passing out "Attaboys" to the prison guards? I submit to you that the mere fact that the administration finds it necessary to make such statements at all is pretty good evidence that such behaviour is neither commonplace nor deemed acceptable.

Now, as to your list, does it not strike you that most of these events were exceptional? Take the Murrah Building, for instance. How often do buildings get blown up in America? Waco? A real screw-up, to be sure, but again, notable becxause it was so unusual, and let's face it, the Branch Davidians would still be alive today if they'd surrendered peacefully (which is, in fact, the usual result of such sieges). Slavery? If you're going to count that against America, you have to give them credit for fighting the bloodiest war in their history to abolish it, too. That one pretty much comes out a wash, IMO. Rodney King? LA had RIOTS over that one! That's not the reaction you get when police brutality is routine. Once again, the fact that you can cause such upset by invoking these names (and get away with doing so!) is pretty good evidence that they are atypical.

That brings us to the "ill-conceived war of revenge." That and "No blood for oil!" are the two most common reactions I hear from those who oppose the war in Iraq. The truth is, a war of revenge would be pretty stupid. OTOH, while it might just barely be possible for a president and his cabinet to want to do something that dumb, how do you explain Congress and the Senate signing off on it? There's a much better argument to be made that Saddam, with his WMD programs, his history of using WMDs on his own people and others, and his open support for terrorism, was simply too dangerous to tolerate, especially in a post-9/11 world. For those who have trouble swallowing that one, there is a further, strictly pragmatic argument to be made that if the international community expects the next random rogue dictator to listen when it says "Don't do that!", then the international community better not let the last one get away with thumbing his nose at them. Oh, and oil? Iraqi oil exports in 2002 were worth on the order of $20 to $25 billion. The war has cost America what? $100 billion so far? Be a lot cheaper just to buy the oil, wouldn't it ...?

And so, at last, we come to the Arabs, who, in your words, "are more aware of our history than many of us are. They despise hubris and ignorance. This is why they will continue to sacrifice themselves in "suicide bombings" until America gets out of their countries." Interesting theory. Trouble is, if they know that much American history, they must know even more of their own, and for every atrocity you quote in your list, you could quote at least ten from any country in the middle east. Why hasn't every government in the area dissolved under a tidal wave of suicide bombers, then? And if you have correctly deduced their motivation, what the heck makes you think pulling out of their countries will stop the bombings? If Iraq could afford, in the midst of all those horrible sanctions, to pay $25,000 to the family of any suicide bomber who killed Israelis, air fare to America is not going to be a problem for anyone!!!

I think you may need to reconsider your thesis, here ...

Steve