Subject: embarrassing bloodlust

        It's hardly appropriate of you to dismiss everyone who is now stressing
caution and the avoidance of an all out war as a spineless "dove". It would
be appropriate after Pearl Harbor. It is not appropriate now. Hasn't the
complexity of this situation settled in for you yet? What happened, though
efficient and successful from the viewpoint of the bastards who did it, was
lo-tech and, despite what the whore press says, did not require any huge
sum of money. Therefore government sponsorship of the terrorists isn't a
given and furthermore war with afghanistan shouldn't be the default general
response that it seems to be. It is likely that a relatively small group of
people did this. If that turns out to be the case we should find those
responsible and execute them (and do to them whatever the worst thing is
that goes on in secret CIA interrogation rooms). It may prove much more
favorable to do this with intelligence gathering and stealth rather than
through taking down the Taliban. Don't forget that the U.S. has lost every
"asymetric war" we have ever fought.
 

I'n not saying they're all spineless, just the ones who say,
"If we fight back, they'll just recuit more." or
"If we fight back, they'll just become worse."
If that includes you, then it includes you.
If it doesn't, it doesn't.

        Our oil interests in the region will thoroughly complicate whatever
military objective we eventually undertake. There are more issues and more
important issues on the table than simple revenge. It's up to people like Bartcop,
who at least have some small voice, to prevent these damn polls from getting us
into a conflict from which we will have considerable trouble extricating ourselves.
This is just one of those times when it pays not to go with our gut but to instead
proceed with a cautious determination. We must not be unjust as we seek justice,
or else we will never find that justice.

So, you're afraid we might get drawn into a conflict?
When will we know that has happened?
When Americans start dying?

        Your repeated misuse of the word "surrender" underscores your incorrect
thinking about this whole thing. Surrender to whom??? No country is advancing
troops over our soil. This just isn't that kind of conflict. I keep reading Bartcop in
hopes that your inflamed emotions, which are certainly understandable, will recede
and your democratic ideals will resurface.

        My suggestions for action are to lean much harder on governments of countries
that grow terrorists to cooperate with our expanded intelligence efforts and, in some cases,
to boost their infrastructure in the intelligence area to help us root out specific individuals
and prevent future attacks. Of course this is a huge task, but with the help of our allies it
can be done. I know it doesn't reconcile with with our innate sense of right and wrong to
answer such a sudden and bloody attack with a protracted and elaborate response.
But hey, welcome to the modern world.

       Will Moffett
 

Doing nothing is a surrender.
I'm not saying it must be today, but it should be damn soon.

We lose 5,000 or more, and you think we should "lean harder" on terrorist counties?
I strongly disagree.  I think word should go out that when you attack Americans,
they answer with a hell of a lot more than a sharply-worded rebuke.