Don, Sorry my reply dissapointed you, I have been tied up with personal matters. My five year old was sick, my wife was on her last nerve, so I was also trying to relieve her of the responsibilities of a two month old. My response was quick because I didn't really have alot of time to respond, more just a way to refresh it and collect some thoughts.

First, I am assuming no role as a moderator, If I was I would be between two people in a debate. Instead, I am merely asking questions as to what can be done. People seemed very intent on saying we were not thinking but applying little to go along with it. I simply asked the question to clarify what people would have us do. I will look for holes in arguments, I always have. So please do not think I am some self appointed moderator.

As to the points you made. Yes very good ideas. Most of which are already in the works. Better communication between intelligence branches and better access to that information from places that need it. I can't help but think that the reason we hadn't already implemented this before is due to privacy issues. I may be wrong, but that would be a political time bomb prior to this. There is a coalition in the works, and we are trying to gain support still. I know this is not the sort of coalition that you were refering to. My concern would be with time. I don't know that you could implement a tribunal fast enough to be effective in this situation. Any group of nations rarely holds itself together for long. The UN is fairly ineffective against the US. And I am not sure why a new group would be any different. I follow your logic, but do you really think that nations can completely put aside thier culture, and environmental needs to form a conglomeration? I don't see the middle-east and the US having too many things in common. The things we take for granted, they see as luxery. What happens when there is a disagreement in this group?

My editorial... :)

While peace is prefered over war, what is the answer now? We are still reeling over the WTC blows, or economy is unstable. There was no announced provication to this attack, just as there was none with the Cole, or the embassies that had been attacked. A wait and see what they do is a dangerous game. The enemy does not announce his intentions. This is different from most terrorist action against the US. No demands had been made, no ultimatum, and no claim of responsibility. Waiting can allow other cells to sight new targets. Bin Ladin is now 'missing' so what can of damage can he do now? How long do we wait and see? If (God forbid) another attack comes, will we still wait and see? When does diplomicy end, when does an attack demand retaliation? Just as I don't think that war should be a first option, I don't think use of force should be ruled out as an option. Your ideas are sound, but I wonder how much further this will go before you would say, "Ok... now it's time to kill him, and any that harbor him?"

As I said, I am no moderator. Never claimed to be. I just get really nearvous when I am considered a War Monger because I believe that military action may be needed, and we had best be prepared.