<html>
Hi Clyde,<br>
Make no mistake there while there is great support Internationally for
America over this horrendous disaster. There is also a great deal
of pressure to exercise temperance.<br>
<br>
This is not AMERICA'S NEW WAR as you your press likes to brag
and glorify, but a global problem. Travel out side your own
country, and you will see an entirely different perspective.<br>
<br>
My home city in the UK is home to the Royal Marine Commando unit's. They
are already in Afghanistan. Just like they were first
to go in, in the gulf war.<br>
<br>
The Royal Air Force was responsible for taking out most of the air fields
in that war. They quite efficiently grounded the Iraqi Air
force. Then the killing spree started in Bagdad. We all
know what that solved. There is some mounting pressure in the
UK that America does not conduct a repeat performance. <br>
<br>
This not America's private war. And America is not going to
be the same. The International community is hopefully going to
force the US to be accountable for their foreign policy. 90
day company balance sheets will no longer cut it. <br>
<br>
Regards Roger<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 12:08 PM 9/29/01 -0400, you wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>This morning's paper included the following
line: "Bush directed the release of $25 million to assist
refugees streaming into countries bordering Afghanistan." <br>
<br>
I would also like to point out that the article that started this thread
had as its title "Incredible Idea to Add to the Solution for
Terrorism." It was not given as the only approach.
Indeed, if you reread the article you will see it asks for turning over
the terrorists in return. It was one idea to consider among the
ways the U.S. can respond. <br>
<br>
I am encouraged by what I consider level-headed thinking on a number of
fronts. If we object to violence, why respond with violence?
If we object to terrorism, why respond with terrorism? <br>
<br>
Never fear, the American government is not going to roll over and play
dead. Looking for long-term solutions and working through
diplomatic channels as much as possible seems to me to be the way to
go. Much as some would like to see quick retaliation to pacify our
pain and our smarting national pride, I doubt that will result in a
better world, and it could actually propel us into a war that will take
many more than 6,000 lives. <br>
<br>
Regards, Clyde <br>
<br>
Wimblees@AOL.COM wrote: <br>
<font size=2><blockquote type=cite cite>Perhaps the President has already
taken the thought of providing humanitarian aid as a means of fighting
terrorism. It will not be the only way, but it will certainly go a long
way towards peace. And that is what we all want, isn''t
it?</font></blockquote></blockquote><br>
<br>
</html>