> While my examples are extreme the main thought
>is this: I have not seen any example of force
>really solving a disagreement. It is more
>likely to just escalate it. WWII may have
>brought peace but it was with a horrible cost.
>I have great trouble supporting any violent
>action for most any cause and I pray that I
>never have to make an awful choice like the
>people in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

All I have to say is that if you would not stand up to defend your home or your country when either were attacked then you do not deserve to live there.

> Secondly these acts were done for some reason.
>We may not understand them, we may not ever know
>what they were but someone somewhere feels they
>have a valid complaint against the West. If we
>respond with more violence they or someone
>connected to them will feel they have another
>valid complaint and so the cycle will continue.

The choice was theirs to make about how they voiced their "valid complaint". If this is how they chose to do so, then they must be prepared for our response. They had a great number of choices open to them, and they chose to initiate hostilities. For us to not respond now to protect the safety of our citiziens and our allies would be immoral.

What would happen if somebody invaded Canada? Would the US government sit back and say "Oh, these guys must have a pretty good reason to go killing Canadians, so I think we should just sit here, or maybe we can help broker a peace deal or something." Absolutely not. We would come rumbling over the border with our tanks and planes, our warships would engage enemy ships, and we would help you defend your country, your home, against this act of agression. Anything less would be unthinkable.

-- Dave