> So let me ask you the same question - what are we supposed to do?
> Nothing?
The "we" here is ambiguous, Doug. For most of the people on this list, I should think that the task is to restrain and deflect the policies of the US government, which are programmatically in the interests of the few and inimical to those of most of the people of the world, by means of publicity and objection.
If by some identification with the aggressor, "we" means the US government, and the question is, What policy should be urged upon the Bush administration, I would say, Use the mechanisms of international law -- notably the UN Charter, the World Court, and perhaps a special court constructed for the purpose (cf. Lockerbie and FRY) to pursue the perpetrators of this crime and their accessories. That would be easier, were the US not the chief rogue state -- had "we" not spent a generation undermining and perverting the structure of international law and the institutions supposed to serve it.
"We should remember that there are real precedents for this. The most obvious, because it is supported by a World Court decision and UN Security Council resolution, the highest authorities. Twenty years ago the United States launched a war against Nicaragua. That was a terrible war. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was practically destroyed. Nicaragua did not respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court with a case, the World Court ruled in their favor and ordered the United States to stop its "unlawful use of force" (that means international terrorism) and pay substantial reparations. Well, the United States responded by dismissing the court with contempt and immediately escalated the attack. At that point Nicaragua went to the UN Security council which voted a resolution calling on all states to obey international law. They didn't mention anyone, but everyone knew they meant the United States. Well, the United States vetoed it. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly which, two years in a row passed a similar resolution with only the United States and Israel opposed. El Salvador in one year. But of course, the United States is a very powerful country. If it opposes lawful means, they can't be pursued. So Nicaragua could do nothing. On the other hand, if the U.S. pursued those means no one would stop it. In fact, everyone would support it." [Chomsky, in an MSNBC online discussion.]
--CGE