[Piranha]

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war.

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

[Redbob]

"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it."

The French, for example.

[The Shrew]

FWIW, I have been making the arguement that if the United States could go to war with the Barbary Pirates for the economic impact it was having on the country then is it a logical extension to send a SEAL Team to assasinate the writer of a computer virus?

The impact of the SASSER virus or the Love virus on the economic well being of the United States is far greater damage than the Barbary Pirates ever managed.

Regards,

TS