If that policy is used, then the US would be the first country that would have to be attacked!

Not a good idea. It is simply punishing innocent people for the sins of their government who, in most cases, weren't exactly elected by any democratic process. There are a lot of countries that don't have as tight control over their borders and isolated regions as the US does. Like Pakistan, for example. They're a US ally, but the government in Islamabad has almost no idea about every little thing that is going on in the Northwest Frontier provinces or the rocky deserts of Baluchistan. These are not well-trafficked areas either, so they can plan their evil deeds in ravines without much chance of someone happening by to report them to the authorities. Should we atomize Karachi simply because the Pakistani police force does not have a man under every rock and tree in the country? It'll immediately create 130 million new enemies, most of whom do not bear any specific animosity towards the US right now. It'll just satisfy a visceral thirst for revenge, but most good decisions aren't made in anger. Besides, it's morally wrong to kill innocent people who have never harmed us, if that counts for anything these days.

Yeah sure, I mean, all those civillians in those countries are probably terrorists too, right down to the three year olds. A-Quada is a private organization- that's what we need to go after, not entire soveriegn nations. Germany had quite a big cell in Hamburg, are we going to go after the Germans? using the military to solve everything is stupid. What happened to diplomacy? Oh yeah, that's right. Our current president can hardly speak English, much less use diplomacy to solve anything. Using the military to create peace and security is dumb and short-sighted.

The old liberal policies of sitting back and living upon domestic affairs and no action is over. The U.S is ready to do what they have to do to get to these terrorists..

Corrupt regimes that provide aid and shelter to terrorists are just as bad as the terrorists themselves.

Definetely one of the best options on this list. We are at war with these people, give them up or were coming in. Its as simple as that. If they dont respond, then we take them out. Unless we get them out of every single country, attacks will still come, at the US's cost.

This is stupid. It would be like attacking our own country because we have terrorists in are country but it dosen't mean we support them. Instead we should help aid these countries and get the terriorist in a less destructive manner.

Oh, no, no, no. There must be other alternatives than using violence to solve the situation. Violence is never an acceptable way to solve problems, especially in light of the tragedies that befall humanity. As a committed pacifist, I subscribe to Jesus' belief, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Should we strike our own country, then? After all, there are terrorist cells in our own cities. Is it necessary to put even more people at risk by doing this? Jesus loved all people, even his enemies such as Caiaphas and Judas Iscariot. His example is an example for me, and I take great comfort in this. It's a tall order, to love our enemies, but I feel it's best!

It is a bad idea. The LAST thing we want is for the MORE innocent citizens to be killed by our forces in the name of the U.S. government. That is something Reagan would do. The U.S. needs to simply overthrow the Taliban regime and bring in a democratic government and not give up on the effort. I sure as hell hope that Dubya cares enough to do this in a diplomatic manner rather than a barbaric manner.

Are all Afghans/Saudis Osama bin Laden? Are all Iraqis Saddam Hussien? No! We need to center in on the terrorists themselves, and leave innocent Afghan men, women, and children alone! Now, notice that I gave "Use U.S. military to strike against terrorists" two stars. This is because I believe that is a code for "start a war". We have to use what intelligence we have to deal with this---and sending warplanes to Afghanistan to shoot/bomb/destroy everything in sight is not intelligence! Thank God for people like Micheal Stipe who have the courage to publicly speak out against war. I applaud you!

How do you mean 'strike'? To attack the countries, kill civilians and destroy the enviorment? In that case, not a good idea. It might sound alright at first but why should the inhabitants of countries that harbor terrorists be hurt by what their government has decided? I'm sorry but I don't think they have hold a national voting on wether or not the country in question should harbor terrorists. Because, to my knowledge, such an election has not yet taken place anywhere. I can't help but think about how I would feel to be punished for something that my government has decided. Because a government is not the people. The people suffer the most risk of getting hurt in an attack. Not the government who decided to harbor terrorists. Even if they hit military bases and factories, innocent people will die. No matter how they hit, innocent people will die...

What are we waiting for??? Our intelligence is bound to know where some terrorists are hiding, take them out first and work on the rest as soon as possible... weed them all out in the end I say!!! We could maybe get our inner-city criminals next if we run out of terrorists in other places... as these are the domestic terrorists anyway!

As long as they don't just bomb innocent people, they should be sure that only the terrorist get punished.

The bad part about this is that however you strike against countries that harbor terrorists innocent people are bound to get hurt. However if they could strike in a sensible way to force the country in question to co-operate with the US, then it would be a small, but important gain. It's never right to see innocent blood spilled, but if it could work to a better and more safe future, it's something worth considering.

If you knowingly give aid to someone who participates in a crime you are called an accomplice. If an entire country is involved in this kind of activity the entire country should be held responsible. However, if only a few individuals are harboring these terrorists against the will of the country then they alone should be held accountable for the crime. Either way, this is just common sense. And, either way the accomplice or accomplices should be severely delt with by military force. This is not a drill.

The US should only strike back on cities/countries that knew about the attacks. If an entire country is to be punished for one groups insanity than let them be the only one's punished and not an entire city of innocent people. Although I must agree that it is sickly to watch the reaction of gladness in some of these countries. If they cause or are KNOWN to have threats than attack as it is the only way to warn other countries and the world that terroism will not be tolerated and will result in nothing but destruction and heartache for the world.

Unfortunately, our country was caught by surprise with this attack on New York and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. We must become psychologically and militarily prepared for this type of attack in the future. Make no qualms about this, we are at war and this is war in the 21st Century. It would be ideal to strike back at countries that harbor terrorists. We must understand that this will have to be a large undertaking. There are several countries in the Middle East that harbor terrorists; sometimes, they are sanctioned by individual states, other times, they are independent operations within countries. The U.S. military will have to make a mass strike on the Middle East, friend and foe alike. Ultimately, there is no way we can run from this. If we hide, the U.S. will lose its credibility worldwide. If we do engage the enemy, even if it is the entire Middle East, then we must do so in an orderly, prudent way in consultation with our allies in the European Union. Right now, I see this as the only option, we must not hide in the face of danger. We need solidarity against this horrible crime against humanity that has been committed.

Countries that support terrorists and their beliefs are as bad, if not worse, than the terrorists themselves.

It's appearing more and more that wars of the 21st century are going to be a lot like what we just saw in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania - faceless, nameless attacks that are more driven by private terrorist organizations than individual nations. That being said, I have to think that the world's governments could make things very difficult on these organizations by refusing to harbor them within their borders. As long as regimes in Iran, Afghanistan, and Libya continue to ride the fence about their policies towards known terrorists, the world is a more dangerous place. I believe that we should come down hard on these kinds of countries - including the use of military force to prevent terrorist organizations from having a safe harbor.