"vandals"???

That is simply the dumbest characterization of the low-life scum
that I've ever heard. You make Mikey look like a genius.

I use that particular charactarization here because I mean to emphasize
that the attack was planned and carried out by a small number of people,
not by a nation, or even a sizable religious group. Although they claim
to do it in the name of that sizable group, just like the abortion
clinic bombers do their thing in the name of their sizable group, I do
not believe that their actions reflect the actual positions of that
group. (yes, you can find in the Koran... you can also find in the
Bible...)

It was an act of mass murder by a small group, not an act of war by a
nation. While this may not matter to those who died, it should matter
very much to those who decide our response. However, our response
ultimately was to use this independent act to bolster our bravado
against a =different=, lookalike enemy. Now we wonder why they hate us
so much more. (and yes, I believe they hate us =more= now than they did
before, and with reason).

Religious fundamentalism, of all kinds, is extremely dangerous,
insidious, and difficult to root out. Bob Fry (IMHO) is correct in
this, and also the facts he presents appear reasonable, but the
inference that most all of the Islamic people are our enemy, and always
were, is all too easy to make from his presentation, and that would be
incorrect.

True, the worst case
is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US.

Were the US to even =attempt= to retalliate with nukes would be a
disaster and make us the enemy of the world. A massive conventional war
against Korea is more likely to succeed, though our miltary history in
the last sixty years is not inspiring (and a loss here would also be a
huge disaster). Doing nothing would also be a disaster if Korea
attacked, whereas doing nothing would =not= have been a disaster after
9-11. Which I suppose is my point.

I think it is possible to contain the Korea threat. It is simple, it is
based on known principles (nations wanting power over other nations),
and it is basically military.

The threat of religious fundamentalism is far more subtle, and dealing
with it properly goes fundamentally against our (stated) principles.
This is why [warning - aviation content] we ourselves have the FRZ,
ADIZ, and other silly rules to follow, under penalty of an F-15.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.