[GT40FIED]

Well...how can you argue with fighting on someone else's land? I mean...it's not yours and if you're not there then it's win/win. My point was basically that we demonize threats abroad while virtually ignoring them at home. I mean...if you look at a homegrown terrorist like Eric Rudolph, sure he got some attention from the government, but it's absolutely nothing compared to what we give perceived threats abroad. Look at a guy like Paul Hill. If he hadn't pretty much given himself up we'd probably still be looking for him to this day. Then again, if your name is Rudolph or Hill you've got much less to worry about than if your name is Mohammed or the like.

I don't agree with the "wait 'till they come here" approach...but the U.S. has so far seemed incapable of fighting an intelligent war abroad. If we're going to hit them where they live, great. The problem is that we can't decipher who "they" are or where "they" live and we've killed thousands of innocent people looking for "them" with bombs that are, unfortunately, smarter than our commander in chief. Personally, I'm not against military action in it's entirety. I'm against military action based on flawed judgement and intelligence that is sub par at best. There was a really great program on the Discovery Channel last night where Ted Koppel held a 3 hour pannel discussion on whether or not we're safer due to the freedoms we've lost (the title was something like "The Price Of Security"). I came away feeling less safe than I would've 5 years ago, but everyone raised excellent points. I'd definitely suggest looking to see if it'll re-air and watching it.