<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> This morning's paper included the following line:  "Bush directed the release of $25 million to assist refugees streaming into countries bordering Afghanistan." 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. 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? 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. Regards, Clyde Wimblees@AOL.COM wrote: <blockquote TYPE=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?</blockquote> </html>