[Anatolius]

There's a reason it was so good...it happened to avoid ad hominem, and asked straight questions, unlike the rest of the babbling masses on this board. Not that I agree with all of it, of course. :P gitmo, have you read: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/117670_randolphfocus20.html? This might address point 15 to a certain extent.

[gitmo]

The concept of a pre-emptive strike IS a departure from prior US policy. However, that was only one part of the case Bush presented for an attack on Iraq.

But we are going to have to face the nature of a war on terrorism. International terrorists attack and disappear. They are able to exist for one reason. Nations are funding, harboring and training them. Terrorists provide a method to attack an enemy without exposing one's self to war. It's analogous to hiring an assasin so that you are not directly involved in the crime. Even though they don't wear a uniform, they are still soldiers of the nations that back them.

We cannot win against terrorism if we are unwilling to go to war against the nations behind the terrorists. And in so responding, we are not pre-emptive. We are being responsive to an act of war.

[XBob]

121 - ' have you read'

You bring up an iteresting argument, brand-newbee. Please give us your address to forward to the terrorist, as the person/place we would like blown up first before we respond.