Yeah, wait for cowards like the french to act!

Im gonna start a new idea. If you read some of my other posts on the war on terrorism, i believe the afghans are responsible for this whole mess. Doesn't it seem strange that such a small place can back such punch? The reason (i believe) is because i think they brought their bigger, stronger friend along the ride. I think that china has been helping them out. I bet that china uses the khyber pass to supply the afghans with weapons, technology, and the such. I mean, it's no secret china still hates us, no matter what their representatives may have said. The chinese would love nothing more than to see america go down the drain. Can't you see? China is using afghanistan (and probably some other countries) to fight us for them. that way, theres no risk or loss involved on the chinese part, and they can hide behind the united nations if anyone sees through the scheme. I suggest a coalition site between afghanistan and cchina, as well as keeping a close eye on the khyber pass. If we can catch the chinese or any other country in the act, we can blow the whole thing wide open, and hit the whole thing at the source. Hey, it never hurt to spy, did it?

Whether you were for or against the invasion of Iraq, I think that we all have to agree that Saddam Hussein did indeed harbor terrorists. Anyone who harbors terrorists is a danger to the free world. It's exactly the same as someone taking a known murderer into their home and sheltering them. They are encouraging crime and obstructing justice, and this was exactly what Saddam Hussein was doing. I did not support the invasion of Iraq for the very reason that President Bush was not able to build a NATO coalition to support the war. Bush insisted that Iraq was an immediate threat to U.S. national security. However, there was not solid evidence to support that thesis. I agree with BIGBABY- if necessary, we need to go at it alone if it means protecting ourselves. However, it is my opinion that we should only do so if there is an immediate threat, and with Saddam, there was none. There are several regimes throughout the world that pose greater threats to the United States than Saddam did.

the usa not only harbors terrorists, they make them their leader. the world should get together to stop the united states of terrorism and their leader george bush

They more world wide support we have, the better. But, if must, we can and will do it alone. If you harbor terrorists, then you are a terrorist.

Read all the way to the bottom of this email if you have one Drop of True American Blood Running in your veins !!!!!! I am sick and tired of people saying we can't win against terrorism. Well we can form a United Front and we can do something.... United ! ! !.....I beg you to send this to everyone YOU KNOW !!!!!! Just think, some of us cant go running around the world chasing terrorists But WE CAN DO THIS !!!!! Won't You join your Countrymen in the same way they stormed the beaches at Normandy ???? Its time to pick what side of the fence we are on and this is one way we can say ......We will win This ONE BATTLE on our HOMELAND for Sure !!!!! interesting... Subject: Are you supporting terrorism? Subject: Beat 'em at their own game... GASOLINE SOLUTION! We CAN buy gasoline that's not from Middle East. Why didn't George W. think of this? Gas rationing in the 80's worked even though we grumbled about it. It might even be good for us! The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor. An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS. Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis. Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies import Middle Eastern oil: Those that do import: Shell.....205,742,000 barrels Chevron/Texaco.....144,332,000 barrels Exxon /Mobil.....130,082,000 barrels Marathon/Speedway......117,740,000 barrels Amoco.....62,231,000 barrels If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION! Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil: Citgo.....0 barrels Sunoco..... ..0 barrels Conoco..... ..0 barrels Sinclair..... 0 barrels BP/Phillips..... 0 barrels Hess.....0 barrels All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on a monthly basis. Keep this list in your car; share it with friends. Stop paying for terrorism..... But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers. It's really simple to do!! Now, don't wimp out at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!! I'm sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers! If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. How much would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next eight days! Copy This into your email and spread the word !

Though the idea sounds good, remember that NATO's charter allows it to operate only within Europe and North America it does not go anywhere else. So basically the question is fundamentally flawed.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!! Trying to get other nations to "rally 'round the flag, boys" is arrogance at its extreme. Remember, we're the big, bad U.S.of A.; hey, we doan' need no steenkin' help! We're a nation of rugged individualists here! 'Cuz we're the Yew-nited States of 'Murrica, an' we run this here planet! Hell, we gotta get thet thar' Oh-salami been Loogie, an' effen we gotta nuke them Ay-rabs tuh get 'im, WAAAHHH-HOOOOOO! Hell, what's a coupla' dead towel-heads 'mong friends, anyway! Gotta git in thet thar' Ef-Gravy-stan an' show 'em whose BOSS!! 'Cuz we're the Yew-nited States!!! An' we go whar' we please, an' we kin dictate to the Yoo-ro-peens an' ennybody else we wanna! So they jes' better get their collective ASS in gear an' help us out by attackin' one o' them thar' Ay-rab Mooz-lim nations, whose people we could give a rat's end about, 'less of course their gov'ment is pro-American! Then they're OK! So there! Nyah!

The only possible catch is that then the terrorists will strike back in retaliation to OUR retaliation. Plus, it should be done AFTER conducting an investigation.

The countries that harbor terrorists should be punished severely. NATO has to step in and pull it's weight. We have saved Europe, now it is their turn to unite with us for the preservation of Western Civilization.

A coalition - YES. Punishing countries? NO This looks too much like a war against all Muslim countries. That is not what we stand for.

Great idea. Why not have them attack Ireland to get rid of the IRA members as well?

Why must we get other countries involved in our problems? I heard a quote yesterday that describes my thoughts perfectly. In th words of Roger Taylor, drummer for the rock group Queen, "We just don't want to be seen to fail; that is what keeps us going". America doesn't want to be seen to fail, but does that mean we should force innocent citizens from Canada or Britain to give their lives for a country they don't even belong to? Absolutely not! Yeah, I can just picture the message on the gravestone of the 18-year-old English student who had been at the top of his class at Cambridge University who was planning to become a doctor and cure terminal diseases: (first name) (last name), born 1983, died 2001. Died fighting for a country across the ocean so that they could be free from terrorists. HAH! This is our problem, and we don't need to get all of NATO involved. Only reason I gave it a three was because it might actually work if we tried it. But I think it is very sad that we even have to think of getting other countries involved. Take care, everyone.

The countries of NATO have as much of a stake in the war against terrorism as the United States does, who is a member of this organization. Western Europe has been a target for terrorist groups in the past and it would be logical for us to enter in a pact with European countries. A multi-national force should be lead by the U.S., because 1. we were the nation attacked directly by the terrorists and 2. we have been tracking the terrorist organizations for years and we have the know-how to make the tactical strikes necessary. Having the backing of the world community certainly could not hurt in taking out the terrorist menace. But if we must, we will go at it alone, for U.S. interests must be taken into account. That interest is the protection of our people at home and abroad. Certainly having the backing of the world could definitely increase the potency of our cause.

The countries that harbor known terrorists are guilty. If they are not willing to turn them over, I am afraid that they will have to suffer the consequences enforced by a NATO coalition.

Countires that knowingly harbor terrorists are as bad as the monsters themselves.