Immediate retaliation!!!

  1. while i know many have felt the way i did yesterday, and the day before (which was go in and level afiganistan and bagdad) it's clearly not the thing to do. should we do something? sure!!! when we have proof, know who is respponsible and can take them out. in the meantime.....read this article, it will shed spome light on theses thoughts. we as a contry do not want to be like the person that is responsible for the wyc and pentagon incidents.

    me

    september 14, 2001
    remembering the last u.s. retaliation against terror
    by jeff cohen

    nothing will ever be the same, we're told, after the cataclysmic terrorism of 911. yet some things seem unchanged in the media--such as the pundit clamor for retaliation against someone, somewhere, fast.

    as a talk radio host in new york put it: "bomb somebody, *******it!"

    we've been here before, almost exactly three years ago. in the wake of terror bombings of two u.s. embassies in africa, president clinton was urged to take decisive action, and on august 20, 1998, he ordered missile attacks on two targets purportedly linked to osama bin laden, the accused mastermind of the bombings.

    one target of operation "infinite reach" was bin laden's paramilitary camp in afghanistan. "the u.s. picked the highly accurate cruise missile for the strikes against the afghan camp," reported cnn's military correspondent jamie mcintrye, "because of their ability to fly with pinpoint accuracy." one of the missiles was so inaccurate it hit the wrong country, pakistan, several hundred miles off-course.

    the other target was the al shifa factory in sudan, alleged by the clinton administration to be linked to bin laden and to be producing chemical warfare agents. the factory was destroyed and workers there were killed and maimed.

    that night, sen. john mccain appeared on five national tv programs in less than three hours to endorse the president's action. the next day, the missile attacks were supported on the editorial pages of america's leading dailies.

    but soon, western professionals who had worked at the sudan plant began to speak credibly of the plant being just what the sudanese government claimed it was: a civilian factory producing a major share of the pharmaceuticals for an impoverished country.

    western journalists who rushed to the scene of the u.s. missile attack found medicine, but no security features that one would expect at a military or weapons facility. sudan's government offered journalists unfettered access to the area.

    the u.s. government said that it had obtained a suspicious soil sample from near the plant nine months before the cruise attack. but as new york times reporter james risen noted in an exhaustive study a year after the sudan factory had been leveled, "officials throughout the government raised doubts up to the eve of the attack about whether the united states had sufficient information linking the factory to either chemical weapons or to mr. bin laden."

    risen reported that intelligence analysts in the state department were drafting an internal report saying the cruise attack on the sudan factory had not been justified, but the report was killed by higher ups.

    what's not in dispute is that sudan government officials forced osama bin laden to leave their country in 1996. or that the al shifa factory had been purchased by a sudanese businessman five months before the missile attack--a fact that was unknown to the u.s. at the time it targeted the plant.

    three years after the u.s. government may have killed and injured innocent people on foreign soil in a misguided "retaliation against terrorism," media voices are again calling for a quick and forceful reprisal.

    outrage is the natural and appropriate response to the mass murder of september 11. but media should not be glibly encouraging retaliatory violence without remembering that u.s. retaliation has killed innocent civilians abroad, violated international law and done little to make us safer.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    jeff cohen is the founder of fair, a national media watch group based in new york -- and a panelist on fox news channel's news watch.
    •  
  2. 87 Comments

  3. by   natalie
    cen-

    I came across this list of terrorist groups from the State Dept. It shows what we're up against. The majority of the groups are embedded within the mid-east.

    http://www.state.gov/www/global/terr...info_1999.html
  4. by   fergus51
    I didn't know any of that. It makes me really question our attitude that we are so righteous compared to the rest of the world. Those people killed had families that loved them too. I don't doubt the retaliation wasn't meant to kill innocent people, but intentions aside, dead is dead.
  5. by   CEN35
    i didn't say dead is not dead. however, if we are to be considered better than those that did the wtc attack, we need to not repeat the same type of incident. we need to make sure.......we get the real deal.....and make civilian casualties a minimum. not take thousands of civilians out, in the process.

    just me
  6. by   cmggriff
    I, for one, do not feel the need to be seen as better than the others. I want to be considered more lethal, more dangerous, more likely to eradicate an entire nation and still sleep well at night. Gary
  7. by   CEN35
    So your an advocate to go in and take out as many children and women and civilians as neccesary to gain your cause? You know as well as I do that will not go over well with the rest of the world. We all know that China, and the majoraty of the middle East countries would use that as en excuse for more. They would call us barbaric. If we are to get anywhere, like it or not......we need the support of many many other countries.....our military is not what it used to be. Even if hypothetically it was? We could not answer to the rest of the world. I don't think England, France and Isreal are enough. We need the support of others. So yeah despite the feelings of many our nation needs to be seen as better than those that have harmed us.

    me
  8. by   Chellyse66
    Frank Wolf Puts U.S. Financial Regulators On Notice:
    Ignore U.S. Capital Market Fundraising for Sudan's Oil At Their Peril

    (Washington, D.C.): On 8 March, one of the leading voices of conscience and human freedoms in the U.S. Congress wrote an historically-important letter to Laura S. Unger, Acting Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Rep. Frank Wolf, Republican of Virginia warned Ms. Unger about the abject failure of her predecessor, Arthur Levitt, to recognize the suffering and loss of life that has been abetted by the SEC's callous indifference to foreign oil companies raising substantial funds in the U.S. capital markets while simultaneously operating in genocide-, slavery- and terrorist-sponsoring Sudan.

    The most glaring example of SEC misfeasance, if not actual malfeasance, was in the case of an initial public offering (IPO) by PetroChina, a hastily-contrived subsidiary of China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), in April of last year. Primarily due to unprecedented, vigorous opposition by a broad-based coalition of non-governmental organizations -- dubbed the PetroChina Coalition -- the proceeds from this IPO were slashed from an originally-targeted amount of $10 billion to less than $2.9 billion. Regrettably, this development still provided CNPC with substantial funds to help underwrite its oil development partnership with the odious Khartoum regime. Congressman Wolf made clear the role played by the Levitt SEC (which Ms. Unger served in as a commissioner): "While I know this was not your intention, more people are suffering and have died because of the PetroChina listing."

    It is to be hoped that Ms. Unger will respond at once and favorably to Rep. Wolf's appeal for "vigorous investigation" into the PetroChina IPO and the company's delisting on the New York Stock Exchange. By so doing, she would not only be taking "appropriate action" in the present case but carrying forward into the future the visionary work of previous employer and sponsor, former Senate Banking Committee Chairman, Alfonse D'Amato. Together with Senators Sam Brownback and Jon Kyl, Sen. D'Amato led the successful effort in November 1997 to compel the Russian natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, to withdraw a $3 billion bond offering from the U.S. market -- because of a similar decision by that energy firm to enhance the oil revenues of a terrorist-sponsoring nation (in that case, Iran -- a violation of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act).

    As it considers Representative Wolf's recommended actions against PetroChina and other foreign oil firms operating in Sudan, the SEC should also take another, long-overdue step: Expand immediately disclosure requirements for future foreign entrants into the U.S. capital markets to include where they are doing business in the world -- as well as their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates -- and with whom.

    Ms. Laura Unger
    Acting Chairman
    Security and Exchange Commission
    450 Fifth St NW
    Washington D.C. 20549

    Dear Ms. Unger:

    As you know, last year I strongly opposed the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the Chinese National Petroleum Company/PetroChina (CNPC) because of CNPC's role in providing the Government of Sudan with unprecedented resources to carry out its war and atrocities against Southern Sudan. While I know this was not your intention, more people are suffering and have died because of the PetroChina listing.

    I want to share with you a speech I recently made at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum about the death and suffering in Sudan. The atrocities in Sudan are so severe that the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Committee on Conscience has issued a genocide warning for non-Muslims living in southern Sudan.

    At the museum I said:

    As we speak, major international oil companies are initiating and expanding operations in southern Sudan that, unless stopped in their tracks, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenue for the Khartoum regime. This oil revenue, once secured, will powerfully insulate Khartoum from world pressure to end its brutal policies. This revenue, Khartoum has openly pledged, will be spent on modern bombers, helicopter gun ships and other weapons that will enhance its war against the people of southern Sudan by orders of magnitude.
    "The U.S. Commission on Religious Liberty has bravely called on the President to limit oil companies that finance the regime from access to U.S. capital markets. Here in this museum, in the literal shadow of exhibits of the slave labor practices of many German companies, in the face of what we know about the victimization of Jews at the hands of European banks, insurance companies, art galleries and other institutions, a clear message must be sent to the following oil companies: Talisman of Canada, the China National Petroleum Company, Petronas of Malaysia, Lundin of Sweden, Total/Fiba/Elf of France, OMV of Austria-- Enter into oil contracts with the genocidal regime in Sudan, and produce revenue for it, only at grave risk of losing -- financially and otherwise -- far more than you can possibly gain from those contracts.

    Oil development and exploitation are having a horrible effect on southern Sudan. The recently released Department of State 2000 Human Rights report outlines the government of Sudan's continuing egregious human rights abuses including: condoning slavery, bombing its own people, religious persecution through forced conversion to state religion, and a scorched earth policy of killing everyone living around oil fields.

    The report on Sudan says:
    "The government and government-associated forces have implemented a scorched earth policy along parts of the oil pipeline and around some key oil facilities. These forces have injured persons seriously, destroyed villages, and driven out inhabitants in order to create an uninhabited security zone."

    According to the enclosed November 2000 International Monetary Fund Staff Country Report on Sudan, the Government of Sudan's military expenditures have nearly doubled since 1998. Only the new oil revenue can account for such a dramatic increase in military expenditures. This report is dependent upon information released by the Sudanese regime, so the actual amount of military expenditures is likely much higher.

    Also enclosed is a report from World Magazine that states a Chinese petroleum company has supplied the Khartoum regime with a radar system that led to approximately 152 bombings last year, mostly of civilian and humanitarian organizations. This report goes on to state that Talisman Energy Corporation allowed the Sudanese military forces to use its airstrip that Talisman built near its oil concession.

    As you know, the Chinese National Petroleum Company holds a 40 percent stake in the Great Nile Oil Project in Sudan, the largest oil project in Sudan. Prior to initiating the IPO, CNPC restructured and created a supposedly "domestic-only" unit of CNPC, "PetroChina." CNPC has a corporate and financial identity that would seem to be indistinguishable from that of its parent, 90 percent owner, and the beneficiary of 90 percent of profits.

    PetroChina was ultimately listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in April 2000, instead of CNPC. However, it has come to my attention that CNPC received close to $265 million from PetroChina IPO. I also have enclosed the PetroChina prospectus that shows CNPC was to receive close to $265 million from the PetroChina offering.

    It has recently come to my attention that R. Richard Newcomb, director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, wrote to a number of U.S. Senators concerning American capital market participation by those with interests in Sudan. I have enclosed this letter. In particular, in the context of commenting on the NYSE-traded Talisman Energy of Canada, Mr. Newcomb offer his interpretation of President Clinton's 1997 Executive Order imposing comprehensive economic sanctions on Sudan:

    "Section 2(d) [of the 1997 Executive Order] would prohibit U.S. persons from contracting to underwrite or purchase shares in new public offering [s] if the proceeds were for use to support a project in Sudan after the effective date of the Order."

    Based on Mr. Newcomb's interpretation of the 1997 Executive Order, CNPC's reception of $265 million from the PetroChina IPO would be a clear violation. I urge you to vigorously investigate this matter and take appropriate action. I believe this violation offers grounds for de-listing PetroChina from the NYSE. I urge you to take appropriate action to begin that process to de-list PetroChina unless CNPC relinquishes its investment and operations in Sudan.

    The facts cannot be any clearer about the effects of oil development and resources in supporting the Government of Sudan's continuing campaign against the suffering people in southern Sudan. I hope you will take action to help.

    Sincerely,

    Frank Wolf

    Member of Congress

    [Mr. Wolf added in his own hand the following personal note to Ms. Unger: No Federal Government Agency should ever stand by and let this take place. History will judge the SEC harshly.]
  9. by   WriteStuff
    Rightfully so, emotions are at an all time high for every American during these days. It goes without saying that our immediate, and visceral "reaction" is one of do-to-them-what-they-did-to-us, only bigger and better. It is a human response, a "normal" response considering the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

    To quote General Wesley Clark, "We have a MORAL high ground." Morality demands we do the RIGHT thing, or things. One does not "negotiate" with evil. The bad apple in the bushel basket had better be "rooted out", or the whole bushel will become contaminated and lost. Maybe a poor comparison here, but the point is......we now need to do, as a Nation, WHATEVER it takes to ELIMINATE the source of "contamination."

    The "source" is the Terrorist Network. A Military "message" of force MUST be sent , and soon........not a mere "slap on the wrist" this time. This Terrorist Network must be smashed. There is no effective way this can be done without loss of innocent lives. War is not about who "wins", it is about who is "left."

    As a Nation we must use not just one (Military) means for smashing this evil network, but we must utilize EVERY method at our disposal......Military, Political, Technological, Financial, Socio-economical, Judicial........to smash this evil network!

    Just my thoughts. Thank God I was born in a Nation that stands for democracy and freedom for all.

    Bonnie Creighton,RN, MHCA
    Mental Health Consumer Advocate
  10. by   cmggriff
    Rick,
    I have seen innocent people butchered in the name of all sorts of causes. Killed by Muslims, Israelis, and Americans. I have no cause to further other than the health and safety of My children. I believe in free speech, freedom of religion, all those hokey things
    that our ancestors have died to preserve. I would like for all the people of the world to enjoy the same freedoms we do. But the most important thing for me is that my children grow up and enjoy these things. If children have to die, and I believe any study of history shows that children will die regardless of what we may think, then it is better if it is the children of others.
    Having tended the innocent victims of war, I always awaken from the nightmare of caring for my kids. I awaken in a cold sweat, heart racing, gasping for air. I would wish such things on no parent. I wish no fathers children dead. But, better their child than mine. Gary
  11. by   Chellyse66
    We have to secure our future generation's freedom. As I read this , I admit, I agree:
    Michele


    townhall.com David Limbaugh

    September 15, 2001

    Meeting force with force

    "I am a loving guy, but I am also someone who has a job to do, and I intend to do it."

    With those stirring words, President George Bush ended his informal press conference Thursday morning. The words, spoken through a touchingly strained effort to fight back tears, tell us about more than the president's irrepressible resolve to bring the wrongdoers to justice. They lay out, succinctly, the age-old paradox of the necessity of violence to ensure peace.

    While the attacks against our civilian and defense targets were terrorist acts, we must not let the use of the word "terrorist" obscure our understanding of the magnitude of the enemy.

    These murderers were not part of some isolated fringe group that can be eradicated simply by destroying a hundred elite terrorists and their leaders. Whole nation states have been fomenting animosity and brutality against the West.

    Of course, the entire Arab world isn't at war with the United States, but a significant culture exists in many nations and rogue groups that nurtures the abject hatred of the United States and Israel.

    Terrorism, as horrible as it is, is the symptom. The cause is this culture of hatred that was on graphic display when people danced gleefully in the streets of the West Bank upon hearing of the atrocities.

    The hatred is much more widespread than a few pockets of terrorism. It is fueled by a profound resentment and envy of our freedom, our prosperity and our institutions. It is an abiding and pervasive hatred, a deeply visceral and deeply spiritual hatred - one that will not be eliminated by overtures of peace and goodwill.

    As former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted, "This isn't just about hating Israel. We are just the little Satan. It's about hatred for the United States, the great Satan."

    Some are saying that this week's events prove that we are in a new world now and no longer invulnerable to acts of terror. But this is not a new world, and we have never been insulated from terrorism, just blessed that we hadn't yet experienced it as dramatically.

    Mr. Netanyahu stressed that the terrorists' motives haven't changed. Their capabilities are what are constantly changing. "Today they steal our airplanes - tomorrow it will be our nuclear weapons."

    Some are urging that the United States approach this crisis with caution and restraint. Certain high-minded experts admonish us not to "stoop to their level."

    But the undying pacifists have argued against the use of force for years. They have always insisted that peace can only be achieved by talking softly and carrying no stick. Just as they were wrong about Hitler and the Soviet Communists, they are wrong about the terrorists, and the nations that support them and provide them safe harbor.

    Pacifism in the face of war is not only irresponsible - it is immoral. Refusing to meet force with force in the name of peace will beget not peace, but further death and destruction - the very violence the pacifists seek to avoid.

    We are not going to solve this problem with overtures of peace and understanding. We are not going to purge our fears by heightened security measures at airports, as important as those will be. The enemy will respond to nothing less than sure, swift and overwhelming force. To use it will not be "stooping to their level." Don't insult us with specious appeals to moral equivalence. The righteous use of force against the aggressors will bear no moral resemblance to the unprovoked acts of violence that began this war.

    President Bush understands that his primary duty is to safeguard our national security. Accordingly, he emphasized that the present focus of his administration would be to eradicate terrorism, this ongoing threat to our freedom and our people. He has shown that he has the will and the resolve to lead a nation of Americans who possess an equal will and resolve to meet these unspeakable acts of carnage with equal force.

    He has also made clear that the United States will respond not just against the terrorists themselves, but the nations and infrastructure that sponsor and abet them. Thankfully, there appears to be little doubt that Americans will unite behind the president as he discharges his constitutional duties as commander-in-chief. ,p. And he will discharge those duties. Not just for the sake of the thousands of victims and their families, but for the protection of future generations and the preservation of our freedom and way of life.
  12. by   Chellyse66
    Then please read this:
    www.newsmax.com

    Attacks Against America Are Not Over
    Col. Stanislav Lunev
    Friday, September 14, 2001
    Col. Stanislav Lunev is the highest-ranking military spy ever to defect from Russia. He continues as a security consultant to the U.S. government. He filed this report from an undisclosed location in Europe.
    I was surprised to hear, Thursday, some politicians in Washington making statements that terrorist operations against America are over.

    How can they make such claims?

    International terrorists are still targeting the U.S. and the American people as never before. Osama bin Laden, Hamas and other well-known and currently unknown terrorist organizations consider America as their number one target.

    After such an elaborate and coordinated attack was just conducted against the U.S., isn't it reasonable to think that the terrorist groups, backed by powerful nations, might a) already have plans for an escalation of such attacks, or b) now, seeing the vulnerability of the U.S., become encouraged and launch additional attacks?

    Since I defected to the U.S. from Russia, I have been always somewhat perplexed by the politically correct thinking in Washington and among the U.S. media.

    The media are now openly criticizing the President for remaining in Air Force One and not returning immediately to New York or Washington.

    The President acted very correctly and very smartly. As I recall, America has a Constitution. The President's sole real responsibility is to preserve your Constitutional government - not to hold press conferences.

    Obviously, the President and his advisors understood that there was a real possibility of a larger threat - perhaps nuclear - and one the media doesn't want you to know about.

    Let me explain. When I defected in the 1990s from Russia's GRU - its military intelligence - I told the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, anyone that would listen - that the Russians already had elaborate war plans against the U.S.

    I suggested that such a war might begin with a diversion, some sort of terrorist attack. With people's attention focused elsewhere, special troops could storm Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, the White House - to kill American leaders.

    I also warned the American government that I believe Russia has already smuggled small nuclear devices into the U.S.

    I have no doubt that Russia has been behind many of these terrorist groups, financing and equipping them.

    The President acted prudently. He continues to do so, by understanding the new, larger attacks may occur.

    He also knows just how weak American intelligence agencies are after the Clinton-Gore administration.

    Also, these terrorists are funded and sponsored by countries Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and by other rogue nations (all closely aligned with either Russia or China). These terrorist groups and nations want nothing less than war against Western civilization.

    First of all they would like to destroy the U.S., the recognized leader of the civilized world.

    On Sept. 11, terrorists used the so-called "cheapest" way for the destruction of symbols of American financial and military power. By doing it this way, the terrorists show just how vulnerable we are. It also allows them to have a place from which they can escalate the terror.

    This suicidal attack could have been prevented, but that did not happen.

    However, Tuesday's tragedy very clearly demonstrated the depths of terrorist penetration through the American nation - where they are operating, as if they were in their own backyard - and, for example, using American training facilities for the preparation of the attacks against American people.

    I am continually amazed how easy the American government makes it for enemies to penetrate American society and institutions. I am also amazed how many American journalists dislike America, and openly work against this country.

    From now on, we know for sure that there are hundreds if not thousands of terrorists who are living among us in America.

    They are preparing to continue the war against countries, which provide them hospitality, including dozens of so-called "sleepers" or specially trained terrorists who pretend to be U.S. citizens and residents. 24 hours a day, every day, they are waiting for the wake-up call from their organization leaders for a new attack against American people.

    The next attack may be more severe.

    According to Western intelligence estimations, the most powerful international terrorists organizations already have access to weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and materials.

    There is no doubt that the leaders of terrorist organizations already have their own combat groups in America. Next time they could use, against the American people, weapons of mass destruction or so-called "expensive" weapons, which could be delivered to the U.S. very soon, if they aren't already deployed inside America.

    It's very difficult to understand the logic of terrorists and impossible to predict their next targets.

    The war against America declared by international terrorism is REAL, PRESENT and DANGEROUS.

    We will win this war if, instead of words about defending America, we will do everything possible, practically, for the protection of our country and lives of the American people. There is no time for talking and promises any more. It's time for ACTION.
  13. by   Chellyse66
    And lastly...

    Senator Joe Lieberman made the following statement today on the floor of the U.S. Senate in support of a resolution condemning the terrorist attacks that took place Tuesday:
    Yesterday was a terrible day of terror. Today to me seems even worse. Yesterday, perhaps because the acts of war that were carried out against our people were so horrific, we responded, we moved forward. But it all seemed unreal. Today when I awoke, it seemed painfully real. It reminded me of terrible days in my personal life when I have experienced a loss of a loved one. You cope, and then you wake up with the reality and the pain is deeper. We all feel that today, and we can only imagine, therefore, how deep and pervasive is the pain of those many families whose lives have been devastated by the acts of terror that were carried out yesterday. I pray that God will be with them and the souls of their loved ones who are gone, that they will find comfort in good memories and strength from their faith in God. I have been very proud to be a Member of the Senate over these last few days. And it continues today as I listen to the statements we have heard in this Chamber, which should leave no doubt of our resolve nor our unity in holding accountable those who attacked us yesterday and sought to destroy our Nation.

    Today we are filled with the deepest feelings of anger and outrage. We want retaliation, and we will have it. We will not rest until we know who perpetrated these evils, and we will then respond with the full force of the righteous might that President Roosevelt summoned in 1941.

    We must be careful, though, not to mistake swift punishment for lasting peace. We are at war. That is true. But this war is dramatically different from the one we engaged in after Pearl Harbor. In this struggle, vengeance is not victory. Retaliation for yesterday's atrocities is only the end of the beginning of what should be our response, not the beginning of the end of that response.

    If, in fact, as this resolution says, we are acknowledging that we are in a war against terrorism, then we must understand that this war is not against a single known enemy but a broad and elusive threat from the forces of terror. And if we are to win this war, if we are to protect our security and freedom, we must adapt both offensively and defensively to the true nature of this threat and commit ourselves to a long and difficult struggle.

    We have several challenges ahead of us. First, of course, we must identify and punish the perpetrators. We must also then honestly assess our vulnerability here at home and then take swift and strong action to fortify the security of our critical national infrastructure from attack and to improve the ability of national and state and local authorities to respond to such attacks.

    We must consider with renewed purpose the proposals that have been made to create a new agency with responsibility for defense of our homeland, for the decades of security that our two oceans have given us are over. Our enemies can strike at us with terrorism, with cyberattacks, or with ballistic missiles. We must raise our guard here at home to those attacks.

    We have been warned by many experts that the threats we will face in the 21st century would be different and more diffuse than those we had faced over the last half century. That is why we have embarked on a path of transforming our military and other Government agencies to better prepare to wage and defend this new warfare. We must now move, after yesterday, with far greater urgency, for our enemies will not wait. They will not delay. They will continue to work with single-minded determination to find our points of weakness and strike at them. We must match and exceed their focus and determination.

    In doing so, we must not work and fight alone. This is not just our war. This is a war against democracy itself. In defending against those attacks, the world's other democratic nations must join together with us. I am grateful for the decision by the North Atlantic Council today to find the acts of yesterday essentially acts, under Article 5, acts of war against us which are acts of war against all of them.

    If we are truly involved in a war against terrorism, then our allies in Europe and elsewhere must come to our side as we came to theirs in World War II and not tolerate and deal with and maintain normal relations of commerce or diplomacy with nations that harbor terrorists. We must convince them that they will either be allies of allies or allies of our enemies.

    Mr. President, history rarely offers respite to victors. We won a magnificent triumph in the Cold War. After World War II, we were once again at the pinnacle of power. But, once again, we face a new form of tyranny. I am confident that we can and will rise to defeat this new challenge just as we defeated the communism that rose to face us after World War II. Our love of liberty has not diminished, nor has our common sense of purpose in protecting it.

    Succeed we can, and succeed we must. The lives of our people, the security of our society, and the strength of our democracy depend on it.
  14. by   essarge
    Cen35,

    You mentioned the killing of women and children. You seem to forget that the United States is one of the few countries that does not use women and children to fight in wars. Remember Viet Nam?????

    If our country is compacent in it's actions, it will give these terrorist countries the power. If our people are complacent, it will give these terrorist countries the power.

    Action is needed immediately to keep our freedom and the way of life that we, and all others that have settled in this great country, have come to know and love!! The freedom that I for one am willing to do and support whatever it takes to keep!!!!

close