Well, Doug, I thought it would be fun to toss a few philosophical questions your way for a change... :-)

But you misunderstand me. No, of course I would not invite a known terrorist with dynamite strapped on his body into my house in order to have a friendly dialogue. I ain't stupid, pal.

But why do you misunderstand me? That's the part I don't get. I know you're not stupid, and I assume you know I'm not stupid too, right?

I am suggesting that a paranoid, negative, divisive philosophy of life doesn't lead one to a good place in life, but where does paranoia stop and sensible caution begin? I believe we differ on defining where that point is, that's all.

There are dangerous hostile people in this town...usually people who are drunk, and emerging late from some bar. I don't invite them in, I avoid them. Believe me, Doug, I am just as sensible as anyone else when it comes to normal caution, and assessing the danger posed by aggressive people.

Let's consider the case of the sniper in the Washington area. What would I do about him? Why, I'd do exactly what the police are presently doing, I'd try with all means at hand to find and capture him (or if necessary, shoot him). Sensible, right? He has already attacked people, and people must respond to that effectively, and I'm sure they will.

Now let's take the case of North Korea. Once and only once in their history have they attacked a neighbour, their other half, by the way (minor border incidents not counting)...way back around 1950. That was 52 years ago. The USA has also attacked various neighbours and more distant targets more than a few times in its history, often with little or no real provocation. So? What do we do? Should we attack the USA or North Korea pre-emptively, based on past aggressions or the possibility of future ones?

North Korea is under a dictatorship. Uh-huh. So are and have been any number of countries who are considered friends and allies of America. So? What do we do, attack them all?

What earthly justification is there for attacking people who have not attacked you?

If I were in charge of any country and it WAS attacked, I would fight back against that attack most strenously with all the means at hand, I assure you. But I would not launch a pre-emptive strike against them on suspicion that they may one day attack me! That is an act of criminal lunacy. If I suspected that they might attack me, I would arm and prepare in such a way that they would be VERY unlikely to be foolish enough to attack me. This, this USA has ALREADY done...and done most thoroughly.

The only people who dare to attack the USA are people who operate secretly (a terrorist cell). Those people do not represent any nation in its entirety. They may represent a faction in a nation. Their activities do not, in my opinion, justify preemptive strikes on entire nations in retaliation.

That's kind of like bombing a whole neighborhood full of people in an American city because there's a crack gang operating out of it...or attacking the whole city of Chicago because the mayor of Chicago paid a hit man to kill your brother...so you bomb Chicago into oblivion in order to kill him.

Crack gangs usually arise out of impoverished, desperate neighbourhoods. Terrorists usually arise out of impoverished, desperate populations. What are we going to do about it? Do something to end the poverty and despair, that's what, not further terrorize people who are already terrorized anyway by hitting them with the big technological stick of the USA.

I am not recommending weakness in the face of overt attack. I am recommending Love as a policy, and that's what I mean. Address the real problems in the world...which are poverty, unemployment, inequality, economic injustice, and despair.

That's tougher and far more complicated than merely blowing people up, which is why the powers that be can't be bothered. It's also way more expensive...in the short run. But it wouldn't be in the long run. Not in the least. By "long run" I'm talking 20 years. It's not a job for the impatient or for those who care only about this year's profits.

Is the USA so terrified of losing American lives that it must bully, threaten, and possibly invade any country it chooses to merely on suspicion that that country might at some time pose a danger?

What gives the USA the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of the whole rest of the world? What gives the USA the illusion that it is the world's arbiter of what constitutes morality, freedom, and justice?

These are questions worth pondering for some time, before just leaping to a glib answer.

Either a clear majority of the world's nations agree to support a course of action...or that course of action is a criminal action. I don't care who is the one doing it or how many nukes and stealth bombers they have.

Most of the free nations on this planet oppose the USA making unilateral attacks on small countries. I said FREE nations. Think about it.

- LH