> While my examples are extreme the main thought is this: I have not seen any example of force really solving a disagreement. It is more likely to just escalate it. WWII may have brought peace but it was with a horrible cost. I have great trouble supporting any violent action for most any cause and I pray that I never have to make an awful choice like the people in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

You contradict yourself: WWII was a use of force that resolved disagreement. There was a great price to pay, but such is the price of freedom. Great men gave their lives so that we can continue to live freely, and I salute them for it. I would hope that I would be willing to do the same. In short, the price we paid was little in terms of what we got in return.

The problem is, as I said earlier, you cannot negotiate or come to terms with evil. None of this relativistic "let's look at every side of the issue and agree to disagree" crap -- some people are evil, and wish to do evil.

I WILL NOT COME TO TERMS WITH EVIL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH IT, YOU DO NOT APPEASE IT AND YOU DO NOT TOLERATE ITS CONTINUED EXISTANCE.

If there is great cost involved, so be it. If it is possible to avoid conflict, then certainly it is reccomended. But when terrorists decide to take innocent lives on a large scale for no purpose other than to "send a message" or inspire terror, they have gone over the edge. There is nothing left to talk about.

I believe there are valid points to be discussed with US foriegn policy. We have made, and will continue to make, mistakes. We are not perfect. We are even rather inconsistant in our policies, but this is because our government is not a dictatorship with just one vision.

None of the above excuses terrorism of any sort. It must be stopped. And I have news for you: if you kill the terrorists, they cannot continue to cause terror. It's pretty simple.

Stephen