<HTML>The text of an interview with Kissenger by CNN:
--------
KISSINGER: ....these groups require a base, they require money, they require organization, and if we can get them on the run and if they have to spend all their energy surviving, they can't plan these meticulously prepared attacks that we saw in New York and in Washington.
And it isn't only Afghanistan, there are countries like Syria that have bases, Sudan, some are probably in Algeria, and we have to put governments on notice that if they extend safe havens to terrorists, they will run the risks that terrorists do.
CNN: So are you telling me this morning that the United States and its allies might find themselves in the position of attacking Syria and perhaps Iraq?
KISSINGER: No, I don't think we have to attack Syria because Syria will close down these camps if they are brought under enough pressure.
Iraq, I would be open-minded on. If they have ties to any of these terrorist networks, they should be attacked.
-----------
You write:
do not seem willing to commit to the fighting yourself
------------
I simply refuse to answer the question. It is a *personal* question and has no relivance to a discussion regarding how the United States should respond. You are in the wrong to make any assumptions about my commitment to my position - and most certainly wrong to publicly indulge in speculation regarding such a matter. That is my objection.
I posted my position as a means of "venting" my feelings I suppose. I can't alter US policy in anyway (of course).
----------------
How about an acceptance that people will actually die and many innocent lives will be lost should forces invade Afghanistan?
----------------
I do acknowledge this. I do not advocate this course lightly.
----------------
How about admitting that whatever forceful means are used they may not be sufficient to result in the capture and arrest of Bin Laden....Once he's deposed will you also propose we hunt down and kill them so they do not attempt to avenge his incarceration or execution?
-----------------
I have spoken at length elsewhere regarding the true enemy and the purpose of invasion. The Northern Alliance has pledged the full support of between 15,000 and 30,000 Afgani troops in support of an American led invasion of Afganistan. It is hoped that local support on this scale can help minimize the cost in human lives and ensure that Afganis themselves play a major role in the restoration of their nation in the post-invasion period.
--------------
We all agree that action must be taken to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice but you fail to realise that terrorism thrives on its martyrs, tit for tat exchanges of unnecessary force and the loss of innocent lives by both sides.
---------------
It is my position that Terrorism thrives on the monies and support lent to it by State governments. These governments are the true and proper target.
--------------
Did that use of force lead to an end of IRA operations?
---------------
No. Obviously. But it is my position that there is a very good reason why such measures are ineffective - they target the wrong people. I don't even care if Bin Ladin escapes or not. He isn't the real force here. He, and others like him, are just "loons" recruited by governments as an augmentation of what passes for their "foriegn policy."
------------------
Spell it out then Ishmael - what are your intentions exactly? If you're not prepared to volunteer your own life towards the war you're promoting I think you had better just shut up on this issue.
------------------
I refuse to answer this question, but I echo your sentiments.
ISHMAEL</HTML>
