Hi Liza,

you said:
>I think. First off, I
>continue to believe we have to make the price high to attack us. We have
>to destroy something material that the Taliban values highly.

Are you sure that the Taliban planned and executed the hijacking
of the four airplanes and the following destruction of the WTC and
partial destruction of the Pentagon? Right now the incidence for
this is quite weak.

>What that
>is, is hard to say. I think there is enough awareness in the
>Administration that a large loss of civilian life is not only
>counter-productive but inhumane.

I hope so.

>Perhaps there are public buildings to be destroyed, I hope
>lots of them, and perhaps it can be done at night when they are
>unoccupied. The American public wants retribution, we have promised it,
>and it is consistent with the deterrent need to make the reprisal for
>killing our people hurt plenty.

I hear "revenge" and "war". "Retribution" is just a nicer word for
that. Personally I think revenge/retribution is something that charac-
terizes mentally sick people. Revenge tends to be endless. The other
side will take their revenge too and so on. As hard as it is: you
have to find out the criminals who committed these deeds and then you
can punish them according to the laws of the United States. Everything
else is plain illegal and leads you back into barbarism. It is not
a good idea to fall back on the same level as the terrorists and act
like them. You would give up all principles of civilized life then.

>The deterrant goes not only to the
>Taliban but to Iraq and the other rogue states, to warn them of the
>consequences of taking in, shielding and supporting terrorist groups.

It is perfectly okay to demand that other states do not support
terrorism directly or indirectly. Whether it allows you to begin a
war if they continue their support is very dubious.
I think the better option is to cut off their financial and economical
connections and wait until they give up. (This lasts very long in
some cases! You have to be patient).

>But that in itself accomplishes little that is positive, in fact though
>I think it is necessary it is at the same time counter-productive.

Yes. It is dubious. It will convert more people into enemies of
the U.S.

>The
>main effort has to be, I think, "winning the hearts and minds" of the
>people.

That would be a positive approach to the whole thing and something
I would like to see implemented. The first action to be taken would
be more support for Israel and the palestinian (sp?) people to make
peace after all those years of battling (IMHO of course).

>So my thought is a landing in some part of Afghanistan - perhaps up in
>the north where the little pocket of resistance still remains, or near
>the Pakistan border, where there are two million Afghani refugees, or
>both - and setting up a protected area.
...
>Teach people
>job skills and pay them. And treat them with decency. Put them in
>charge. But guarantee that we will stay there and protect them and keep
>channels open for refugees from the Taliban to come in. We and they can
>set up a democratic counter government and siphon off an oppressed
>population into a Muslim, but free, modern world.

Sounds nice but one should ask the afghanian people before doing that.
I am not sure if they got the government they deserve: Taliban fanatics.
It doesn't seem so I admit. Lots of afghanians seem to wish the Taliban
away. But how much of them support the religious fanatics?

>A Marshall Plan for a free Afghanistan!

As the happenings in Mazedonia, Slovenia etc. showed it is impossible
to introduce a democratic government and make peace if people don't
want to live peacefully under such a government. So be sure this time
you do what the people in Afghanistan really wants. The last time the
U.S. engaged in Afghanistan to drive out the Sovjets you supported
exactly the fanatics you are fighting today: the Taliban. So be care-
ful with your choices now.

Methinks, we are a little offtopic here. ;-)
Therefore I adjusted the subject.

Best regards,

Stefan