First and foremost, I agree that retaliation is appropriate and necessary. I would hope for swift, but I pray for appropriate and just.

I do not think it is appropriate to even suggest (and will not support) a nuclear response. I'm as angry, outraged, and hurt as anyone, however, much of that stems from my compassion for the victims, the survivors, and their families...and my complete inability to understand the complete disregard for innocent life that was demonstrated in these attacks. That same inability forbids me to consider a nuclear response, regardless of who instigated these attacks.

When we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the general pubic was much less informed about the dangers and the environmental impact of those devices. Today's devices are much, much larger and I do not think any Administration that approved such a response would survive the week, let alone the next election. Furthermore, the outrage of the rest of the world would be completely justified.

A military response is to be expected. Justice demands something...it does not, however, demand an eye-for-eye annhiliation of the innocent citizens and/or neighbors of the those that perpetrated this heinous act of aggression.

Frankly, I would rather see a retaliation that does not place more Americans at risk...however, I understand that may be necessary to root out and surgically remove the cancer that spawned this.

And, yes, you're right. We're all part of this, even those who live on the other coast or in different countries. We all know somebody who lost someone. Consider the whole six degrees of separation thing. These attacks will affect all our lives in one way or another. Because of this, the "Final Solution" is not an option.

Respectfully meant, as always.

--f