>>
>> Do they *really* think they can scare us into
>>submission, or scare us into changing our
>>policies they don't like? If they do, then
>>they are ignorant of the entire history of this
>>country. Americans are polarized politically,
>>diverse in race, religion, and culture,
>>fractured, in-fighting, and oftentimes brutal
>>to one another. But if ever our safety, our
>>soveriegnty, our freedom, or our way of life is
>>threatened or attacked, we put aside all
>>differences and stand together to face our
>>common enemy, and we do not stand down until
>>that enemy is rendered incapable of threatening
>>us anymore. Anything less would be intolerable.
>
> How can we ever make sure someone else in
>incapable of threatening "us"?

By hitting them with such devestating force that they are incapable of responding in kind.

>And why would we try it?

Because there is no other recourse. We've tried diplomacy--the Middle East peace process broke down despite President Clinton's massive efforts to get the Arabs and the Israelis to agree to a lasting truce. We've tried limited military strikes--after the Embassy bombings in Africa, President Clinton responded by attacking camps in Afghanistan known to belong to Osama bin Ladin's group.

You may disagree, but I firmly believe that there comes a time when force must be used against an enemy. We sat on our butts and did very little when the WTC towers were bombed in 1993. We again did very little when the USS Cole was hit by a suicide bomber. And again, when two of our Embassies were blown up in Africa, we did nothing. This only encouraged the terrorists to keep trying, to keep increasing the stakes.

We cannot ignore this most recent strike. With upwards of 20,000 Americans dead on our own soil, we need to respond with the type of response these people will understand.

>It just creates more martyrs for "their" cause
>and everyone pays the price. Yes people should
>be brought to justice for this, but going in
>with force into another country, or attacking
>another country for what a few of their citizens
>have done is against UN agreements.

How do you propose that anyone be brought to justice if nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq won't extradite KNOWN international terrorists so they can BE brought to justice? And I'm fairly sure there's a UN agreement against hijacking planes and flying them into office buildings and killing tens of thousands of innocent people, too. If there isn't, there sure as hell OUGHT to be.

President Bush and the Congress have made it very clear that any nation who harbors these criminals will be treated the same as the criminals themselves. Any nation that would now choose to be an enemy of the United States must now think long and hard about what the consequences of that choice will be. If the US is firm in its resolve, we can force other nations to comply with these same UN agreements you hold so dear, and give up these international criminals rather than harbor them and give them aid. But this wont be accomplished through economic or political sanctions, as has been show time and time again. These nations will more than likely have to be made to understand that harboring international terrorists = cruise missle up the ass. It's the only language many of these governments will understand.

Sure, I'd love it if suddenly all nations on Earth decided to track down and incarcerate all known terrorists within their borders, take their assets and money, destroy their communication links and their ability to commit terror. That would certainly be preferable to military force of one nation against another. Do I think it's going to happen? Nope.

>I would much rather see as many of the
>reasons "why" this was done removed. This would
>reduce the threat to "innocent" people and and
>would encourage other countries to surrender
>those people suspected of this kind of crime to
>international courts.

I'm not sure what the heck you're talking about. You want to see the destruction of the US because it's The Great Satan? That's most likely "why" this attack was carried out.

>
> What reasons the attackers had may never be
>known for sure but there is no lack of potential
>candidates, not the least of which is the
>embargo on Iraq. Regardless the best way to
>reduce the threat is for all everyone to think
>less about finding someone to punish and rather
>find ways in which we can support peacemaking
>efforts.

People who would willingly kill themselves for a cause are not the kind to ever be swayed by reason or diplomacy. They don't care much for making peace with their neighbors that they despise--instead, they advocate wholesale erradication of them. Diplomacy and "peacemaking efforts" will simply accomplish NOTHING. We've tried that again and again, and we've failed. Now is the time for action.

-- Dave