This is in no way meant to continue a religious discussion of another thread. I just thought it was an excellent look at the historic Christian perspective towards war from a preacher/scholor.
<br>
<br>This is a partial quote from Dr. Herb Sadler's sermon this past Sunday at Gulf Breeze Methodist Church. You can find the entire text at www.gbumc.org under the Attack on America tab - Sept. 23rd Sermon:
<br>
<br>The second question we raise this morning is, “CAN A CHRISTIAN JUSTIFY WAR?” A lot of people have been asking us that. How can I as a Christian justify retaliation? In answering that question what I want to do is to give you a survey of Christian attitudes toward war throughout history. There are basically three positions you can take in relationship to war if you are a Christian. Any position you take will be some variation of one of these three. I’ll take them in chronological order:
<br>
<br>1. Pacifism - This is the belief that a Christian can never respond to evil except with non-violence. This belief grew out of the sayings of Jesus like, “Turn the other cheek,” and “Love your enemy.” So the early Christians tried as best they could to be non-violent. The pacifist position would say in answer to the question, “Can a Christian justify war?” Never. Never under any circumstance.
<br>
<br>2. Just War - This is the place where the vast majority of Christians are. This position holds that there are those times when a Christian should respond and defend. I would say it this way: what is possible at a personal level may not be preferable in the face of corporate evil. Did you follow that? If you chose to strike me what’s at risk is a black eye and a lost tooth. But if a nation chooses to attack, or an organization of terrorists do, what’s at risk is far, far greater. And so over the course of time, Christians began to believe - maybe it is more evil not to respond.
<br>
<br>The great Christian leader St. Augustine formulated in about the 4th century the “Just War Doctrine” which basically says for a Christian to respond in a violent way, 3 things have to be present:
<br>
<br>1. It has to be a just cause.
<br>2. It has to be a last resort; diplomacy and non-violent means have been tried.
<br>3. It is less evil to respond and resist than it is not to respond and resist.
<br>
<br>I think we saw a vivid example of this September 11th in the life of a man whose name we all know by now, Todd Beamer. Todd Beamer was a 32-year-old businessman, devout Christian, Sunday school teacher at Princeton Alliance Church in Princeton, New Jersey. The President at his address to Congress Thursday night introduced Todd’s wife, Lisa.
<br>
<br>Todd Beamer was on United Flight 93 when it was taken by highjackers. He used a GTE phone on the airplane and explained to an operator that there were 3 highjackers with knives, one with what appeared to be a bomb strapped to his body. Two others had taken over the **** of the airplane. Lisa Jefferson, the GTE operator, told him that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Towers and one into the Pentagon. He asked the operator if she would pray with him. They prayed, then recited the 23rd Psalm together. Todd Beamer had a phrase he always used when his family had to go somewhere. “Come on guys, let’s roll”. He has two young sons and Lisa is pregnant with a third child. “Come on guys, let’s roll.” After praying with the operator and reciting the 23rd Psalm, he laid the phone down and Lisa Jefferson, on the other end of the phone, heard the words from the plane, “Let’s roll”. And there was nothing after that.
<br>
<br>What did Todd Beamer do? He decided it was more important to respond as a Christian, to defend, than not to do so. In the course of making that decision, he and three others made sure that the plane was crashed in Pennsylvania rather than into one of our national shrines in Washington, and thereby destroying even more innocent civilians.
<br>
<br>The person who holds the “Just war” position would say in answer to the question, Can a Christian ever justify war? Seldom. Not often, but sometimes if the evil is great enough.
<br>
<br>3. The Crusade position - This concept emerged more than 1000 years after Christ. It is the belief that maybe sometimes it is ok to be the aggressor. We can attack and take the initiative and God will go with us and lead us to destroy our enemies. That school of thought hasn’t happened very often in Christian history - thankfully. Do you know who holds the crusade position? Bin Laden does. Jihad - Holy War! It is the stance of extremism that God want us to destroy others for Him. Let me suggest to you that those of whatever religion, including Christianity, who take the crusade position tend to be self righteous and morally blind.
<br>A Pacifist says never.
<br>A “Just War” person says seldom.
<br>A Crusader says always.
<br>
<br>***************
<br>After watching on the nightly news tonight the protests going on in Afghanistan, I am more convinced now than ever that we MUST take this war to Afghanistan. I believe our inaction will only embolden our enemies and make the recruitment of these "evil-doers" easier for these terrorists organizations.
<br>
<br>To me, it is unbelievable that we are even discussing in Congress and the Nation of giving up personal liberties/freedoms, while not acting against those that would attempt to take them from us. I won't repost again "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" but it is more appropriate with each passing day as Colin Powell attempts to get "permission" from other nations for America to act in Self Defense.
<br>
<br>I fear that if we don't bring incredible destruction on these people, not in secret, but in the open, as public as we can make it, so all of them can SEE what happens when you attack a nation based on the principles of freedom, we have had it. I mean it. This country will either be overrun, or will become a police state, as we clamp down on our own citizens, because we won't destroy these terrorist countries.
<br>
<br>I have a friend who is one of the great veterans of the Normandy Invasion of WWII, I am afraid that our generation is going to give away everything that he and that that great generation of Americans sacrificed to ensure the very freedoms we are so easily willing to deal away.
<br>
<br>"Let's roll."
<br>
<br>ScaredyCat
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

This just in from the Orange County Register:
<br>
<br>A right to self-defense
<br>
<br>International law provides clear standard for U.S. action against terrorists
<br>
<br>JAMES HIRSEN
<br>Mr. Hirsen, who lives in Newport Beach, is an attorney and teaches law at Trinity Law School in Santa Ana.
<br>
<br>
<br>Many nations have communicated a willingness to join with the United States in its fight against terrorism. Now some are trying to attach a condition to their support. These are the nations that insist that any action initiated against terrorists be taken under the authority of the United Nations.
<br>
<br>
<br>The sentiment expressed in this condition is not limited merely to leaders of other nations, but is being voiced within our own country as well. Some at home have questioned the legal and moral authority of U.S. policy, which was articulated in a speech by President Bush. The disagreement over which purview should prevail prompted Tony Snow of Fox News Sunday to ask National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "Are we willing to hand over control of this operation to the United Nations?"
<br>
<br>In her reply, Rice made some very important points. She described the act of Sept. 11 appropriately as "an attack on the United States, an act of war against the United States." She further stated, "The United States has the right to self-defense that is fully recognized in international law."
<br>
<br>Rice is referring to a source of law that predates use of multi-lateral treaties, international organizations and the United Nations. It springs from the philosophy upon which our nation was founded. It is referred to as customary international law. As clarified by Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, customary law is akin to domestic common law. The foundation for these rules of conduct, for individuals as well as nations, lies in something called "natural law."
<br>
<br>It is this body of law on which the Declaration of Independence relies, when it states that the justification for the separation of America from Britain is the "Law of Nature and of Nature's God."
<br>
<br>It is this body of law implanted deep within us that directs our moral compass and provides us with our sense of right and wrong. And it is this body of law that affirms the existence of that inalienable right, which allows an individual, a community or a nation to defend itself against aggression.
<br>
<br>The right to defend liberty, rooted in natural law, was powerfully announced by Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero in the following statement: "There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law that comes to us not by training or custom or reading but from nature itself ... that if our lives are endangered, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."
<br>
<br>This moral principle of self-defense is reflected in American domestic law, as seen in civil and criminal statutes and precedents. It is reflected in the constitutional authority granted a president to defend the nation from sudden attack. And it is reflected in the power given to Congress to declare war.
<br>
<br>The nation's inherent natural right to defend its citizens fully empowers our representative government to do that which is necessary to restore sufficient security to our country so that freedom remains a way of life.
<br>
<br>In his speech to the joint session of Congress, President Bush was emphatic when he said that demands on the Taliban were non-negotiable. Potential enemies and allies alike, who wish to impose conditions, insert limitations or determine the manner in which this war is waged, have been put on notice. No country or international organization is going to tell the United States of America what to do or how to do it, when more than 6,000 of our fellow citizens have been slain. Law, morality and history stand fiercely at our side. Knowing that our actions are both legally and morally justified will help us to meet one of our most critical challenges, that being, to maintain our resolve.
<br>
<br>Our march forward begins with this commitment. We will not be swayed, neither by whisperings of doubt nor peddling of guilt. As long as terrorist cells operate unrestrained, America is not safe, freedom is not secure and the war must go on.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

>> A right to self-defense
<br>
<br>Indeed, sadly selfdefense can never be reworded in a pro-active manner. And I'm just echoing normal legal practice. I can't kill somebody and not be prosecuted when the only defense I have is that the oter was planning to harm but wasn't doing anyting like that at the time of my lethal response. Your law system works the same, at least when it comes down on the definition of "self-defense"
<br>
<br>>>International law provides clear standard for U.S. action against terrorists
<br>
<br>Indeed, difficult part is to define who is a terrorist and who isn't. I say CIA is creating, helping, training and funding terrorists all over the world (You can't deny this for Bin Laden was a product of these CIA dealing as we all know). Do I now have the right to wage war on the whole USA ? Even the moral right to do this ? Of course not.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Many nations have communicated a willingness to join with the United States in its fight against terrorism. Now some are trying to attach a condition to their support. These are the nations that insist that any action initiated against terrorists be taken under the authority of the United Nations.
<br>
<br>Actually, I have been watching CNN world, BBC World, Dutch news broadcasts and others like German News bulletins for it is providing a great opportunity to study media behaviour and I found that :
<br>
<br>- The EU countries have put this condition forward right from the start.
<br>- The US has been, again, unable to show an attention span that is long enough to enclose the whole sentences that EU ministers and others formulate. I mostly see minister quotes shortened to sound bites on CNN that only show what US people want to hear and see. The second part of the sentences nearly always got lost. This is sad, for it is skewing you perception of events and situations.
<br>
<br>Even more so, the calling of article 5 of the NATO treaty transformed the USA solo action into an action that is governed by an international body in this case NATO. And if you want justice than some sort of trial must be held somewhere = "international court of justice ?". The rest is not justice just vengence.
<br>
<br>(Mind you I'm not giving my opinion here, just stating normal procedures and facts)
<br>
<br>
<br>>> Tony Snow of Fox News Sunday to ask National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "Are we willing to hand over control of this operation to the United Nations?"
<br>
<br>In her reply, Rice made some very important points. She described the act of Sept. 11 appropriately as "an attack on the United States, an act of war against the United States." She further stated, "The United States has the right to self->>defense that is fully recognized in international law."
<br>
<br>
<br>Okay, in that case you won't need the international coalition and you do it on your own right ?
<br>
<br>However, you've chosen to make it a joined effort and this mains that the world is not falling at your feet and does what ever teh USA demands of them. Coalition implies working together on an equak basis and does not imply a slave like attitude of the non USA countries. Otherwise you would need to call it enslavement or Cohersion in stead of Coalition.
<br>
<br>One other thing , the USA is showing two stands :
<br>
<br>- Attack on the USA and therefor our decision to do what we want
<br>- Attack on the free world and freedom and humanity and what else and says it needs a coalition to fight this effectively.
<br>
<br>Okay guys which one is it that you are going to run with in the future. I'm sure many countries with mixed people would vry much like to know for the first stance is destabilizing them.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Rice is referring to a source of law that predates use of multi-lateral treaties, international organizations and the United Nations. It springs from the philosophy upon which our nation was founded. It is referred to as customary international law. As clarified by Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, customary law is akin to domestic common law. The foundation for these rules of conduct, for individuals as well as nations, lies >>in something called "natural law."
<br>
<br>
<br>Somebody once said :" we both have truth, is mine the same as yours ?"
<br>
<br>This is a kind of obscure answer isn't, I'm sure there are as many "natural laws" as there are peoples or countries. Hardly a good basis for a civilized country like the USA to act up. I've got another natural law for you that the USA should take to hard : "Blood feud", I was personally hoping that we had passed this stage in the civilized world.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>It is this body of law on which the Declaration of Independence relies, when it states that the justification for the separation of America from Britain is the "Law of Nature >>and of Nature's God."
<br>
<br>And this make it a world over accepted truth. I wonder what it says in the Taliban charter. Weak ground guys.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>The nation's inherent natural right to defend its citizens fully empowers our representative government to do that which is necessary to restore sufficient security to our >>country so that freedom remains a way of life.
<br>
<br>I must say that I fail to see how freedom is harmed by this attack. I know it sounds great and mytical but honestly; a few terrorist can not in any way harm my freedom of speech and willingness to do so. Only an occupying force can do that and these group are no where as powerfull to do this. No freedom, democracy and moral values are under attack from ourselfs when congresses and goverments are given unprecidented powers to tap phoneline indescriminately. When we bomb a people to extintion because :"we need to do something and are unable to bring the planner to proper justice". When USA marks every country that isn't fully supportive (what ever that means) as being aiding terrorists and threatening them with reprisals. Sounds likes something that a certain group did when they wanted to flush out resistance fighters of a village in WW2.
<br>
<br>NO, I give the terrorists who planned the action one thing : There action has really shock up our societies to the extend that we are about to undermine our on principles and believes. That our stock markets crashed even though the economical damage inflicted by the attack itself was minute. That they are using our our system against ourself (speculation on airline put options) to finance the organisations and next actions.
<br>
<br>The really sad part is that most damage was inflicted by us on ourself in the period that followed the horrific attack, not be the attack itself. Lets not do more damage.
<br>
<br>Another example, UK (and others) have been subject to terrorisme for many years and none of those countries have been harmed in there freedom or democraties in any way. So come on USA, your deomcracy and freedom will survive this attack; that is unless you're so frightened that you abandon these principals yourself.
<br>
<br>>>In his speech to the joint session of Congress, President Bush was emphatic when he said that demands on the Taliban were non-negotiable. Potential enemies and allies alike, who wish to impose conditions, insert limitations or determine the manner in which this war is waged, have been >>put on notice.
<br>
<br>Exactly what I'm talking about.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>No country or international organization is going to tell the United States of America what to do or how to do it, when more than 6,000 of our fellow citizens have been slain. Law, >>morality and history stand fiercely at our side.
<br>
<br>
<br>Yeah, yeah. You need Pakistan as a staging area, you need Russian intelligence, you need Irans religious support, you need the Aghan Nothern Alliance's help, etc, etc, etc.
<br>And I' beginning to have difficulty to distingious between : "Allah Akbar" and "God is on our side"
<br>
<br>
<br>>Knowing that our actions are both legally and morally justified will help us to meet one of our most critical >challenges, that being, to maintain our resolve.
<br>
<br>>Our march forward begins with this commitment. We will not be swayed, neither by whisperings of doubt nor peddling of guilt. As long as terrorist cells operate unrestrained, America >is not safe, freedom is not secure and the war must go on.
<br>
<br>
<br>In that case I wish you all the luck in Afganistan for a Indian Maharadja once said quite a few years back. "May the gods shield me from the bite of the cobra and the wrath of the Afghans"
<br>
<br>Once again, WE are on the same side. I'm NOT in favour of the terrorists. I AM condemming the attack in the strongest words possible and I AM only using my god given mind to make this Quest to rid the world of terrorism (NOT WAR) an EFFECTIVE one where we e eventually win more than we loose.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

>> A right to self-defense
<br>
<br>Indeed, sadly selfdefense can never be reworded in a pro-active manner. And I'm just echoing normal legal practice. I can't kill somebody and NOT be prosecuted when the only defense I have is that the other was planning to harm but wasn't actually doing that at the time of my lethal response. Your law system works the same, at least when it comes down on the definition of "self-defense"
<br>
<br>>>International law provides clear standard for U.S. action against terrorists
<br>
<br>Indeed, difficult part is to define who is a terrorist and who isn't. I say CIA is creating, helping, training and funding terrorists all over the world (You can't deny this for Bin Laden was a product of these CIA dealing as we all know). Do I now have the right to wage war on the whole USA ? Even the moral right to do this ? Of course not.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Many nations have communicated a willingness to join with the United States in its fight against terrorism. Now some are trying to attach a condition to their support. These are the nations that insist that any action initiated against terrorists be taken under the authority of the United Nations.
<br>
<br>Actually, I have been watching CNN world, BBC World, Dutch news broadcasts and others like German News bulletins for it is providing a great opportunity to study media behaviour and I found that :
<br>
<br>- The EU countries have put this condition forward right from the start.
<br>- The US has been, again, unable to show an attention span that is long enough to enclose the whole sentences that EU ministers and others formulate. I mostly see minister quotes shortened to sound bites on CNN that only show what US people want to hear and see. The second part of the sentences nearly always got lost. This is sad, for it is skewing you perception of events and situations.
<br>
<br>Even more so, the calling of article 5 of the NATO treaty transformed the USA solo action into an action that is governed by an international body in this case NATO. And if you want justice than some sort of trial must be held somewhere = "international court of justice ?". The rest is not justice just vengence.
<br>
<br>(Mind you I'm not giving my opinion here, just stating normal procedures and facts)
<br>
<br>
<br>>> Tony Snow of Fox News Sunday to ask National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "Are we willing to hand over control of this operation to the United Nations?"
<br>
<br>In her reply, Rice made some very important points. She described the act of Sept. 11 appropriately as "an attack on the United States, an act of war against the United States." She further stated, "The United States has the right to self->>defense that is fully recognized in international law."
<br>
<br>
<br>Okay, in that case you won't need the international coalition and you do it on your own right ?
<br>
<br>However, you've chosen to make it a joined effort and this mains that the world is not falling at your feet and does what ever teh USA demands of them. Coalition implies working together on an equak basis and does not imply a slave like attitude of the non USA countries. Otherwise you would need to call it enslavement or Cohersion in stead of Coalition.
<br>
<br>One other thing , the USA is showing two stands :
<br>
<br>- Attack on the USA and therefor our decision to do what we want
<br>- Attack on the free world and freedom and humanity and what else and says it needs a coalition to fight this effectively.
<br>
<br>Okay guys which one is it that you are going to run with in the future. I'm sure many countries with mixed people would vry much like to know for the first stance is destabilizing them.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Rice is referring to a source of law that predates use of multi-lateral treaties, international organizations and the United Nations. It springs from the philosophy upon which our nation was founded. It is referred to as customary international law. As clarified by Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, customary law is akin to domestic common law. The foundation for these rules of conduct, for individuals as well as nations, lies >>in something called "natural law."
<br>
<br>
<br>Somebody once said :" we both have truth, is mine the same as yours ?"
<br>
<br>This is a kind of obscure answer by ms Rice isn't, I'm sure there are as many "natural laws" as there are peoples or countries. Hardly a good basis for a civilized country like the USA to act up. I've got another natural law for you that the USA should take to hard : "Blood feud", I was personally hoping that we had passed this stage in the civilized world. I suspect that several Arab people haven't so how are you going to deal with that after an attack.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>It is this body of law on which the Declaration of Independence relies, when it states that the justification for the separation of America from Britain is the "Law of Nature >>and of Nature's God."
<br>
<br>And this make it a world over accepted truth ? I wonder what it says in the Taliban charter. Weak ground guys, be carfull.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>The nation's inherent natural right to defend its citizens fully empowers our representative government to do that which is necessary to restore sufficient security to our >>country so that freedom remains a way of life.
<br>
<br>I must say that I fail to see how freedom is harmed by this attack. I know it sounds great and mytical but honestly; a few terrorist can not in any way harm my freedom of speech and willingness to do so. Only an occupying force can do that and these group are no where as powerfull to do this. No guys , actually, teh principles of freedom, democracy and moral are under attack from ourselfs when congresses and goverments are given unprecidented powers to tap phoneline indescriminately and pass a law that allow agencies to detain people indefinately without charge. (Both under vote in USA congres now) When we bomb a people to extintion because :"we need to do something" and are unable to bring the planner to proper justice". When USA marks every country that isn't fully supportive (what ever that means) as being aiding terrorists and threatening them with reprisals. Sounds likes something that a certain group did when they wanted to flush out resistance fighters of a village in WW2.
<br>
<br>NO, I give the terrorists who planned the action one thing : There action has really shock up our societies to the extend that we are about to undermine our on principles and believes. That our stock markets crashed even though the economical damage inflicted by the attack itself was minute. That they are using our our system against ourself (speculation on airline put options) to finance the organisations and next actions. And that the really sad part is that most damage was inflicted by us on ourself in the period that followed the horrific attack, not be the attack itself. Lets not do more damage.
<br>
<br>Another example, UK (and others) have been subject to terrorisme for many years and none of those countries have been harmed in there freedom or democraties in any way. So come on USA, your deomcracy and freedom will survive this attack; that is unless you're so frightened that you abandon these principals yourself.
<br>
<br>>>In his speech to the joint session of Congress, President Bush was emphatic when he said that demands on the Taliban were non-negotiable. Potential enemies and allies alike, who wish to impose conditions, insert limitations or determine the manner in which this war is waged, have been >>put on notice.
<br>
<br>Exactly what I'm talking about.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>No country or international organization is going to tell the United States of America what to do or how to do it, when more than 6,000 of our fellow citizens have been slain. Law, >>morality and history stand fiercely at our side.
<br>
<br>
<br>Yeah, yeah. You need Pakistan as a staging area, you need Russian intelligence, you need Irans religious support, you need the Aghan Nothern Alliance's help, etc, etc, etc.
<br>And I'm beginning to have difficulty to distingious between : "Allah Akbar" and "God is on our side"
<br>
<br>I think that the USA is in definate need of some help and guidence. (This is my opinion)
<br>
<br>
<br>>Knowing that our actions are both legally and morally justified will help us to meet one of our most critical >challenges, that being, to maintain our resolve.
<br>
<br>>Our march forward begins with this commitment. We will not be swayed, neither by whisperings of doubt nor peddling of guilt. As long as terrorist cells operate unrestrained, America >is not safe, freedom is not secure and the war must go on.
<br>
<br>
<br>In that case I wish you all the luck in Afganistan for a Indian Maharadja once said quite a few years back. "May the gods shield me from the bite of the cobra and the wrath of the Afghans"
<br>
<br>Once again, WE are on the same side. I'm NOT in favour of the terrorists. I AM condemming the attack in the strongest words possible and I AM only using my god given mind to make this Quest to rid the world of terrorism (NOT WAR) an EFFECTIVE one where we e eventually win more than we loose.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

I am unpursuaded by your critique of "scardycat's" post. Your central argument comes out in the two alternative views of the attack that occurred. One, it is an attack on the US and therefore we should act alone and two, it is an attack on all civilized countries and therefore we should act in concert and in submission to the UN. The problem with your argument is that you erroneously assume the two positions are mutually exclusive. They are not. The attack was clearly and self evidently an attack on the US directly and we clearly have the right to respond in defense of ourselves. It does not take a great leap of logic or imagination to also see this attack on the US as an attack on all modern, western democracies that promote the anthesis of what Bin Ladin stands for, namely a free, open society run by democratically elected leaders, featuring secular states that tolerate religious freedom and believe in the technical progress of human societies, relying on science and technology. In that context, any developed country in the world could be the next target for these groups.
<br>
<br>Bin Laden and others like him are essentially anti modern. They want to create theocracies that are purged of modern (western) influence and take society back to a more primitive (and in their mind), correct version of Islam. The US just happens to be the largest example of the kind of state they abhor, so we get to be their first target.
<br>
<br>As for poor Afghanistan (and poor they are). It is well accepted in most civilized societies that if you harbor a fugitive, you become an accomplice to his crime. President Bush is simply applying this principle to countries. It is a shock to me that you or anyone would try to let the Afghan government off the hook for protecting Bin Ladin. Yes, the Afghan people have suffered much over the years and still suffer under their current leadership. Many of them don't support the Taliban any more after they learned what a bunch of facists they are under the guise of Islamic fundamentalism. The leaders are responsible for the current crisis. They have allowed their country to become a "nesting" and training area for these terriorists. Now is the time to damage and destroy this terriorist leadership and structure, not later when they can do even more damage with biological or chemical or nuclear weapons.
<br>
<br>Wouter, these people would kill you in a heartbeat as part of the decadent, modern civilization they abhor. I don't think we could appease them if we tried. Remember the lessons with the last two great facists Hitler and Stalin (yes Stalin). Appeasement didn't work and they killed millions of people.
<br>
<br>You also bring up those "old warhorse" aguments that all liberals in our country bring up regarding the past sins of the US. No country is without "sins" if you review its history carefully and the cold war created strange and sometimes not too pleasant bedfellows. But our past sins don't bear any relationship to our responding to current actions. Yes, we helped the Taliban against the Russians and that seemed a good thing for a number of reasons, but they then turned on us. That is too bad for everyone; us and them.
<br>
<br>But I would ask you to always consider one thing. If you had only two regimes under which to live and raise your children, would you rather do it under the US or the Taliban?
<br>
<br>Your disclaimers at the end of your post ring hollow when the body of your message implies a sense of support for and granting of moral equivalency to the actions of those facist, fundamentalist thugs.<br><br>

-Good points David , and thanks for the post S C .
<br>-Woot characteristically as always,-with anti U S undertones ,-
<br>--
<br>-The U S is after terrorists ,-and not interested in conquering nations or overthroughing governments ,--The current ignorant leader of Iraq is proof of this fact ,-this seems to be lost to those blinded by anti U S propoganda ,--Under the Taliban no T V is allowed ,-no music ,-cencored information only aspousing their views of hatred and as David said ,-would certainly-set back progress of human developement 1000 years .
<br>
<br>-The U S strategy is correct ,-we need patients ,-this war against terrorists will take years ,-I am amazed at the progress already in two weeks time ,-tightening the noose on Biny's neck ,--many of his so called army are wisly deserting their posts ,-many others terrorists around the globe with connections have been rounded up ,-their schemes uncovered ,--some have talked .--The financial noose is tightening ,--Biny is becomming more isolated in the world each day .
<br>
<br>--the following article is example of this -
<br>-Carl
<br>
<br>-WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The dire humanitarian and security situation in Afghanistan has created what some U.S. officials call "fertile ground" for a "homegrown" challenge to Taliban rule.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br> CNN.COM SPECIAL REPORT
<br>
<br> VIDEO/AUDIO
<br> CNN's Chris Burns reports from northern Afghanistan, where constant warfare confronts villagers
<br>
<br> Sights and sounds
<br>
<br> MORE STORIES
<br>
<br> Ten arrested over hazardous materials licenses
<br>
<br> Rallies back Pakistan's Musharraf
<br>
<br> Bush proposes heightened aviation security
<br>
<br> Taliban invites Jesse Jackson to broker peace
<br>
<br> EXTRA INFORMATION
<br> U.S. aircraft overview
<br>
<br> Chronology of terror
<br>
<br> CNNFN: Special Report
<br>
<br> RESOURCES
<br> Emergency contact information
<br>
<br> Maps
<br>
<br> Voices
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Officials said they were working with a variety of what they called "Afghan nationalists," ethnic, religious and political groups in Afghanistan and abroad, in the hope that they would band together and form a new coalition government.
<br>
<br>The officials stressed, however, they could not "impose a new government on the Afghan people.
<br>
<br>"The question is, have the conditions changed enough so that Afghans themselves can effect a realignment," one official said. "Maybe it is time for the Afghan people to rise up."
<br>
<br>"To have a successful regime in Afghanistan, it has to be home grown," an official said. "You have to come up with a formula that is balanced with all ethnic groups and sects."
<br>
<br>CNN has learned the Afghan Support Group, a coalition of 22 donor nations that provide humanitarian aid to the Afghan people, plans to hold an emergency meeting Thursday in Berlin. One official said the group would discuss the "reconstruction" of Afghanistan.
<br>
<br>The Bush administration has also met quietly with moderate members of the Taliban regime and a number of Afghan opposition groups. The most widely known group is the Northern Alliance -- freedom fighters based in the northern part of the country.
<br>
<br>There are two other main Afghan coalitions: the so-called Rome group led by the former Afghan king and his supporters; and the Cyprus group which includes exiled Afghan intellectuals, former congressmen, ministers and university professors.
<br>
<br>Both have been working within a U.N. framework to promote a peaceful transition government in Afghanistan.
<br>
<br>"The social-political fabric of Afghanistan will be represented in this administration," Quadir Amiryar, a professor at George Washington University and a member of the Cyprus group, told CNN.
<br>
<br>"Then that can bring the people of Afghanistan into a stage that they will be able to form their own government and produce peace in Afghanistan."
<br>
<br>The hope, one Bush administration official said, is that a new government would isolate the terrorist groups within the country and "make them more targetable" for a military operation.
<br>
<br>Administration officials told CNN the United States wants to use the former Afghan king, Mohammed Zahir Shah, as a "rallying force" to bring these groups, in Afghanistan and around the world, together.
<br>
<br>In a message broadcast on Voice of America radio, the former king urged his former subjects to "rescue ourselves from this dangerous situation."
<br>
<br>"I am convinced with your participation and the cooperation of the international community our struggle for the return of peace shall continue until we fulfill our desired goal, which is the liberation of our homeland and people," the King said in his radio address.
<br>
<br>Next week members of the Cyprus and Rome groups, as well as Afghans from within the country and in Pakistan, will meet in Cyprus to discuss the situation and "next steps," Dr. Amiryar said. He said he would then travel to Rome to meet with the exiled king.
<br>
<br>He said that although the political will exists for the Afghan people to form a new government, the Afghans need the international community to "allocate some funds for the promotion of peace inside Afghanistan."
<br>
<br>"We are working for peace but we are empty handed," he said. "We don't have the means -- the material means, the financial means and support.
<br>
<br>Administration officials said the wild card in any plan to influence a change in government in Afghanistan is Pakistan, which helped create the Taliban and does not want a change in government.
<br>
<br>Officials said they expect Pakistan to try to ensure any new Afghan government would not be hostile to Pakistan.
<br>
<br>"Comments from Pakistan indicate a lot of nervousness about what comes next," one official said. "They see the writing on the wall, that the Taliban as we all know it is over. And we can't win in Afghanistan and then lose Afghanistan."
<br>
<br>
<br>-<br><br>

Wouter,
<br>
<br>When and if I get a chance, I'll respond to all the logical falicies in your post. Until then, you might want to watch CNN's replay of Beneath the Veil this Sunday night at 11:00 EST (Check your local listings) to gain a better understanding into the nature of the society and government that you are advocating we not retaliate against for their horrific act of terrorism on our country. Have no doubt - The Taliban are with the terrorists.
<br>
<br>The recent news of their attempts to aquire chemical/biological weapons should have you cheering in the streets for our strongest reaction.
<br>
<br>http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/
<br>
<br>ScaredyCat<br><br>

My reply to your post :
<br>
<br>>> The problem with your argument is that you erroneously assume the two positions are mutually exclusive.
<br>
<br>My point was that several countries / governments perceive this as mutual exclusive because of their own instability due to having mixed peoples. My opinion in this matter is irrelevant.
<br>
<br>Pakistan CAN work with you in a coalition that takes in account the sensitivaties of that region. They CAN"T when you decide to do your own thing anyway. The last will spark civil unrest and eventually lead to more terrorism. This was my point or the problem I wanted to highlight.
<br>
<br>
<br>>> They are not. The attack was clearly and self evidently an attack on the US directly and we clearly have the right to respond in defense of ourselves.
<br>
<br>
<br>And I'm in no way denying you this. I just underlined the need for a well balanced response. Besides it seems to be forgotten that we're not talking about 6000 US nationals here. It was the WORLD trade centre with many nationalities working there. Nearly every country has lost citizins in that attack.
<br>
<br>
<br>>> attack on the US as an attack on all modern, western democracies that promote the anthesis of what Bin Ladin stands for, namely a free, open society run by democratically elected leaders, featuring secular states that tolerate religious freedom and believe in the technical progress of
<br>>>>human societies, relying on science and technology.
<br>
<br>
<br>This is just western propaganda. Just like everybody now is so concerned about the human rights abuses of the Taliban. We knew before the attack and couldn't care less. This is hypocracy.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>In that context, any developed country in the world could be the next target for these groups.
<br>
<br>
<br>No, I feel pretty secure that the next target will still be the USA. I have never seen any militant group scant "death to EU" or "Death to Europe" during protests. Even during the the hijjacks of the 70's and 80's nearly all planes where Isreali or American. The militants see these two countries as their enemies, I don't know why, but there is a clear trend. So a mere hatred for civilazation can't be their drive. It must be something else.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>As for poor Afghanistan (and poor they are). It is well accepted in most civilized societies that if you harbor a fugitive, you become an accomplice to his crime.
<br>
<br>
<br>Then indite him ! Come with a founded charge. That is what many countries are asking for now. Many are very willing to help but just saying that the evidence remains secret is not very encouraging to these countries. All I'm saying is that you are now putting several region under pressure and causing upheaval without any clear proof apart from your suspicion. I m also certain that quite a few countries just publically give support because they fear US counter measures, not because they really want to give support. I expect to see more cracks in the coalition later on. I say prevent and use the momentum now, give evidence and alot of voices will be silenced for the short term future. Use Islam agaist him, Proof will outcast Ossy in the Islamic world. Percecuting him without public proof will only fuel conspiracy theories that will eventually rally people to him.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>President Bush is simply applying this principle to countries. It is a shock to me that you or anyone would try to let the Afghan government off the hook for protecting Bin Ladin.
<br>
<br>
<br>I'm not letting Taliban of the hook, I'm just looking at this thing in more dept.
<br>
<br>
<br>>> Yes, the Afghan people have suffered much over the years and still suffer under their current leadership. Many of them don't support the Taliban any more after they learned what a bunch of facists they are under the guise of Islamic fundamentalism. The leaders are responsible for the current crisis. They have allowed their country to become a "nesting" and training area for these terriorists. Now is the time to damage and destroy this terriorist leadership and structure, not later when they can do even more damage with biological or chemical or nuclear weapons.
<br>
<br>
<br>It is really an illusion that one can hit terrorist leadership and structure. Honestly The Germans and Japanese in WW2 couldn't, Russia couldn't and still can not and USA was actually fighting Viethcong more than it was fighting NVA.It is even a bigger illusion to state that "Money is the life blood of terrorism" and that attacking this is enflicting a serious blow to terrorism. The whole operation on the WTC probably cost something like US$200.000 for the 8 flight lessons / certificates, US$ 8000,- for the air tickets and a few bucks for pocket knives and false ID's. This amount can be funded by the savings of 8 persons in one year or one small drug or arms deal. Hell, the Oklahoma bombing costed something that most people would blow on a weekend on the town. Just diesel oil mixed with fertilizer, a electronic timer and a rented truck.
<br>
<br>The thing you can attack are the breeding grounds and feelings of neglect.
<br>
<br>Please, people let yourselfs not be fooled by illusions and propagande despite where it comes from.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Wouter, these people would kill you in a heartbeat as part of the decadent, modern civilization they abhor.
<br>
<br>
<br>Ohh, yeah, I don't think that I can't be hit by them. I'm just more concerned with the effects that will most definately hit me as a result of policies going wrong.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>I don't think we could appease them if we tried. Remember the lessons with the last two great facists Hitler and Stalin (yes Stalin). Appeasement didn't work and they killed millions of people.
<br>
<br>I'm not arguing for appeasement am I ? I'm just arguing for a balanced approach that will leave us winning more than we loose.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>You also bring up those "old warhorse" aguments that all liberals in our country bring up regarding the past sins of the US. No country is without "sins" if you review its history carefully and the cold war created strange and sometimes not too pleasant bedfellows. But our past sins don't bear any relationship to our responding to current actions.
<br>
<br>
<br>Never mind what we think, our though are useless in prevent these thing. Important is what they think for they believe that it is compelling enough to commit suicide attacks for it. This is my point. Together with the fact that we western nation have been acting like a cheap whore from time to time. Our love was never sincere and highly motivated by selfinterest and we had a different sweetheart every night dependend on who suited our situation best at the time. Or have you already forgotten that WE created Saddam Hussein and kept him in power. That WE now are brushing up to IRAN when yesterday it was the Evil Empire. That WE promised a solution in the Israelli/palestinian conflict when building the Gulf war coalition. That WE created and used BInny with his militants againstte russian and now are using the Russians against Binny. And so on. It is amazing how easily we swap friends.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Yes, we helped the Taliban against the Russians and that seemed a good thing for a number of reasons, but they then turned on us. That is too bad for everyone; us and them.
<br>
<br>
<br>My point is : Why did they turn on us, as you say ?"
<br>
<br>
<br>>>But I would ask you to always consider one thing. If you had only two regimes under which to live and raise your children, would you rather do it under the US or the Taliban?
<br>
<br>
<br>What so you think !!?? I fail to say how this is relevant.
<br>
<br>>>Your disclaimers at the end of your post ring hollow when the body of your message implies a sense of support for and granting of moral equivalency to the actions of those facist, fundamentalist thugs.
<br>
<br>No, they sound hollow in your earns because you want to hear other things. things that are in agreement with your stand on things. Happy CNN viewing !
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

Wouter,
<br>
<br>I was in the middle of responding to your post piece by piece until I came to your statement: "Somebody once said: "we both have truth, is mine the same as yours?"
<br>
<br>I am taking it that you find some substance in that statement. Congratulations, you can now count yourself among the many followers of the German Philosopher Immanual Kant. His philosphies came to their greatest fruition in Nazi Germany. The notion that we can't know "reality" and that all things are somehow grey and "mystical" was the basis of the worst totalatarian regime in history.
<br>
<br>"I must say that I fail to see how freedom is harmed by this attack. I know it sounds great and mystical but honestly; a few terrorist can not in any way harm my freedom of speech and willingness to do so."
<br>
<br>(I'm so aghast by this statement that It makes me wonder why I am wasting the time discussing this with you.)
<br>
<br>It is for the very reason of your inability to understand how this WAS an attack on Freedom that your nation wasn't attacked and America was!
<br>
<br>The very reason America was attacked and not Germany or any number of other countries, is BECAUSE of the philosophic basis of our country, which includes freedom of speech. Anyone who thinks that anything less than the Rights of Man came under attack on September 11th isn't paying attention to the very words that the terrorists use to defend their actions.
<br>
<br>The very reason your own country is not presently under attack is because they've already won the war there...a nation of individuals like you could never stop an evil regime, you have gone down a philosophic road so dark and mind-numbing that you can't even recognize that a fight for freedom is required and that it would be worthwhile.
<br>
<br>As I stated to you earlier though, you're lucky, because most Americans will come to your aid and do the "dirty work" of defending freedom and you will continue to be "free" to post your idiotic diatribes that make feeble attempts to attach some moral equivalency between the United States and the Taliban. No such equivalency exists.
<br>
<br>"In his speech to the joint session of Congress, President Bush was emphatic when he said that demands on the Taliban were non-negotiable. Potential enemies and allies alike, who wish to impose conditions, insert limitations or determine the manner in which this war is waged, have been put on notice.
<br>
<br>Exactly what I'm talking about."
<br>
<br>EXACTLY - you just don't get it! There is RIGHT and WRONG in the world...what you seem to be doing is attacking some mis-guided attempts on the part of the United States to rid the world of a greater evil by utilizing a lesser evil as some sort of justification to take no action against evil.
<br>
<br>To be clear, personally I am for the unilateral use of force against the Talaban and their government of Afghanistan. I don't want our country to use bases in Pakistan or any other non-democratic country; but, I don't have the military intelligence to know what it will take to "get" Ben Laden and the government that harbors him, so I have to defer to our ELECTED president to make the proper decision in this matter. If I don't like it, I'll vote him out in the next election...you see - in America we don't accept that we are "innocent" from the actions of our Governement, we hold them responsible for their actions each election, and we are "responsible" for their actions as well.
<br>
<br>"Once again, WE are on the same side. I'm NOT in favour of the terrorists. I AM condemming the attack in the strongest words possible and I AM only using my god given mind to make this Quest to rid the world of terrorism (NOT WAR) an EFFECTIVE one where we eventually win more than we loose."
<br>
<br>What you don't get is that you are IN FACT in favour of the terrorists. Your words to the contrary are only at the end of a long list of ideas that our in line with "terrorist" principles. Your attempts to transfer the responsiblity for the initiation of force from the terrorists to failed US policies is ludicrous.
<br>
<br>Think about it: Ben Laden claims that the war on America is based in some part on the American presence in Saudi Arabia. If not for our requested presence there today, Saudi Arabia would have been acquired long ago by Iraq...who INITIATED force on it's neighbor Kuwait.
<br>
<br>**********
<br>
<br>I would like to end this thread (for my part) with the following very hopeful quotation:
<br>
<br>"...Those who do not grasp the ESSENCE of historic events cannot discover their relationship to similar but superficially varied events in other nations and eras...A dictator is not a self-confident person. He preys on weakness, uncertainty, fear. He has no chance among men of self-esteem. But in an age of self-doubt, he rises to the top: men who do not know their own course or value have no means to resist his promises and demands...Men cannot know their course or value without the guidance of principles. A nation does not learn from disaster - only from discovering its cause...A country with a philosophic base, freed from fundamental uncertainty and guilt, would not tolerate leaders who evade every choice, crawl down the middle of every road, and wait for the deluge. It would not tolerate any deluge by the waves of self-righteous, man-hating evil, foreign or domestic. It would not apolgize for greatness to the worshipers of weakness. It would not watch in dispair while its youth turned in despair to cults, communes, and coccaine...A country with a philosophic base would know it's ideals and it's direction: conviction would replace paralysis...Then the kind of man who loves his life-the kind who still feels hope and pride-the man who loves this country, would teach it to love itself...And then the country, and the world, would be safe...In 1787, one of the members of the Constitutiional convention, asked by a bystander what kind of government the framers were giving to the new nation, answered: "A republic-if you can keep it."
<br>
<br>**********
<br>
<br>Let's roll,
<br>
<br>ScaredyCat<br><br>

Hey Wout,
<br>You're a smart guy, but you think too much, sometimes.
<br>Basics:
<br>1. The last 4 wars/conflicts in which America fought, on foreign soil, were in defense of Muslims. Can you name them? No fair surfing around first!
<br>
<br>2. After we tried in this country for 4 long years to ignore WWII and let the rest of the world alone, the Japanese made that impossible to continue. (I'll admit that our economic policy favored their enemies in their war of conquest; but otherwise, we'd all be speaking Russian today.) So, years and thousands of lives later, we and our allies captured most of the civilized and "uncivilized" world. (You're about to argue, that if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, you might have won it all. Wrong, Wout. Hitler attacked Russia, which turned on him in consequence and *STILL* met us at Berlin. Churchill and Roosevelt were actively wooing Stalin before Hitler's foolish treachery. Stalin was considering switching sides because he could count to zero real quick, and zero is how much defense he though Hitler had in the east. Even with the surprise attack, Stalin still battled back to take all of east Europe - - think what prize he expected to win by switching sides first! Hitler could count as well as Stalin, knew the three leaders were meeting, and so he took desperate measures.)
<br>
<br>Then we gave the world back, for the most part, to its rightful owners. We gave France back to the French, in spite of Vichy's perfidy. We gave Egypt to the Egyptians, Italy to the Italians, hey, we gave Japan to the Japanese and every inch of the Germany we controlled back to the Germans. Thousands of miles of Northen Africa and the Middle east, all returned to whomever we could find to take it, after we kicked the Axis powers out. Some places, the overlapping and intermingling claims to 'ancestral ownership' made impossible to fairly give back, but give we did anyway, and some of those places are troubled today.
<br>
<br>Yes, one deeply contested bit of land that our allies and we wrenched free from the Axis, we gave to the Jews. (Possibly in guilt over our failure to believe reports of, and go earlier to war in order to remedy the Nazi's horrors against Jews, Romany, Poles and others. What has Germany given to the Jews in the 60 years since that atrocity?) The Palistinians dislodged from this area by the Axis, and by our fight with the Axis, do claim this land. But it was the Axis we took it from, not them. They'd already lost, and, by the reasoning employed by our detractors we would have kept it for ourselves and today enjoy cheap oil. I'm glad we didn't, damn proud we made an effort to return it and go home.
<br>
<br>Then, THEN, Wouter, we spent incalculable sums of money to rebuild the countries that had stolen our peace, our sons and daughters, and our ability to ever relax in our prosperous little TV room in peace again. Wout, if we hadn't, you'd be speaking Russian today… as a national language, rather than, as I suspect, as a charming little affectation. Then we forgave billions in war debts to those nations. I fully expect and hope to spend far larger sums to rebuild the cesspool the Taliban have created in Afghanistan, and to feed the hungry elsewhere in the Moslem world. We face a humanitarian crisis of staggering proportion there, and for 8 years, CNN's fair haired liar would do nothing about it except toss a few very expensive missiles on the day Lewinsky sang to the grand jury about humming to his johnson.
<br>
<br>After all of this, countless American lives and American treasure to redeem a world driven mad by one greedy megalomaniac and a couple of opportunist nations that rode along with him, Wouter, we learned a lesson. The lesson we took from WWII was that if we leave you kids alone in the back yard long enough, you're likely to burn down the whole neighborhood. So now we mix in and break up the fights before they get out of hand. And each time, we debate it amongst ourselves, fiercely. Then somebody says, "This is how Hitler started out, grabbing a little land, killing his internal sub-populations." About half the time, the poor guy is laughed off the national stage and nothing happens for a while. If, and only if, that analysis does in fact prove inescapable, then we tiredly put down the remote, sigh, get up and hand out a whuppin' to whomever seems to be making the most noise. Usually, the little bullies don't like a large taste of their own medicine. So some of them hold a grudge. Bummer. The truly maddening thing is, the Rwandans hate us for not meddling more and sooner, and every tinpot little dictator we cuffed around a little has it in for us for saving his victims. Go figure.
<br>
<br>And if you don't like this state of affairs, that's divine comedy too, bucko, 'cause your wonderful culture spawned the madness which was the only thing sick enough to drive us out of our complacent lotus-eating. Yup, WWII was a big enough pain in the neck to teach even lazy, stupid, selfish Americans that we can't leave you bigoted, genocidal, homicidal kids alone for a minute. And what do we get out of it? Where are our puppet governments running vassal nations, chained in tribute to the great Satan America? Howzabout West Germany, for one example? Yup, guilty as charged; we set up a non-fascist regime that we then allowed to grow into a truly independent state. I wouldn't have it any other way, Wout, but how many times in the last 30 yrs has Wall street worried what the Bundesbank was going to do in complete disinterest of American financial well being? But where else have we had a better chance to "own" a country? Sure we topple dictatorships, try to substitute other forms of goverments; but when has that been so that we could actually subjugate a nation? I can name 10 places it resulted in freer, more prosperous citizens, who have demonstrated their independence in ways mildly or seriously injurious to our self interest. Why do we permit Puerto Rico to choose a very cushy semi-independence-with-lot$-of-the-benefit$-of-$tatehood? The only possible answer, Wout, is that large numbers of Americans want to conduct our international affairs fairly, and therefor we do so.
<br>
<br>And furthermore, to blame CNN for our "bias" is to reveal your utter ignorance of the true meaning of the word. CNN is in fact owned by Ted Turner, husband to Hanoi Jane Fonda, and his network is only this year finally realizing that the rest of us gave up that hip student cultural self-hatred years ago. Turner's CNN has made an art form of showcasing anti-American points of view, not as counterpoint, but as assumed fact.
<br>
<br>Trouble is, Wout, you try to understand us by asking yourself, "What would I be up to if I did what they're doing right now." The thing is, we're not you. If we were the world class international predators you imply by your fatuous dissection of our country's current efforts, we'd have kept the Rumillah oil fields for ourselves after Desert Storm. English would be the national language in Germany, (nevermind we can't even make it the national language here). And the minute the Soviet Union crumbled, we would have bitch-slapped that arrogant little pissant in Cuba, and nuked China till the rubble glowed from orbit (they only have 20 or so missiles, to our 2000 - you do the math, while you're suckin' down lungfulls of glowing loess.) (Loess, for your info, smart guy, is the top hundred feet of very fertile soil on the plains of China) (You're downwind of China) Lucky for you, we ain't like our detractors paint us.
<br>
<br>Okay, now that I've vented, and feel just a little bit better, I'll spend one pointless minute on your ridiculous argument. Wout, if you're standing on the beach next to me, and some jacka$$ walks up to you and assaults you; under 'natural law' I'd think you'd defend yourself vigorously, and call for help. But even as misguided as I think you are, I still wouldn't wait for you to ask. I'd jump the jerk, and shrug off your thanks later, instead of asking for deals and payments first, as your EU neighbors are doing now. And I wouldn't stand around, debating the marquis of Queensbury rules for fisticuffs either. If you kicked his nuts up to his sternum, I wouldn't hesitate to choke the attitude out of him from behind while you were doing it. And if he had 3 friends, well I'd face that when I found out about it, because I live in America dammit, and around here, I think I can count on a few guys like me too even up the odds a little if that happened. Too bad the EU isn't like that.
<br>
<br>Don't you get it, Wout? Over here, even A$$holes are worth defending, when unfairly attacked. We like our backyard to be free of such behavior, so we oppose it at every turn.
<br>
<br>Case in point. American flight 93. When the passengers learned their hijackers were flying them to a close encounter with other innocent lives, they took a vote (a VOTE, Wout, get it, DEMOCRACY) and decided, in mere minutes, to go and do something about it. They didn't call up the government, ask for a deal for their families, weasel and whine about "what's in it for us, we die either way, why should we save other folks' lives on the ground?" They acted, Wout. Among the front of the charge was a 6'5" (almost 2 meters, to you) homosexual Rugby player. (A man subject to execution under Taliban rule, by the way, does the symmetry appeal, Wout? We more than tolerate 'his kind' - - we celebrate 'them' because 'they' is 'us' in this country)
<br>
<br> We know all this from at least 3 different cell phone calls placed by different passengers. The most informative one was from a passenger who could only reach the cellular operator, giving her messages for his wife, describing their intentions, then, calmly informing her that it was time to stand up and do the job. He left the line open, and his last audible words, before the screaming and the plane cash, were,
<br>
<br>"Let's Roll"
<br>
<br>If you don't have the vision or the courage to see the world that way… don't worry, we'll take care of the boogey men for you. But at least, if you won't lead or follow or even get out of the way, please have the decency to stop braying while we make the big sacrifice so that the world is free for mediocre boat designers to shoot off their opinionated mouths about virtually everything later.
<br>
<br>And just because maybe your people's secret desire was once to conquer the world, don't worry that we'll come close to big opportunities in the near future. I'm damn proud to say that, given the last 50 years to judge by, most of the new economies we'll be creating will reward us with indiference, at best... but they'll eventually buy Mercedes and BMW and Daimler, using money we forgive them in loans and guarantees. I wouldn't have that any other way either. You see, Wouter, that'll be this century's proof we're not the bad guys.
<br>
<br>And to anyone who has enough courage, vision, or simple decency to heed the call, I say,
<br>
<br>"Let's Roll."<br><br>

>Indeed, sadly selfdefense can never be reworded in a pro-active manner. And I'm just echoing normal legal practice. I can't kill somebody and NOT be prosecuted when the only defense I have is that the other was planning to harm but wasn't actually doing that at the time of my lethal response. Your law system works the same, at least when it comes down on the definition of "self-defense"
<br>
<br>
<br>Oh, and my brother the attorney says you're wrong about self defence, in both countries, the standard, you may even have heard, is "clear and present danger" Meaning, If somebody should make a quick, non-lethal slice into me with a lethal weapon, followed by adopting a menacing posture, or uttering threats, or refusing to leave my premesis on clear orders, and I'm free to blaze away, tapdance on his corpse and finger-paint obsenities on his chest.
<br>I'd describe killing 6000 people, from 69 countries, then calling for death to all Americans, "clear and present danger" in any court except yours, Wout.
<br>
<br><br><br>

Wouter<br><br>

And one more thing, Wouter,
<br>
<br>I think that if anything, the fact that it was on American soil has less to do with this than that it is such a huge expansion of the conflict quo ante.
<br>
<br>As my wife just mentioned, if this had been, God forbid, done to the Brandenberg gate, the Arc de Triumphe (Sp?) or Buckinghgam Palace, many Americans would feel, I think, less conflicted, and more committed to a remedy. We'd pick up our gear and open up a nice can of whup-a$$ on whomever slapped your face quicker than you could start whining about it.
<br>
<br>See, then, Wout, nobody could call us anything but "good guys" in our response, intent, etc. There's a wide streak of self-doubt in our national conscience. It dates back to two signal events in our modern history: The end of the Viet Nam Conflict, and Watergate.
<br>
<br>First, both events happened when a sizeable majority of today's professional journalists were at or near the beginning, formative phase of their carreers. What truly ended the Viet Nam conflict, more than any debate about endss justifying means, was a pulitzer winning photograph, of a little asian child, running away from a napalm attack on his village. It was on the cover of Life magazine (Time?) It was then that Americans began seriously to question whether any ends could justify such horrible means. That photographer is widely credited, among journalists, with ending the war, and his colleagues have all been, with a small part of their minds, on the lookout to duplicate his feat, if you could get them past the embarassment of admitting it. The national self doubts already expressed by the young spread to enough other parts of our culture to make the end inevitable.
<br>
<br>A few years later, Wout, Watergate Hotel was broken into, touching off an awful scandal, the worst mostly because it was the first of such public extent. Later scandals, which arguably involved greater transgressions, seemed milder, mostly because we'd already lost our faith that American Government had to be right, just because it was American.
<br>Again, Wout, it was journalists who brought Nixon low, at least, Woodward and Bernstein are more famous than the informant whose tool they allowed themselves to become. So journalists are also on the lookout to pull off another grand expose of American Governmental abuse.
<br>
<br>It is this sub-text to American journalism that you have missed in your Euro-centric analysis of our info- infrastructure. I referred to it before to you as that "hip student national self hatred" but you see it's deeper than that, and, oddly enough, Wout, it's centered in mainstream broadcast journalism, and CNN is often cited as its bastion.
<br>So you see, Wouter, we'd truly march off to defend you from your neighbors faster and surer of purpose than to defend ourselves - - our own tortured conscience, our own contingent of professional self critics, would rest easier in that case. Ask any American, we see old pictures of Allied soldiers greeting the liberated French in the streets of Paris, and we thnk, 'that was one time not even the reflexively anti-American types could make up some kind of complaint about how we were just being imperial." We really did go over, take it all back from the invaders, give it all back to the owners, and we came home. I get choked up.
<br>Come to think of it, that's what we did in Kuwait too. And to those who say, "America just did it for the oil" I'd say, no. Plenty of Americans hate bullies, and would go anywhere the bad guys are whuppin on the little guys. Trouble is, we catch so much resentment, at home and abroad, from the likes of you Wouter, that we debate it to death and nothing happens. In Kuwait, the Americans of good conscience who felt it was the right thing to do were joined, sure enough, by the pragmatic, who felt it was the smart thing to do, and together, they shouted down your spiritual brothers who reflexively cant that it is always the wrong thing to do, and we just did it.
<br>
<br>We went over, by invitation of the victims and likely victims of aggression, we did the job, we gave incalculable wealth back to the lawfull owners, we forged a coalition of hereditary enemies, and we stopped short of our own best interest, at the expressed will of our coalition partners. The Saudi's don't want Saddam Hussain out of there, he's at least only paying lip service to Islam. Without him between them and Iran, well, Kuwait and Saudi fear fundamentalism so much that they'd rather leave a proven agressor in place to insulate them. Saddam's minority Ba'ath party, if overthrown, might well be replaced by a majority fundamentalist movement.
<br>
<br>So we stopped where the locals wanted, left a man in place with good reason to hate us, and again by request, left a garrison in place to protect his neighbors from him. What happened next is typical of us. I'm proud to say that by failing to cheat our allies, by being a good, honest partner in securing their homelands, but not going beyind their wishes to finish what we started, we engineered much of our present troubles. See, Osama Bin Laden, fresh from his victories in Afghanistan *which we supported* returned to his adopted homeland, Saudi Arabia, and found himself fresh out of enemies, and looking at infidel troops quartered on Saudi soil. He protested so loudly that his own government threw him out. And Saddam, well, even you must remember how much rabble rousing he's done.
<br>
<br>Is it any wonder we find Saddam's and bin Laden's fingerprints all over this thing? And still, knowing all that I now know, I'm still proud of our conduct in the Gulf, and that, Wouter, is mostly because the outcome, so painful to us, proves you so fatally wrong about our actions, intents, and probable future.
<br>
<br>People like you, Wout, who use their intellect as tools, not to find the truth, but to twist it to their emotional preconceptions, sap what is best and brightest about my country:
<br>
<br>That we have in the past, and remain willing to in the present and future, shed our blood, toil and treasure to defend your right to criticize and belittle us. And oddly enough, if you and your ideological kin spent less time in the way, Afghanis and Rwandan Hutu's alike would be living better lives already. If we were like your countrymen, we'd have kept Berlin, instuted Goebel's style of journalism (The 'Big lie') and you couldn't find a place to air your fatuous prevarications. This very internet you use to disseminate your prattle wouldn't exist, certainly not in it's free and open condition.
<br>
<br>But don't ever change Wouter. It's by your very freedom to bray on that I measure the greatness of my country, seen clearest in the purity of her intent and the outcome of her actions.
<br>
<br>

Loess is not only found on the plains of China, and the name does not imply a specific locality or type section. The term "loess" indicates a specific origin and depositional environment - loess deposits are 1/16 to 1/32 millimeter-sized grains, emplaced by wind. Individual grains are almost exclusively siliceous, and derive from deserts or poorly vegetated (dry) areas near glaciers. Leoss deposits are commonly massive (not an expression of size, but indicating no stratification is present) and well graded. The word, I believe, is Scandanavian in origin. I have a sample of loess collected from between 30-50 feet below ground surface in Natchez, Mississippi.
<br>
<br>Loess deposits are, as Ed indicated, quite extensive in China. The erosion and entrainment of these deposits give the Yellow River its name. Loess is particularly fertile and is associated with some of the finest farming land in South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois.
<br>
<br>Cheers -
<br>
<br>John Williams, P.G.
<br>Registered Professional Geologist
<br>Mississippi, Alabama, Florida<br><br>

>> A right to self-defense
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter said:
<br>Indeed, difficult part is to define who is a terrorist and who isn't. I say CIA is creating, helping, training and funding terrorists all over the world (You can't deny this for Bin Laden was a product of these CIA dealing as we all know). Do I now have the right to wage war on the whole USA ? Even the moral right to do this ? Of course not.
<br>
<br>Ed Points out: Absolutely false. bin Laden was trained to recruit Mujahideen, or holy fighters, in a jihad, or holy war against Soviet invaders of Afghanistan. There is no evidence he was trained by the CIA to foment terror, attack civilians, or blow up airlines. Your statement is heinous, Wouter. By the way Guerilla war has been the nature of war for thousands of years; only the Romans invented the tactic of standing Armies, lined up in battlefields. The Middle Eastern military scholars regard that as an interesting variation with an unproven success record. Don’t confuse guerilla war with terrorism. If East Germany understood Guerilla war, we would have freed it 45 years sooner for you.
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>- The EU countries have put this condition forward right from the start.
<br>Ed:
<br> And that’s the disgusting part. See my other post, on the subject of interrupting a mugging only after negotiating with the victim.
<br>Wouter:
<br>Even more so, the calling of article 5 of the NATO treaty transformed the USA solo action into an action that is governed by an international body in this case NATO. And if you want justice than some sort of trial must be held somewhere = "international court of justice ?". The rest is not justice just vengence.
<br>
<br>(Mind you I'm not giving my opinion here, just stating normal procedures and facts)
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>Does a Nato action abridge US’s rights? Hardly. Again I draw your attention to my other post, about a mugging. If the victim calls for aid, must he then refrain from a spirited defense while the onlookers quibble? Get real.
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>> Tony Snow of Fox News Sunday to ask National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "Are we willing to hand over control of this operation to the United Nations?"
<br>
<br>In her reply, Rice made some very important points. She described the act of Sept. 11 appropriately as "an attack on the United States, an act of war against the United States." She further stated, "The United States has the right to self->>defense that is fully recognized in international law."
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>Okay, in that case you won't need the international coalition and you do it on your own right ?
<br>
<br>However, you've chosen to make it a joined effort and this mains that the world is not falling at your feet and does what ever teh USA demands of them. Coalition implies working together on an equak basis and does not imply a slave like attitude of the non USA countries. Otherwise you would need to call it enslavement or Cohersion in stead of Coalition.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>Nope. Wrong again Wout. They poked the sleeping giant awake, and you get to choose; we’re kind enough not to throw our weight around too much here and let you quibble and such, and allow you to lend what aid you can, we’re just not comfortable allowing the weak sisters out there to go to bat for their friends on the other side, and define our mission. Sign up and be remembered as a good guy or whine and be remembered as a quisling; a Chamberlain, or just a vacuous fool. Choice is yours.
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>One other thing , the USA is showing two stands :
<br>
<br>- Attack on the USA and therefor our decision to do what we want
<br>- Attack on the free world and freedom and humanity and what else and says it needs a coalition to fight this effectively.
<br>
<br>Okay guys which one is it that you are going to run with in the future. I'm sure many countries with mixed people would vry much like to know for the first stance is destabilizing them.
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>>Rice is referring to a source of law that predates use of multi-lateral treaties, international organizations and the United Nations. It springs from the philosophy upon which our nation was founded. It is referred to as customary international law. As clarified by Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, customary law is akin to domestic common law. The foundation for these rules of conduct, for individuals as well as nations, lies >>in something called "natural law."
<br>
<br>
<br>Somebody once said :" we both have truth, is mine the same as yours ?"
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>This is a kind of obscure answer by ms Rice isn't, I'm sure there are as many "natural laws" as there are peoples or countries. Hardly a good basis for a civilized country like the USA to act up.
<br>See my other post about the mugging. Any two kids can tell you this, at least, in our country they can; the one who hits first is wrong, always. They hit us, we’re gonna fix their wagons real purty. The question you need to answer is, will you allow your world to contain people who behave this way or not? We’d do the same for you, as I note elsewhere in this thread, we’d do it faster and more comfortably in mind for you than for ourselves.
<br>
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>>The nation's inherent natural right to defend its citizens fully empowers our representative government to do that which is necessary to restore sufficient security to our >>country so that freedom remains a way of life.
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>I must say that I fail to see how freedom is harmed by this attack. I know it sounds great and mytical but honestly; a few terrorist can not in any way harm my freedom of speech and willingness to do so. Only an occupying force can do that and these group are no where as powerfull to do this. No guys , actually, teh principles of freedom, democracy and moral are under attack from ourselfs when congresses and goverments are given unprecidented powers to tap phoneline indescriminately and pass a law that allow agencies to detain people indefinately without charge. (Both under vote in USA congres now) When we bomb a people to extintion because :"we need to do something" and are unable to bring the planner to proper justice". When USA marks every country that isn't fully supportive (what ever that means) as being aiding terrorists and threatening them with reprisals. Sounds likes something that a certain group did when they wanted to flush out resistance fighters of a village in WW2.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>We say they are attacking freedom because it is true. They attack freedom by forcing us to choose between being the freest society on the planet and being secure from more horror. But moreover, they attack freedom because they abhor it. In fundamentalist states there isn’t freedom to shave, literally to shave in the morning. And they fear the influence of just sharing a planet with a people who practice freedom as devoutly as they claim to practice their form or perversion of noble Islam. They fear their people learning what joy lies in freedom, what life-enriching power resides in free markets. They fear their people learning that repressive religion, not the “great Satan” has made misery in their lives and kept their countries mired in the stone age.
<br>Wouter:
<br>NO, I give the terrorists who planned the action one thing : There action has really shock up our societies to the extend that we are about to undermine our on principles and believes. That our stock markets crashed even though the economical damage inflicted by the attack itself was minute. That they are using our our system against ourself (speculation on airline put options) to finance the organisations and next actions. And that the really sad part is that most damage was inflicted by us on ourself in the period that followed the horrific attack, not be the attack itself. Lets not do more damage.
<br>
<br>Another example, UK (and others) have been subject to terrorisme for many years and none of those countries have been harmed in there freedom or democraties in any way. So come on USA, your deomcracy and freedom will survive this attack; that is unless you're so frightened that you abandon these principals yourself.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>We have a far more open and unrestrictive society than they. We wish to keep it that way, instead of ducking and covering up. So we’re going to do something about it, once and for all.
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>>In his speech to the joint session of Congress, President Bush was emphatic when he said that demands on the Taliban were non-negotiable. Potential enemies and allies alike, who wish to impose conditions, insert limitations or determine the manner in which this war is waged, have been >>put on notice.
<br>
<br>Wouter:
<br>Exactly what I'm talking about.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>Me too. The message is, “Put up or pull out, choose already, and we’ll act accordingly. We’re serious about this and if you’re not, you just have to hunker down and wait till the dust clears, Wout - - and god help you if you won’t take responsibility for the actions of people living on your soil, for by failing to act, you leave us no way to respect your sovereignity, and insure our safety. Even though this has been true for decades, starting today, be advised we’re going to act. This may be the only warning you’ll get.
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>>No country or international organization is going to tell the United States of America what to do or how to do it, when more than 6,000 of our fellow citizens have been slain. Law, >>morality and history stand fiercely at our side.
<br>Wouter
<br>Yeah, yeah. You need Pakistan as a staging area, you need Russian intelligence, you need Irans religious support, you need the Aghan Nothern Alliance's help, etc, etc, etc.
<br>And I'm beginning to have difficulty to distingious between : "Allah Akbar" and "God is on our side"
<br>
<br>ED:
<br>Evidently, you have trouble with distinguishing “God” from “morality”. He didn’t say “god is on our side” he said morality is. Morality does not flow from God, Wouter, but from man. I’m moral not for superstitious mumbo jumbo reasons, but because I like the way it affects my immediate surroundings, and the way those surroundings and people respond to it. And he’s right also, that the Pakistani’s and others have reasons to dislike bin Laden’s conduct, and so to aid us, but no moral high ground to dictate terms.
<br>Wouter:
<br>I think that the USA is in definate need of some help and guidence. (This is my opinion)
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>If this post represents the “guidance” you feel we need, Wouter, stick to boats. (This is my opinion)
<br>
<br>Scaredy Cat:
<br>>Knowing that our actions are both legally and morally justified will help us to meet one of our most critical >challenges, that being, to maintain our resolve.
<br>
<br>>Our march forward begins with this commitment. We will not be swayed, neither by whisperings of doubt nor peddling of guilt. As long as terrorist cells operate unrestrained, America >is not safe, freedom is not secure and the war must go on.
<br>Wouter:
<br>In that case I wish you all the luck in Afganistan for a Indian Maharadja once said quite a few years back. "May the gods shield me from the bite of the cobra and the wrath of the Afghans"
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>It’s simple Wouter. All we need over there is food. That and to resist the temptation to try to convert them to Christianity. Feed ‘em and respect their religion. We get an awfull lot of practice in this country, calling each other bigots and ethnocentrics for the most trivial of misstatements and misunderstandings of each other’s religions. Most of the foreign nationals I’ve employed have it in common that they find it ludicrous, the lengths we’ll go to, to avoid even the appearance of intolerance. As long as we can show the moderate Islamic world that a) people in Afghanistan are being helped, and b) those people aren’t being ‘stolen from the faithfull’ then we should be okay on the international front.
<br>But thanks for your words of encouragement, Wout.
<br>Wouter:
<br>Once again, WE are on the same side. I'm NOT in favour of the terrorists. I AM condemming the attack in the strongest words possible and I AM only using my god given mind to make this Quest to rid the world of terrorism (NOT WAR) an EFFECTIVE one where we e eventually win more than we loose.
<br>
<br>Ed:
<br>Your silly accusations of us training bin Laden in terrorism notwithstanding, you mean? If all that were available was help like yours, I’d just as soon go it alone, thanks.
<br>Ed Norris
<br><br><br>

You guys are just wasting your breath trying to get weezer to admit he is wrong or change his mind.
<br>He is a kid who has been brought up in a socialist state and has become a willing advocate of their anti-individualist diatribe. He wasn't even old enough to understand what the Berlin Wall was before it was torn down.
<br>To people like him, everthing must be done with permission from a group consensus. They expect a body of authority to tell them what, where and when to do everything. Their society has already lost the freedoms that we are about to lose. People like him can't understand the loss of something they never had. They don't understand fighting for something, someone is trying to take away. They just want to call on NATO (mostly US forces) or the UN(mostly US forces) to take care of their problems.
<br>It's the old jealousy thing. The poor, dumb kid from the wrong side of the tracks, throwing rocks at the smart, rich kids and then running and hiding.
<br>Why do you think he spends so much time on this website?
<br>Notice how he is constantly telling us how to run our sailing organizations, but he doesn't have anything to do with his own country's! Or maybe they won't have anything to do with him?
<br>We talk about upcoming regattas and past regattas and how different boats handle and all he does is is copy advice out of books or repeat what he heard someone else say (who actually sailed the boat in question).
<br>He is mad and jealous because he is left out of fun we are having RACING.
<br>Pitiful, just pitiful!!<br><br>

Not to try to get the last word in; (that never works and I've learned not to try with my wife), but here is some clarification organized around your response.
<br>
<br>>>My point was that several countries / governments perceive this as mutual exclusive because of their own instability due to having mixed peoples. My opinion in this matter is irrelevant. <<
<br>
<br>My statement still stands; those countries are wrong in their analysis.
<br>
<br>>>Pakistan CAN work with you in a coalition that takes in account the sensitivaties of that region. <<
<br>
<br>I think if you watch carefully, you will see the US taking these sensitivities into account. There is a lot of careful steps and language being used to not turn this into a western/Islamic dispute.
<br>
<br>>>And I'm in no way denying you this. I just underlined the need for a well balanced response. Besides it seems to be forgotten that we're not talking about 6000 US nationals here. It was the WORLD trade centre with many nationalities working there. Nearly every country has lost citizins in that attack.<<
<br>
<br>I think the US is crafting a well balanced response and everyone is aware that many foreign citizens were killed in this tragedy; most of them, however, were US citizens.
<br>
<br>>>This is just western propaganda. Just like everybody now is so concerned about the human rights abuses of the Taliban. We knew before the attack and couldn't care less. This is hypocracy. <<
<br>
<br>Here is where you are wrong and show a closed mindedness. I have read your posts for some time and thought, though very opinionated, you were a clear thinker. At this point of the dialogue, you try to dismiss a salient point that many scholars have already made (its not an original thought of mine) by lapsing into a dismissive slogan about "western propaganda". As to the second part of your statement, I have to inform you that a great body of US citizens have been concerned for some time about the Taliban. Both from a distance, and from personal interchange with refugees from their regime. You probably are unaware of that since you don't live in the US; but accept the fact that our concern predated this incident.
<br>
<br>>>No, I feel pretty secure that the next target will still be the USA. I have never seen any militant group scant "death to EU" or "Death to Europe" during protests. Even during the the hijjacks of the 70's and 80's nearly all planes where Isreali or American. The militants see these two countries as their enemies, I don't know why, but there is a clear trend. So a mere hatred for civilazation can't be their drive. It must be something else.<<
<br>
<br>Sadly, you are probably right that the next target may still be us, but that doesn't invalidate my point. It just accentuates my other point about the US being the focal point of all that these groups hate about the west. Such attention is really not new in the world; just more dangerous now.
<br>
<br>>>Then indite him ! Come with a founded charge.<<
<br>
<br>My example was individual in nature to make the point. Here we are dealing with a country that may be making itself an accomplice. We have already indited Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and probably will for this tragedy.
<br>
<br>>>That is what many countries are asking for now. Many are very willing to help but just saying that the evidence remains secret is not very encouraging to these countries.<<
<br>
<br>I agree, but I also understand the need not to reveal information that will clue the enemy in to our sources and to how we are getting our intelligence. The evidence is coming forth in little bits every day. Everyone just needs to pay attention to it. I think in the end, there will be substantial evidence to link Bin Laden to these acts of aggression.
<br>
<br>>> All I'm saying is that you are now putting several region under pressure and causing upheaval without any clear proof apart from your suspicion.<<
<br>
<br>Yes, everyone that is even relationally connected to this is under increased pressure. I wish it weren't so, but it is and the accumulating evidence may not relieve all the pressure.
<br>
<br>>> I m also certain that quite a few countries just publically give support because they fear US counter measures, not because they really want to give support.<<
<br>
<br>Pakistan may be an example of what you speak, or the leadership may actually feel they should stand against this act and help in finding and capturing Bin Ladin. We know that they may not be able to show this level of support because over the years many of their people have been radicalized to support this terriorist.
<br>
<br>>>I expect to see more cracks in the coalition later on. I say prevent and use the momentum now, give evidence and alot of voices will be silenced for the short term future. Use Islam agaist him, Proof will outcast Ossy in the Islamic world. Percecuting him without public proof will only fuel conspiracy theories that will eventually rally people to him.<<
<br>
<br>The proof is emerging. Those nations that are on the side of civility and law will rally to our position. Those nations that are essentially on the side of terriorism in their hate of the west and the US will not. No amount of evidence will pursuade them. We must pursuade who we can and, try, as you point out, to get as many people behind us in this fight.
<br>
<br>As another poster pointed out, we will fight against this evil and the groups that perpetuate and at the same time we will do our part to help the lives of those who are so desparate. I maintain that the problem is not just one of poverty and lack of opportunity, which leads me back to my central point that these groups are essentiall anti modern (as exampled by the West).
<br>
<br>I enjoyed the dialogue and will sign off for the weekend; I'm going camping with my boys. It is important overall to remember that this incident was evil and wrong and there is no moral equivalency to apply. How we proceed is a good topic. I think you will see the US being fairly careful.
<br>Good sailing,
<br>David
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Ok, flame suit is on and perimeter security is activated.
<br>
<br>That said, everyone will have an opinion of the current situation no matter where you are from, what flavor religion or lack of, and weather on not this affected you. We as US citizens do have a right to defend ourselves but, the fact remains that there has been no proof that has been established as to who actually did the acts other than the people who perished on the planes. Once fact has been established then there can be no doubt as to retribution or retaliation or whatever you want to call it. Everyone has an Idea who is behind it, if the government has facts let them present it and I'm sure we'll get that person or organization. I know I'm oversimplifying the situation but in this forum I think this is all that is needed. (They are not making decisions based on this discussion)
<br>
<br>I'm as pissed off as the next guy, but the last thing I want to see is us (meaning the United States) killing a bunch of people who had nothing to do with this other than they live in a particular country. You say they have a choice, then why did millions of Jews allow themselves to be corralled to their death. I don't know and don't pretend to know why people make the decisions they do. Unless you have been in those countries and know first hand what they do, everything is heresay. We are subjected to the opinions of the media because thats how we get information without going anywhere. They have opinions too and will only report what they see as fit. The government is the same way (not just ours - every government) they will tell you what they want you to know and you have to sort out the crap.
<br>
<br>This discussion could go back and forth for decades and in some form already has, but until we're absolutely sure who we have to deal with it is just that... a discussion. WHEN we know who that is, well back up 'cause its time to roll.
<br>
<br>I'm not as educated as some of you guys and probably don't sail as well either, so take it for what its worth, let the investigators do their job and in the mean time lets go sailing. The Lord knows we haven't done enough of that lately.
<br>
<br>Good day and fair winds.
<br>
<br>Clayton
<br><br><br>

Ed,
<br>
<br>Damn fine work man.
<br>
<br>I'm printing out your post to keep in a folder with some of the best written dialogues in history.
<br>
<br>ScaredyCat
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral patriotic feeling that "nothing is worth war" is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, or nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
<br>
<br> - John Stuart Mill
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Dear John,
<br>
<br>Any SECOND GRADER knows that the Yellow River wasn't named after your precious Loess (just ask the author I.P. Freely)...the important question about this Loess is: Can you smoke it?!
<br>
<br>Just kidding,
<br>
<br>Mark<br><br>