> How can we ever make sure someone else in incapable of threatening "us"? And why would we try it? 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. 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.
>
> 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.

There are certain people with whom peace CANNOT be made. I am morally opposed to letting Saddam Hussein remain in power. Ditto for the Taliban. The only peaceful resolution I will accept is for them to step down from power. You do not come to terms with dictators because it is convienent to do so -- ask Britain how well this worked in the 1930s.

I'm sick of all the liberals basically going around whining about how this is a time to totally revise US policies abroad. Yes, it is. We have been *too* leniant on people who support terror as a viable means of accomplishing their will. The fact is, if you are willing to horrendous things to your own citizens, you are more than willing to do such things to citizens of foriegn countries. Military dictatorships are a danger to the rest of the world, and must be treated as such.

It's amazing how the U.S. gets painted as the big bad guy bullying all these poor defenseless countries around. At least we have a fairly elected government that doesn't bring out tanks when our citizens speak against it. Note that we tend to back Israel in conflicts -- could that be because they have a legitmitate democracy??

Force is sometimes necessary. If these acts turn out to be the work of a state sponsored terrorist, the possibility of allowing said state to continue existing is unthinkable. It is the responsibility of the US government to protect its citizens. To allow terror attacks to continue through inaction would be deplorable.

Stephen