Chuck, what kind of force would you send after them?

1. We recognize that our enemies are
individual, criminal, terrorist thugs, often hiding out in countries without a
strong central government or adequate law enforcement.

2. We recognize that our enemies are not all the men, women, and children of
Country XYZ, nor the inept, backwater, tribal governments there.

3. We recognize that our enemy is not Islam.

4. We spend 30 or 40 billion on infiltration and espionage, (rather than 200
billion +,+,+ trying to occupy one country out of the dozens where our enemies
live), and identify the individual criminal terrorist *******s who would be a
threat to the civilized world.

5. We identify these people as those who are participating in the *planning*
stages of an attack, (discovered through informants and infiltration) not just
every "Muslim S.N. in Youjerkistan"

6. We arrest, or if need be "eliminate" the
people we find plotting, or committing, terrorist acts. We do not topple
government after government and bomb hell out of entire cities because some
terrorists happen to live in the country or in a particular city.

7. We can use the CIA, special forces, whatever it takes to do the job. If the
government of Youjerkistan wants to protest us sending in covert operatives to
surgically remove the terrorist cancer, we can ask if they'd rather have our
entire army up their butts instead.

Would you prefer just waiting for them to get here?

No, Bush tried that in the early months of his presidency, and it didn't work
very well.



Do you
approve of Kerry's statement that he will take every action *after* we are
attacked?

I agree with the principle that you don't go to war until you know who your
specific enemy *is*, not guess who it might, maybe, could be, someday, if and
when, be. You do realize that to take out everybody with the slightest
probability of harming the US, we need to nuke the entire rest of the world?
(And most of the "liberal" states, I'm sure you'd be happy to add).


We have not been attacked, locally, since 9/11. Does that mean we are no
longer
a target?

No, it does not. If we were no longer a target, Bush's "unwinnable" war on
terror would be over, wouldn't it?



Could part of the reason be that we *are* causing them problems
overseas?

Our actions overseas are the very *reason* that we are more of a target now
than ever.

We got stung by killer bees, so we decided to show them who was boss. We picked
up a big stick, and started whacking on the hive. Sure, we're killing a few
bees- but we're making the rest of the swarm mad as hell. Not all that smart,
but, then again.........