If you're worried about a war, then stop!

[Mr. Mayhem]

I'm not trying to jump on anyone, but people (not just here, everywhere) keep talking "war." However, here's the question...War with who? Exactly! There won't be a war. People get rumors started that war is on the horizon when terrorists strike. Just because an act of terrorism occurs it doesn't mean an entire forgein country was behind it. If they were do you honestly think they would have used commercial airline jets for means of attack. No! They would use weapons of mass destruction. So these people who attacked the U.S. are just a small group. Hardly a mass from which can be fought.

Again I'm not trying to be hard here. I just want people to quit saying war. My mother called me today in a panic because people at her office kept speaking of war erupting from this tragedy. People at my college were speaking of war. Now I come here and see people talking about war. War is not gonna happen. This is extremely tragic. It's scary. It's unbelievable. It is probably the greatest disaster in our nation's history. However, it's not the kind of meat which attracts "war."

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Yes, let's stop this war talk for now, and with the singling out of particular ethnicities. Isn't that what starts these things in the first place?

[Maxie Zeus]

It will be a long time before we know anything certain or definite about who is responsible for this; there will be plenty of time to weigh the possible after effects.

And a word about this "draft" talk: There was no draft instituted during the Gulf War, and that was waged against a populous, industrialized country with the world's fourth largest (and extensively battle-hardened) army. Talk about the draft being re-instituted to respond to this attack is just a lot of melodramatics.

[I.R Joey]

There are some rouge nations that could still be responsible for this. I hope though, that humanity's conscience will prevent ww3 from ever happening.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Mr. Mayhem
I'm not trying to jump on anyone, but people (not just here, everywhere) keep talking "war." However, here's the question...War with who? Exactly! There won't be a war. People get rumors started that war is on the horizon when terrorists strike. Just because an act of terrorism occurs it doesn't mean an entire forgein country was behind it.

Sure. But then this wasn't just any terrorist attack. As has been noted during tv coverage again and again, the death toll is greater than the Pearl Harbor tragedy. Despite this being a terrorist attack, the weight of what has occured is equal to that of an act of war. To say the situation is serious would be a severe, severe understatement.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by DarkAngel


Sure. But then this wasn't just any terrorist attack. As has been noted during tv coverage again and again, the death toll is greater than the Pearl Harbor tragedy. Despite this being a terrorist attack, the weight of what has occured is equal to that of an act of war. To say the situation is serious would be a severe, severe understatement.

"Act of war" is surely the correct way to describe this. That does not mean that the perpetrators are themselves, or can be directly linked to, the kind of nation or state that could only be punished with a "warlike" response of the sort put into place during the Gulf War. As NATO and the US have demonstrated repeatedly with air strikes in Serbia, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan, there are numerous possibilities for "massive retaliation" short of sending in the Marines.

And again, just to try to put to rest these "WWIII scares": If you believe that "World War III" is genuinely a possible outcome here, then you must believe that one of the following four nations (the only ones with a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons to do serious damage to the US) was responsible for this ghastly attack: Russia, China, the United Kingdom, or France. Which one do you suspect?

It's easy to run off half-cocked in a lot of different directions. The best thing is simply to watch and wait until we know a lot more than we do in the current vacuum.

[I.R Joey]

well ww1 began with the assasination of one country's leader, and notice how Bush said that they would not difrenciate between those who performed these acts, and those who harbor them.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by I.R Joey
well ww1 began with the assasination of one country's leader, and notice how Bush said that they would not difrenciate between those who performed these acts, and those who harbor them.

And World War I turned into a nightmare not because of an assassination, but because Europe was divided into two equally well-armed and deeply hostile alliance blocs: The Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary, with Ottoman Turkey as an associated power) and the Entente (France, Russia and Britain, with Italy ultimately joining as well). The aasassination was carried out by groups sympathetic to the Serbian govt, which was backed by Russia; thus retaliation against those whom Austria held ultimately responsible couldn't help but involve the other Great Powers.

The list of nations who might have perpetrated this (or had close ties to those who did) includes Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan and North Korea. Of those, only N Korea has ties to another great power (China). And N Korea is so far down on the list of likely suspects as to not even be worth looking at. All the others are "pariah" nations that, insofar as the international community deals with them at all, it is at the end of very long pole while holding its nose.

The analogy to WWI is a real stretch, I think.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Let's not worry about war for now. All I hope is that we catch the terrorist group who did this. A nation is very unlikely too sponser an attack like this, and they wouldn't, seeing how p***ed the U.S. is...

[Maxie Zeus]

Am I the only one who finds this response--quoted from abcnews.com--to be faintly ludicrous?



Determined to show the attacks would not halt the U.S. government, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., declared Congress would get back to work immediately.

"As the representatives of the people, we are here to declare that our resolve has not been weakened by these horrific and cowardly acts," Daschle said. "Congress will convene tomorrow."

Neither rain nor sleet nor a couple of Boeing 757s slamming into the WTC will deter Congress from shoveling back home as much pork as possible. . .

[Lonestarr]

Mayhem, God bless you for putting my mind at ease. If there's one thing this country doesn't need, it's World War III. It is truly surreal that this really happened. My deepest condolences go out to the families and friends of those who perished in the collapse. I truly hope that the SOBs responsible are caught and punished.

[Failure]

Never say never. You never know what people might do if they're riled up enough.

Although I doubt WWIII will develop and I seriously, seriously doubt that there will be any form of draft, I wouldn't be surprised if this lead to a smaller war.

Like Bush said, we're going to make no distinction between the terrorists and people who harbored the terrorists. Say we attack a country we find harbored the guilty party, and they have allies who think that attack was unfair. The result will probably be a war or at least a skirmish of some sort.

Hopefully, no war will come of this, but I had an terrible feeling of what the repercussions would be when I first saw the tragedies today. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[James Harvey]

I don't believe this will result in a war. I do believe that America will find the people responsible and make them pay. And I hope they do. Murder on this scale is unacceptable. Completely. Totally. Unacceptable.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

And again, just to try to put to rest these "WWIII scares": If you believe that "World War III" is genuinely a possible outcome here, then you must believe that one of the following four nations (the only ones with a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons to do serious damage to the US) was responsible for this ghastly attack: Russia, China, the United Kingdom, or France. Which one do you suspect?

It's easy to run off half-cocked in a lot of different directions. The best thing is simply to watch and wait until we know a lot more than we do in the current vacuum.

I don't support the WWIII idea. I was just pointing out why the word "war" has come up. As you said, the phrase "act of war" does seem to apply given the significance of what has occurred. I don't mean to suggest that a nation is behind this. However, once it's discovered who did this, US response might be similar to that of a wartime situation. I'd imagine the military would get involved to "put out" the threat.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Terrorists don't congregate in one area. They shift settings all the time. It's difficult to seek out small, travelling groups of terrorists with tanks or planes.

This requires a more covert operation, I suspect.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Terrorists don't congregate in one area. They shift settings all the time. It's difficult to seek out small, travelling groups of terrorists with tanks or planes.

This requires a more covert operation, I suspect. Or you can find out where they are hinding and capet bomb them

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Terrorists don't congregate in one area. A lot of them are spread out, split into small groups or even individually. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them pose as ordinary citizens and take orders by phone or e-mail or some other means of communication.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Terrorists don't congregate in one area. A lot of them are spread out, split into small groups or even individually. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them pose as ordinary citizens and take orders by phone or e-mail or some other means of communication.

The anti-terrorism experts I've heard and read are unanimous in saying that the kind of co-ordination behind this--the sophistication necessary to place operatives in these locales, and to have and train operatives with the skill to take control of the planes and guide them to these destinations--requires a large operation, one that almost certainly would need the backing of state security operations.

Furthermore, it is a known fact that Osama bin-Laden, who has perpetrated other attacks (the attack on the USS Cole, and the co-ordinated attacks on US embassies in Africa a few years back) has a large, well-funded operation centrally located in the Afghan highlands, with the cognizance and connivance of the Taliban govt. If it *were* possible to do this kind of thing simply by getting a few people together and issuing a few knives, planes would be falling from the sky every couple of days.

This is not a case of half a dozen fruitcakes; this is the work of a large, well-funded group, one that almost certainly has close ties to the security agencies of one or more national states.

[sun]

Originally posted by Dick Grayson
I don't believe this will result in a war. I do believe that America will find the people responsible and make them pay. And I hope they do. Murder on this scale is unacceptable. Completely. Totally. Unacceptable.

I agree completely, war is to be avoidedat all costs. Those who helped and funded this will be found and punished. War leaves scares that never heal. Unconfirmed reports tell that mosquito pools still exist in Viet Nam, that were formed by bombs dropped by B52. Land mines mame and kill thousands, and those wars are long gone.
If we take out another country, which we are capable of doing, and many innocents are killed in the process, let's say thousands, then how much better than them does that make us? As just stated," Muder on this scale in unacceptable." I might add we don't have that right either, especially if that invovles innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by oldtoonguy


I agree completely, war is to be avoidedat all costs. Those who helped and funded this will be found and punished. War leaves scares that never heal. Unconfirmed reports tell that mosquito pools still exist in Viet Nam, that were formed by bombs dropped by B52. Land mines mame and kill thousands, and those wars are long gone.
If we take out another country, which we are capable of doing, and many innocents are killed in the process, let's say thousands, then how much better than them does that make us? As just stated," Muder on this scale in unacceptable." I might add we don't have that right either, especially if that invovles innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Uhhh...

10,000 dead (more than died at Gettysburg) and you think arrests are in order?

I, reluctantly, disagree

at least we have a valid reason for war (first time in my lifetime)

[sun]

24,000 died at Ghettysberg... After the civil war, the African Americans were supposed to gain rights, which were taken away in the 1890s. The war was fought to reunite the nation. It did that. 600,000 were killed, bitterness lasted 100 years.
I agree with you, there may be a valid reason to think about war. But, if our responce is specific, and gets at those responsible, a war very possibly, might be totally avoided. Very few wars are worth the unbelieveable toll....I am still against a war in the name of this unbeiveable war like act.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by happyheathen


Uhhh...

10,000 dead (more than died at Gettysburg) and you think arrests are in order?

I, reluctantly, disagree

at least we have a valid reason for war (first time in my lifetime)

I agree with happyheathen, although I too dislike coming to that conclusion.

Either you treat this like a crime, or you treat it as an act of war. Crimes are directed against particular individuals, and with motives deriving from the criminal's wants and desires vis-a-vis those individuals. In what sense does this attack, carried out by killers who neither knew their victims nor cared about them (except that they should die in a horrific fashion), qualify as a "crime"?

If this is a "crime" that demands judicial proceedings, then the raid on Pearl Harbor, the battle of Verdun, the sack of Constantinople, and every other act of organized violence merits the label.

Acts of war are carried out against peoples as a whole, against nations, against their governments, and against their cultures and civilizations. These terrorists, whether they are foreign or domestic, whether motivated by American policies foreign or domestic, are assaulting a people, a nation, a government, and a civilization. It is the behavior and motive behind this act that marks it as an "act of war" deserving of a warlike response.

The word "war," with its connotations of mass conscription, the requisitioning of industry, and the conflict of vast armored units upon the land, seas and skies, is highly misleading in the present context, and those fearing such a "war" fear a phantom only. The argument for a "warlike" response is an argument for something more than a merely "judicial" one: the filing of a grievance with The Hague, the issuing of arrest warrants, and the rest of the legal mumbo-jumbo. It is a call to recognize that any nations or governments who knowingly gave aid and comfort to the perpetrators of this act must be considered co-responsible for it, and that along with those perpetrators must be deemed enemies and dealt with accordingly. And this is because only an "enemy" would knowingly be a party to this act--an act that can only be considered an assault upon the United States as a nation and a civilization.

[sun]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


I agree with happyheathen, although I too dislike coming to that conclusion.

Either you treat this like a crime, or you treat it as an act of war. Crimes are directed against particular individuals, and with motives deriving from the criminal's wants and desires vis-a-vis those individuals. In what sense does this attack, carried out by killers who neither knew their victims nor cared about them (except that they should die in a horrific fashion), qualify as a "crime"?

If this is a "crime" that demands judicial proceedings, then the raid on Pearl Harbor, the battle of Verdun, the sack of Constantinople, and every other act of organized violence merits the label.

Acts of war are carried out against peoples as a whole, against nations, against their governments, and against their cultures and civilizations. These terrorists, whether they are foreign or domestic, whether motivated by American policies foreign or domestic, are assaulting a people, a nation, a government, and a civilization. It is the behavior and motive behind this act that marks it as an "act of war" deserving of a warlike response.

The word "war," with its connotations of mass conscription, the requisitioning of industry, and the conflict of vast armored units upon the land, seas and skies, is highly misleading in the present context, and those fearing such a "war" fear a phantom only. The argument for a "warlike" response is an argument for something more than a merely "judicial" one: the filing of a grievance with The Hague, the issuing of arrest warrants, and the rest of the legal mumbo-jumbo. It is a call to recognize that any nations or governments who knowingly gave aid and comfort to the perpetrators of this act must be considered co-responsible for it, and that along with those perpetrators must be deemed enemies and dealt with accordingly. And this is because only an "enemy" would knowingly be a party to this act--an act that can only be considered an assault upon the United States as a nation and a civilization. Maybe we are discussing the right idea, and not understanding terms. Yes, some kind of responce must be made. That would be a warlike responce, but a responce, is not an all out war. I am argueing avoiding an all out war, not a responce that will stop the terrorists. Yes they must be stopped. And the costs are high, but like many human endevors, wars are different, short, long, unbeleveable in human tolls-like WWII, and small human tolls. What ever action needs to be taken,will be taken, But a huge, all out war could destroy us all. A series of short ,pointed tactical attacks, might, take out the terrorists, and their supportors, and be supported by all civilized nations.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by oldtoonguy
Maybe we are discussing the right idea, and not understanding terms. Yes, some kind of responce must be made. That would be a warlike responce, but a responce, is not an all out war. I am argueing avoiding an all out war, not a responce that will stop the terrorists. Yes they must be stopped. And the costs are high, but like many human endevors, wars are different, short, long, unbeleveable in human tolls-like WWII, and small human tolls. What ever action needs to be taken,will be taken, But a huge, all out war could destroy us all. A series of short ,pointed tactical attacks, might, take out the terrorists, and their supportors, and be supported by all civilized nations. Well most of the world is behind the US if they want total war they could easly clean up most any small countries harboring these people quickly if every country gave its all.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by oldtoonguy
Maybe we are discussing the right idea, and not understanding terms.

I think this is the case. We ought to be clear with our terms here.

Strictly speaking, the only people culpable for yesterday's attack are already dead: the ones who seized the planes and steered them into the buildings. Those who say we should only punish the "individuals" responsible are committed to pursuing no retaliation at all, for there is no one else alive to retaliate against.

But if you want to punish anyone else you're going to have to go after those who are indirectly responsible for those death: those who aided in the attack, who planned the attack, were part of an organization they knew was designed to carry out this kind of atrocity, and who knowingly aided, sheltered and abetted that organization. Given the sophistication demonstrated by the attack, it is a reasonable surmise that the set of people responsible for the attack are part of sovereign governments who aided the perpetrators as part of their governments' policies.

There is a word for acts of violence carried out by responsible government ministers against the people of other nations with the purpose of harming that nation: War. And, to repeat what I said above, if you think it proper to respond to an act of war only by targeting the individual ministers responsible for it, then you can defend yourself only by operating with methods of ambush and assassination--not much use, I observed earlier, against a Panzer division.

That is why a "warlike response" is called for. But "warlike responses," though different in magnitude and kind from the merely judicial, admit of many degrees. Every time NATO shoots down an Iraqi plane in "retricted" airspace, or lobs a cruise missile at a training camp in Afghanistan, or bombs a Libyan oilfield, it is engaging in a "warlike" response. These actions are discrete, limited and designed not to cause further repercussions. But such attacks can be carried out on a greater scale than we've seen, and can be designed to wreak far greater havoc upon the nations and governments involved.

Such actions need not issue in anything like what some people seem to be worried about. And what sort of response could end in "a huge, all out war [that] could destroy us all"? The only nations with whom we might quarrel that could lead to this result (as I am getting tired of posting) are Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom. Two are dear friends and allies, and the other two, though geopolitical rivals, are responsible Great Powers with neither the incentive nor the inclination to employ these methods, or to defend those that do. (After all, Russia and China, who reside in dangerous neighborhoods and have restive ethnic minorities, are even more fearful of radical terrorists than we are.) "All out war" is a bogeyman--you might as well fear an asteroid the size of Texas hitting the earth.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


But such attacks can be carried out on a greater scale than we've seen, and can be designed to wreak far greater havoc upon the nations and governments involved.



uhhh...

all this prep is NOT to launch a few cruise missles - this is going to get ugly - but we already have Russia and China signed on, so, no, there will not be large mushrooms over the US.

(Israel is known to have nukes, and Pakistan may have made them, or the required technology, available to bin-Laden et. al.)

and I would not call France a 'good' ally (another very long story)

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by happyheathen


uhhh...

all this prep is NOT to launch a few cruise missles - this is going to get ugly - but we already have Russia and China signed on, so, no, there will not be large mushrooms over the US.

Certainly we are going to see retaliation on a scale greater than anything since the Gulf War. And with the growing shortage of cruise missiles in our inventory, I would take any pointed statements about "leaving no option unexplored" very seriously. Tactical nukes may come into it.

A lot of commentary is also being directed toward long-term policies, and I don't just mean airport security. The sense is that the Western alliances may have to forcibly intervene against any nations this is tracked home to; that they may have to take pre-emptive measures against others who may come to harbor these kinds of terrorists; and that military action against terrorists or rogue states may no longer await a provocation: Learning that Outer Slobovia is harboring an organization with ambitions but no track record may be sufficient cause to intervene there.


Originally posted by happyheathen
and I would not call France a 'good' ally (another very long story)

Well, the cross of Lorraine is sometimes a cross to bear. ;) But every great power needs a fearless critic to be its honest friend, and France does so with us admirably and honorably. And there has never been any doubt about where their true sympathies lie.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by happyheathen
but we already have Russia and China signed on,

and I would not call France a 'good' ally (another very long story)

Speaking of which, I just found this item on nytimes.com:


NATO Says Attack on U.S. Was Attack on Alliance

BRUSSELS, Belgium - NATO invoked a mutual defense clause for the first time in its history Wednesday, opening the way for a possible collective military response to Tuesday's attacks on the United States.

``The (NATO) Council agreed that if it is determined that this was an attack directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article V of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack against one ally is an attack against them all,'' Secretary-General George Robertson told a news conference.

The article commits each of the 19 member nations to take ''such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.''

Asked whether this meant NATO would take joint action, Robertson said: ``The country attacked has to make the decisions, it has to be the one that asks for help. ... The U.S. is still assessing the evidence available. They are the ones to make that judgement.''

In Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the statement would ``tee up'' a possible collective response once the United States identified the perpetrators and their sponsors.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


Speaking of which, I just found this item on nytimes.com:



yes - Article Five of the NATO charter has been invoked - this turns Turkey into a staging area (quick quiz: why is Turkey (an Islamic country) in NATO?)

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

ANSWER: Turkey is tenichally in Europe, and resisted communism.

France may be grouchy, yes, but it's a buddy. Also, for once, I am glad we are still in NATO, till now I thought we should get out of it...

...all the great nuclear powers HAVE no incentive to fight. Besides, we have nukes too and they are afraid of mushroom clouds as well...it's a double edged sword.

...and I know what this discussion has said and all, but if we DO hav war, I hope it is quick...with few innocents and civilians dead...sorry, venting fear...and sorry for posting what everyone else said...

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by BourgeoisBuffoon
ANSWER: Turkey is tenichally in Europe, and resisted communism.



Close -

The US wanted it for intelligence stations and missles (Yes, we used to have missles in Turkey, right next to the USSR - then they put some in Cuba...)




France may be grouchy, yes, but it's a buddy

a 'buddy' which supplied Iraq with nuclear technology - I don't like either country...

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by happyheathen
a 'buddy' which supplied Iraq with nuclear technology

We have members from France. Please, let's keep on friendly terms here.

[Clayface]

I'm thrilled to here that NATO is backing us up. If we can find enough evidence to show that bin-Laden is behind this (or whoever else is behind it), there's nothing stopping us from going in there and turning him into a smear on the pavement, and we'll have plenty of forces to back us up. I've got my fiingers crossed that the investigation can now get that proof.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Clayface
there's nothing stopping us from going in there and turning him into a smear on the pavement...

uhh...

what we are talking about is war - something most of you have never known - it's grown-up time, like it or not...

[Clayface]

Originally posted by happyheathen


uhh...

what we are talking about is war - something most of you have never known - it's grown-up time, like it or not...

uhhh...

And your point is? Granted, I haven't lived through the type of wars most of the "old timers" have - the world wars and such, but I was alive for the Gulf War. The condescending tone is not appreciate - especially in such tense times.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Clayface




And your point is? .

That the expession "smear on the pavement" is NOT appropiate (IMO) to the subject of war.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by happyheathen


That the expession "smear on the pavement" is NOT appropiate (IMO) to the subject of war.

Why not? Its what we're looking to do, isn't it? It may be a crude/rough expression, but I do think its appropriate, and represents the feelings of a lot of Americans.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Clayface


Why not? Its what we're looking to do, isn't it? It may be a crude/rough expression, but I do think its appropriate, and represents the feelings of a lot of Americans.

I think human life deserves more dignity - 1,000's have died, 1000's more will, in all probability (if done properly - long, nasty topic which I will not discuss further).

This is not a topic for cavalier thought or expression, however innocent, imo.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by happyheathen


I think human life deserves more dignity - 1,000's have died, 1000's more will, in all probability (if done properly - long, nasty topic which I will not discuss further).

This is not a topic for cavalier thought or expression, however innocent, imo.

Oh, I'm not being cavalier - I'm as serious as I can be when I use that expression. And frankly, I don't think the life of these terrorists deserves "more dignity". I don't think their lives deserve any dignity. You may differ on that opinion, and that's fine. Just don't speak down to those that you have a differing opinion with.

[happyheathen]

I am saddened by the both the attacks and the ensuing war - one person's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter' - conflict is inevitable in human affairs, but I greive for all.

Sorry if you were offended - my object was to place the subect in what I thought was a more appropiate frame of reference.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by happyheathen
I am saddened by the both the attacks and the ensuing war - one person's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter' - conflict is inevitable in human affairs, but I greive for all.

Sorry if you were offended - my object was to place the subect in what I thought was a more appropiate frame of reference.

Fair enough - apology accepted. And I apologize for offending your sensibilities, and for snapping at you so quickly. As I've said, things are tense, and normally I wouldn't have jumped on that so quickly.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


We have members from France. Please, let's keep on friendly terms here.

would like to comment on this:

Lionel Jospin, the French Prime Minister, said the Americans should be "reasonable" in their response. Alain Richard, his defence minister, said the attacks were "not acts of war".

[Clayface]

Originally posted by happyheathen
Lionel Jospin, the French Prime Minister, said the Americans should be "reasonable" in their response. Alain Richard, his defence minister, said the attacks were "not acts of war".


Really? Where'd you hear this? Do you have a link?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by happyheathen


would like to comment on this:

Lionel Jospin, the French Prime Minister, said the Americans should be "reasonable" in their response. Alain Richard, his defence minister, said the attacks were "not acts of war". What would he consider an act of war? couse the area where the WTC building were looks like a war zone to me.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Clayface



Really? Where'd you hear this? Do you have a link?

this was either CNN, Yahoo, or www.sfgate.com - I don't remember which (Yahoo and sfgate often use AP)