I think A_Wanderer raised an interesting point back there, about how it is important to stand by your principle no matter what. The ultimate test, I think, would be for interested parties to say 'I would be prepared to die for such an ideal'. In other words, A_Wanderer - you.
'If the price of holding true to ones alliances is paid in blood then so be it.' That could well be substantial enough, but what if its 'your' blood? It sounds good, but I for one don't want my blood to be spilled, and I would not be happy at all for it to be spilled in the name of an increasingly controversial war.
I take issue with the deaths of the innocents, some of whom probably did not support the direction in which the War Against Terrorism has taken, while those who decide war are protected in their offices, be they in the White House or Downing Street.
I am not attacking you, A_Wanderer, if those are your convictions then I am glad that you find it acceptable to die for them - I would not. This is a tragedy, and it must have been a particular tragedy for those that were killed and who didn't even support the West's current military actions. In this War against Terrorism, it really does look like its the people who pay for it, not politicians.
Ant.