How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far? Dave It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on September 11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs. If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to address the problem? As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not (currently) attacking. Even Bush has said We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 attacks , yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant response to the terrorist attacks on America.   ??? We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run free while we dink around with a politically motivated side show?   Nah.

while we dink around with a politically motivated side show?   Nah. Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in the mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big picture.

Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in the mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big picture. Jesse James and company rode out of Missouri. If every time they held up a bank, the government declared martial law in first Kansas, then Nebraska, then Oklahoma, etc etc etc......how would that be any different than what we're doing/ planning to do now? Certainly would have never caught the James/Younger Gang (many of whom learned you don't screw around with a Minnesota farmer's money) Foreign governments may not be our friends, but neither is any foreign government the enemy that brazenly and criminally attacked us. We need to put down the dog proven to be rabid first.....and then if we need to look at other dogs that could possibly be infected too, we should. I'm all for getting those criminal bastards. Absolutely. Work within or outside the confines of international law to get it done. Any country worth a dinkle would help us out or at least stand back and let us bring these bastards to death or trial. No piss ant country would dare protest us going in to extract bin Ladin, and our allies would either help or keep silent. Who would want to side with Osama bin Ladin? Don't forget that 90% of the country was rootin' for GWB when he said he was out to get OBL, dead or alive . Too bad we lost focus. If our current foreign policy is an effective response to 9-11, the majority of people cannot see just how. (Bush can't say There is no connection one month, and then say We're avenging the 9-11 massacre the next). If our current foreing policy is not a direct respoinse to 9-11, we have every right in the world to ask why it isn't. Solving terorism in general is no higher than item B , if that's what the justification for Iraq etc is. Item A should be bringing down the bastard that is already attacking us *now*.

that is already attacking us *now*. All in good time. As I said before, take off the blinders and try to see the big picture. Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from harm. Letting the terrorists take over won't provide a safe future.

One of the basic problems of the Bush Administration is that it does not know how to do its job. It is incompetent. You keep saying that, but to date cannot offer up anything more substantive that you own opinion to support that allegation. And guess what, your opinion plus $.50 won't even get you a cheap cup of coffee....... Dave