>sovereignty, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. who
>is the U.S. to say such and such leader must go? nowhere in the world
>is a regime change needed more than in DC.
Which is pretty much what the suicide hijackers were trying to achieve. Doesn't mean we should support them though, the sort of regime change they had in mind isn't something I'm comfortable with. In fact I prefer no change to their preferred change. So in the end it sometimes comes down to choosing sides.
But we also have to consider methods. Will they work? Are the methods acceptable even if they will work? It is starting to be argued that Osama's methods have worked - the basic tenets of liberal democracy such as the rule of law have been seriously undermined. Clearly that is an important step in the right direction for a group of people bent on return to a medieval autocracy. With the US no longer a free country, they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Their means were appropriate for their aims, they've got their regime change, their fellow autocratic religious fundamentalists have taken power in the US as a result of their strike. They've forced even liberals and many on the left to support this.
Damn, these people are cunning. Now they've even got the US going after their other old enemy, Saddam Hussein, which is likely to drive more recruits into their arms.
Good thing I'm not paranoid, I'd be wondering if Osama Bin Rumsfield and Donald Laden hadn't planned the whole damn thing in advance. They both have this thing about statues too, hang on... no, that wasn't Osama, it was Mullah Ashcroft wasn't it? I get these people mixed up for some reason.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas