I don't think that you answered my question Dave. Instead you twisted it into something else. My question was who did you include in the 'we' that you referred to in 'Maybe we should just fucking surrender eh?' However, your ideas are becoming clearer as you write.

You asked one direct question before flipping back to a highly generalized statement mentioning the Halifax explosion: 'I dont want to see any casualties, but be realistic can we allow him and his kind to succeed?'

He or whoever organized this attack did succeed - perhaps beyond their wildest dreams. You can no longer prevent that success, it's history.

Should the U.S. protect itself? Certainly.

Will the U.S. retaliate? Most likely.

Will they target mainly people who they think were responsible? Looks like it. Bush seems focussed and careful. He seems better than many people expected him to be.

Will they get the people responsible? I don't know?

Will it stop attacks on the U.S.? I doubt it. Enemies of the U.S. have proven that they can get revenge for their perceived injuries and I expect that many more people out there feel like they need to get revenge. On the other hand, seeing the U.S. in such a vulnerable position may relax some peoples' attitudes about the country.

Will taking revenge on people who thought that they were getting revenge stop the cycle of revenge? Yeah, just like it has in all the hot spots around the world.

In the end I'm not sure what would be effective and I'm sure as hell glad that I don't have to make the decisions on who 'we' should attack or if 'we' should surrender. I don't think that American's killing innocent people is worse than others killing innocent Americans or even surprising given the circumstance.

You quoted Samuel Johnson on another thread. When asked what was learned from the English civil war, Johnson replied, "that the king had bones in his neck." We haven't learned a lot since. Revenge justifies revenge which justifies revenge.