Thomas Day yesterday posed the question that if we were not to act with military action, what would stop Osama bin Laden from winning?

Since the question was directed at anti-war protesters like myself, I would like to respond.

To begin, what are we as Americans trying to 'win' against Osama bin Laden -- who can kill the most people without any just cause?

Osama bin Laden is an Islamic militant extremist who feels the best way to challenge the United States' presence in the Middle East is to bomb our citizens.

While no one could agree with his reasoning, attacking him makes his causes all the more important while also bringing us down to his moral level.

As the leader in the world, we should look with a greater perspective at what going to war means: who gets hurt, what are the consequences, and above all who loses their lives.

Bombing Afghanistan does not relieve any pain caused by the September 11th attacks, but only ensures that future violent acts can and probably will occur at home.

Instead of instantly reasoning that conflict can only be resolved with military action, we should instead ask for what purpose were we attacked, and how can the tension be resolved without perpetuating hostilities.

I agree that action is the only way to stop terrorism, but if we as a country see war as our only viable option, then it is time we examined our own virtues and see if we really want to 'win' against Osama bin Laden.