Somehow, I don't find that reassuring.
[I]f Mr. Berg were representing us, he would have had us sit down and listen to terrorists after they murdered 3000 of us on 9/11 and not give them preconditions for coexistence on Earth. However, the U.S. did listen. We heard what the terrorists had to say. They want us dead. They want us humilitated. They want our civilians to live in fear. It is a reasonable precondition that no one comes onto our soil and attacks our people. They violated it. And it is a reasonable to let the world know we will stand up for ourselves and for the liberty of others. Even Neville Chamberlain realized he'd been duped once Hitler started invading more countries. Appeasement didn't work to stave off World War II and it won't work with people whose goal is our destruction and subjection to their laws. There is no basis for discussion with the unreasonable.
As far as wanting world peace now, well, who doesn't? But pacifism doesn't buy peace. It buys oppression. Does the "rape of Belgium" ring any bells? Neville Chamberlain did Europe no good back in the 1930s and channeling him now won't help us today.
Michael Berg may mean well, but this kind of muddled thinking is not what we need from our leaders.
I don't think Michael Berg means well. I've cut him as much slack as I am inclined to, and then some. While he may forgive Zarqawi (the guy who first humiliated Nick and then killed him in an excruciatingly painful way), he is full of unreasonable and unreasoning hatred of Bush, who had nothing whatever to do with Nick's presence in Iraq.
He's not a pacifist--he just wants the other side to win.