"And who has recommended the carpet bombing of Kabul?"


Was it some other "Jake" that wrote above that "I cherish the nuclear concept. Talk about your totally antiseptic cleansing . . . ." Not technically carpet bombing or Kabul, I suppose.


It's pretty obvious that the U.S. is on, as the lead editorial of this morning's NY Times puts it, a "collision course" with Afghanistan. It's also obvious that this will involve something more severe than cruise missiles at Bin Laden's camps (tried and failed). Why do you think that foreigners in Kabul are leaving in droves?


"Do you realize that you are in combat with a straw man?"


No, but only because I'm not sure what you're talking about, as I indicated in my first reply.


"Please, keep your fanciful attributions to yourself."


Was it the "bad" Jake who wrote above: "The completeness of the procedure is foremost, the precision secondary and coincidental. I want no one left alive to nurture, harbor or finance the terrorists. I want no one left alive to perform the terror."


I was talking about indiscriminate killing and genocide, but I guess you've narrowed it down to a few hundred million dead.


"Or do you seriously recommend doing nothing?"


No. I recommend that we have a national dialogue about our role in the world, the arguments for retaining or changing that role, whether and how our role in the world is related to the recent attacks, such as why terrorists chose us, now, instead of other Western powers, to vent their hatred. I prefer not to simply assume that the recent attacks are a case of the worst picking on the best and that an all-out war with whomever would be the opposite.