On 8 Jul 2005 13:15:34 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Dave Hinz says...

Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that
they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive.

Which is more dangerous, spending billions of dollars to get us
to stop attacking us, or not spending the money to get them
to stop attacking us?

Because honestly the two approaches seem to have about the
same effect. They're still attacking us. Our war has
failed.

A pragmatist would say why spend the money?

Jim

The last terrorist attack on US soil was when again?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown