<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>Justin wrote:<BR></DIV> <DIV>> Since it applies to all solutions, I don't think it's specially necessary, but I have now </DIV> <DIV>> made it. Happy, Luke> Now you do too, for your preferred Kill Em All Solution/</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No, I don't, because unlike you, I think the threat posed by Al Qaeda has been significantly diminished.  Unfortunately, this claim really can't be verified, although it would be falsified if Al Qaeda managed to complete another major terrorist strike in the near future.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Y</FONT>ou do like irrelevant hypotheticals. What does this have to do with anything? If a </DIV> <DIV>> state atacked the US, we'd be at war. </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well, we would be, but it seemed to me that you might think it preferable that the US respond to the attack as though it were merely a crime.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>>None did, includiong the one we demolsihed in your recent favored war, and </DIV> <DIV>> where we are budgeting, according to the Chicago </DIV> <DIV>> Tribune -- hold your hats --$12 million for reconstruction. That is million, not billion. > But I wander. The US was attacked by a terrorist gang with no state affiliation. It </DIV> <DIV>> was the victim of a crime, not a military atack.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why should our response to the perpetrators of a series of attacks like those seen on 9-11 vary depending on whether or not the responsible party was a large gang of terrorists or a state like Guatemala?  I understand the rhetorical move you've been trying to make: a "crime" should be responded to with only police investigation whereas a "military attack" can justifiably be responded to with military force.  Now I'm trying to see exactly why it is you think any entity that isn't recognized as a state also isn't capable of military attack, no matter how many people they kill as a result of their actions. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>> a  military response did nothing to make us more secure, and may have made us less > secure, while predictably allowing the govt to roll back our civil liberties more than </DIV> <DIV>> 50 years. If you like war, luke, you have to sign up whole hog, the USA Patriot </DIV> <DIV>> ACt, Camp X Ray, secret military tribunals, the works. It's your baby.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That's like saying that any supporter of WWII is committed to accepting the bombing of Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima et al.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Luke</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>