[Xaccers]

Replies to graham and a few other notes:

Originally Posted by Graham

*What* "authority" is that? The UN? The EU? The Americans? Al Qaeda???

And if that's what she *meant*, why didn't she say it?

She did, you just didn't understand it, while punky did.

Originally Posted by Graham

And what guarantees are there that, by breaking our own legal codes, those "500 or even 2" lives would be saved? Answer, none, of course. But every time we take a step down that path *EVERYONE'S* rights are that weakened that little bit more.

And what's the guarentees are there that by not breaking our own legal codes no lives would be saved? 100%?

Originally Posted by Graham

*WHY* does it "fall outside common sense", though??

Here's a common sense/moral clash.
Incurable fatal disease. Simplest way to obliterate it would be to wipe out everyone who is a carrier - common sense, but morally that's awful.
Common sense leads us to a way of preventing further infection, and saving more lives. Those who are infected are going to die, so why risk letting them infect others?
Morallity leads us to a way of exposing the rest of society to further infection because killing all those people is morally wrong.
Hence how morality can fall outside common sense.
I'm sure you'd rather we take the moral path keeping those infected people alive, hoping a cure can someday be found, even though it risks further infection and death, rather than culling them all.

Originally Posted by Graham

I can only presume you didn't watch programmes like Rory Bremner's "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" where it was rather comprehensively pointed out that Islamic hatred of the West has a *long* history, because the West has had a *long history* of strolling into Middle East countries and acting in a high and heavy handed manner.

Loved that show

Originally Posted by Graham

"A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something."

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

The clear implication there is not just that they "must do something" but that, to be *part* of the coalition, they must do what the Americans want.

Not really. Your quotes from Bush make no mention of doing what america wants. It's quite open, even going as far as saying that they don't expect countries to send troops.
As has been mentioned, terrorism can be fought with many tools, political pressure being one of them.
Now if there is a nation, with no army, no inteligence service, not much political clout, but has a member in the UN, simply by voting on things which the UN decides would help against terror, like voting on an arms sanction for instance, that is doing something in the fight against terrorism.

Other terrorists which have been successfully negotiated with, have all wanted a reasonable goal, whether it's freedom from an oppresive gov laws, or for their own country.
That's something that can be worked on, political pressure can be applied, give and take can happen, a comprimise can be reached, like apartite being abandoned in SA, or Israel returning the land it has stolen.
But when the terrorist just wants to kill you or convert you to their way of thinking, there's not much hope of negotiation. You can't have an agreement on only killing a portion, or only half converting people, it's an all or nothing situation.

Knocking out a civilian power station has the military effect of taking out broadcasters (ie the ablity for Saddam to rally), divert resources from the war effort, knock out other communication means such as telephones.
I don't recall any reports stating that sewerage or water works were deliberate targets.
I also don't recall any reports stating that populated areas such as markets or civilian office blocks were being activly targetted.
I'm pretty sure our military did its damndest to attack military targets.
Don't remember hearing about any apache's flying up and down the streets of Bahgdad shooting civilians, or launching a hellfire or two into a crouded school bus.

A sunni/shiite conflict is not ensured. This has been shown by the unitiy between them after the explosions which killed shiites. Sunni's and shiites have united against osama and his followers for those killings. They know who to blame.
And before anyone says they're blaming the coalition forces, they are not. They are angry that there wasn't enough security to provent it, but it's like someone walking up to you and thumping you, while a friend stands by. You can be angry at your friend for letting it happen, but you don't blame them for it happening, the blame lies with the person who hit you.
That's actually one of the interesting things about Islam, you are responsible for your own actions, hence why they don't believe Jesus died for their sins, because that takes the responsibility away from them.

The US is still in Saudi, protecting her oil fields.
Saudi wants this, the US wants this, and most oil using countries want this.
Osama doesn't because he feels that the arabian penisula should be wiped clear of non-muslims.
Also, the US has the public image of shaitan in Islamic nations, and so to have Shaitan protecting the holy land is understandably not what most muslims want.