Against whom?

[David Morris]

I'd say there are a few answers to this:

One answer would be to "take out" any terrorist group that has declared the 
intention to attack the US in any of its territories.  A sort of "zero 
tolerance" of any terrorist structures that threaten us or our allies.  This 
policy would surely lead to some injustice.  The term "terrorist" is not 
always justly applied.  But after 9/11 a broad brush of intolerance of 
terrorism may be justified.

Another answer lies in accounting responsibility to nations that 
permit/host/sponsor such terrorists.  If Afghanistan were to hand over Osama 
bin Laden then they might escape our wrath.  If he is not w/in their reach 
their country should prepare for an invasion, either voluntarily or not.  I 
think we are at a place where such a mission is feasible.  This 
accountability would also apply to Iraq, as well as other nations, no doubt.

This WWIII is not against any nation per se, but against terrorism, which 
crosses territorial boundaries.  Tuesday's attack proves that the threat is 
real and immense and should be wiped out at its source as much as is 
possible.  The world is not as free today as it was Monday.  That is the 
biggest victim of Tuesday's attack.

David Morris

>From: KXX4493553 at aol.com
>May I ask you, against whom you will fight back? WW III against a training 
>camp in Afghanistan? Bomb them back into the stoneage? Against whom?

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp