[Burkeman1]

Quite correct. To wage a "war against terrorism" in general is folly and unwinnable and I was tired of it when Clinton first announced it when he bombed Sudan the day Monica testified (yep- he declared a war against terrorism as well then). Just as the "war against drugs" and the "war against poverty" are proven unwinnable so will be the war against terrorism.

A war against a nation can be won. And we will win the war against Iraq. But against terrorism? No- we will only invite more with this war. I wonder who wants this war more? Bush or Al Queda?

[Miss Marple]

That is a disgusting comment. You have lost any credibility by equating the President and al Qaeda.

[Hugin]

To wage a "war against terrorism" in general is folly and unwinnable and I was tired of it when Clinton first announced it when he bombed Sudan the day Monica testified (yep- he declared a war against terrorism as well then).

Clinton was never serious about it. Bush is deadly serious. We do not have the option of not engaging. This war was thrust upon us as surely WWII was thrust upon us at Pearl Harbor. We have only two choices, to win it or lose it. You don't think we can win. Fortunately our current leaders are made of sterner stuff. Terrorist don't operate in a vacume. They operate with support of rogue states and individuals, and those are who we are going after. Afghanistan was first and Saddam is second. If others continue to support terrorists, they will be dealt with in due time. The alternative is eventually to suffer an attack that will make our losses in any previous war pale in comparison.