I don't find the article very compelling.  First, its thesis is:  "No one
steers a jet into a skyscraper unless he feels he's been seriously
aggrieved.  One could just as easily say  "No one sets out to exterminate
the Jewish population unless he feels he's been seriously aggrieved."  I
think the statement doesn't mean much.

Then, the article emphasizes: "What we've been doing, according to both
professors, is supporting governments and institutions that violate human
rights in a manner grotesque enough to make someone want to hijack an
airliner and smash it into the Pentagon."  Our hands are not clean.  We
have historically supported bad guys.  But the absurd part is that those
who hate us have much less respect for human rights.  Nations like
Afghanistan and Iraq are the worse violators.  They don't hate us because
we have failed to respect human rights, they hate us precisely because we
do respect them and give women rights, recognize free speech and religion,
etc.  Our support for the Shah was bad, but it's also decades in the past
and can't explain this.

The conclusion is: "We should reconfigure our foreign policy to emphasize
equity and decency"  Nice but meaninglessly vague.  Does it mean abandoning
Israel?  Does it mean letting Iraq take over Kuwait and other nations?



At 04:04 PM 9/28/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Attached is an article that you may find disturbing; the title immediately
explains my characterization..."Did the U.S. Ask for It?" So, delete this
email if you're weary and not in the mood for an intellectual argument
about this horrific event. (Who could possible blame you?!?)
>
>My question to you, my academic and professional colleagues, is how does
someone answer the allegations in this article?
>
>Dan
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Article.doc"
>
Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712