> IF Al-quaeda is what they say it is, that is.
Well, it's been six months since they made their intentions known -- if you still have problems decoding what al-Qaeda and the Taliban stand for, then we have nothing really to discuss.
> As far as terminating forces
> hostile to the US, well, isn't there a poso that US actions have created a
> whole new pool of people willing to sacrifice their lives to get revenge
> against the US? Every time I read about someone who'd lost 8 or 10 family
> members in the bombing I thought of the creation of a new, dedicated
anti-US
> terrorist.
There's a risk of that, surely, just as there was a risk that killing German civilians would create more Nazi sympathizers (which I'm sure it did). Look -- al-Qaeda and its allies are dedicated to creating a greater Muslim state based on their version of the Koran. It is not a state that will respect its neighbors' borders, far from it. And by disrupting its plans in Afghanistan, we've staved off (at least for now) the possibility of a pro-al-Qaeda coup in Pakistan, which, were that to happen, would be disastrous for everyone, especially given that the likes of bin-Laden would have nuclear weapons, which I've no doubt they'd use in a second.
> Sure, the Tallies are looney, violent sexist scum, but so are
> many of the US allies fighting them. What about that Uzbek Prez Bush has
> been holed up with in DC? What about Sharon, baddy-wise?
Already said what I think of Sharon. And yes, many of the US allies are distasteful, as are many US offiicials. If you are willing to allow al-Qaeda to build on its success and become stronger simply because Bush is dreadful in so many ways, then you've allowed a sloppy moral equivalence to dominate your thinking.
> Your moral
> certainty feels comfy. Wish I could have it.
Not "moral certainty" -- acknowledgement of a unique and dangerous situation that defies the standard, knee-jerk "left" take.
DP