Oh, no, I guess that's where we disagree - I don't think the attacks were just about recruitment drives.  It may be a by-product, but I don't think that's the goal.

I guess that's where we differ, but if you look at it from that point of view, you are correct.

And I meant the 90's specifically referring to OBL's Al-Queda - er - did I spell that right? 

I get that there was terrorism before that - there always has been and always will be terrorism (well, unless the War on Terrorism ends all terrorism all over the world.  oh, wait...) - but I guess I should have been clear about that.

I don't think we're disagreeing on this - just the paths and motivations.

Oh, by the way - not to gloat - but saw this and it made me laugh...

While most moslem countries would be better served focusing their attention on abuses of moslems by moslems (especially in the middle east), there are many reasons ( historically and modern) why several arab countries especially hold a grudge against the US (and Italy, France, Spain and Germany). 

I'm not even going into whether the grudges are valid or not, because it rarely seems to matter. The actions born of the grudges seem ineffective at correcting the perceived wrong, targets at all the wrong people (random innocents) and gets in the way of real diplomatic efforts at resolving the differences.

I think it is correct that the US is a more high-profile target than most other countries, but that certainly hasn't prevented them from being targeted. As for the US and their willingness to respond to threats? I think if you're only given a choice between attacking the wrong people and appeasement, you're going to lose either way.

To be honest, while invading Afghanistan made some sense in the pursuit of OBL, invading Iraq is (to me) like following the declaration of war against the japanese after Pearl Harbor with an attack on Russia instead of Germany. 

After a bunch of Saudi-Arabians knocked over buildings and killed thousands ostensibly out of outrage over US presence in Saudi-Arabia, the proper thing would have been to press the Saudi-Arabian government to either embrace, protect and support the american presence in their country and participate actively in the capture of Al Qaeda, or the US would pull out.

The Saudi princes love to play both sides, get american military support (even against their own people ) while blaming every problem on those damn yankees and ignoring every call to freedom in their country. If Bush wanted to liberate a country, he should perhaps have started with Saudi Arabia, and all he'd have to do would be to pull out US forces and voice his support for regime change.

(Oversimplifying, I know)

"If "Axis" wasn't meant as an allusion to the WWII alliance of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy, I'm curious as to the intended context. "

Here's the intended context (from the speech):

"[Our goal] is to prevent regimes (terrorist) that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

So it's never implied that North Korea, Iraq or Iran were in an alliance (and this board is actually the first place where I've seen people make that connection). Just that "sates like these" are engaged in the same type of bad behavior and need to be dealt with.

Don't get this confused with the Bush Administration trying to link Iraq and Hussein with Al Queada and 9/11 (which they did)...

Let's clarify, Joel - they tried to link them - but facts have shown that that was...

The weakest link.

Minutes after Bush made the Axis remarks, I heard people making the connection to WWII.  Not quite sure how you could have gone years without hearing that.  The connection was implied, if not outright stated, insomuch as they were three countries who, although not linked in any measurable way, were working toward the same end goal in Bush's mind.  In effect, Bush was creating a larger enemy for us by hearkening back to WWII.  The use of the word "Axis" comes with such a host of connotations that I can't see the speech writer, who choses words incredibly carefully and for full effect, wasn't aware of them.

Yes, Matt...but the WWII connection was made more in terms of the nation needs to get ready to come together and brace itself for us to fight these "menaces", just as we did in WWII. But there's still nothing indicating that there is an "alliance" between the three. That's all I'm saying.

And Mike...good clarification, and that's what I meant (but didn't say exactly). They TRIED to link them. And that being the "weakest link" is probably the kindest way to put it!

"The US may have greater freedom in theory, (Just reading the bill of rights tells me that you do) but fredom in practice requires something more substantial. It requires the ability to actually exercise those theoretical rights."

This is the only freedom I care about!