posted 09-21- 11:06 PM               

To their credit, the administration is doing a fair job of preparing public opinion for the idea of American military casualties. While I fear casualties as well, there are other casualties which have not been mentioned which I fear may have a profound effect on the course of the "war" depending on how things go.

First let me say that I am an "Internationalist". I was for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo long before action was ever taken. I believe we must all look out for one another, national borders be damned. I believe the threat of a much greater catastrophe, nuclear, biological, or chemial, is a very real one for any Western nation. Therefore, I do fully back the idea of fighting this conflict to as much of a conclusion as possible (I'm sure terrorism in some form will always be with us).

That said, I propose that we may not be as changed as we thought we were after 11 September 2001 (I hope I'm wrong). If the attacks, when they come, go too well and casualties on our side are mercifully light (not that this is a bad thing in and of itself), my fear is that as time goes on, it won't be long before we start to see dead Afghan (or whoever) babies on our television screens. In the abscence of significant casualties (in military action or further terrorist attacks) on our side, such images may cause us to lose our stomach, and call a halt to it, leaving us to gasp later as Miami is nuked.

Our "Explainer in Chief" as the media dubbed him last night, needs to be perfectly honest with the public and explain that as much as we will try our level best to avoid "colateral damage", it happens in war and we should be prepared for it and not lose our nerve when it comes. They have done a good job moving the public eye off of just Bin Laden, but they need to go the extra mile and explain to a nation which is sadly lacking in history knowledge, just how horrible war is and what it will likely involve. Presumably, those on this BB are aware of what I'm speaking about, but it is the public at large which must be convinced.

Civilians suffered here by design and civilians will almost certainly suffer there by accident or simple military necessity when the retaliation comes. We should be horrified by it. If we aren't, we will be no better than our enemy. But we can not allow it to blind us to the need to achieve the goal we have set out to accomplish, or far greater death and destruction lies right around the corner.

posted 09-22- 01:39 AM               

Even if the US were to do nothing in response to the attacks, there would still be people conspiring to destroy this country. There is no way to appease Bin Laden and his bunch. They don't care how many Americans die.

I am one of the most liberal people on this board, but I think the US needs to take an extremely hard line on this issue. This is not revenge, this is defense. It is only a matter of time before Bin Laden and his bunch get their hands on either biological or nuclear weapons. It's not if, it's when. They have proven that they will use any means and any weapon at their disposal. 6000 deaths should be enough to prove that.

We cannot find and stamp out terrorism everywhere. What we need to do is make terrorism an extremely costly practice for those who plan and support it.

Be pragmatic about it... what is the most important key to survival? It is situational awareness... realizing when you are in danger. Given all that we know about Bin Laden and the Taliban, we should consider recent events to be a very serious warning. One that prompts decisive action.

posted 09-22- 11:43 AM            

Still hell bent on your missile shield?

posted 09-22- 01:08 PM               

Yes, but of all the ways to hurt the US, that is probably the one method they would find the least desirable and the least feasible. I think they would use missiles if they felt they had no other way to hurt us, but the attacks last week prove that they would seek easier means first.

I also think that the terrorists must be surprised by the solidarity of world response. I don't think they expected so many nations of the world, including those previously abivalent or sympathetic toward the Taliban, to so harshly condemn what was done. In that regard, I think a missile strike, assuming they can somehow get a hold of missiles, is even less likely.

Like I've said in other threads, I'm not against a missile shield to protect against rogue nations and accidental launches. But, we shouldn't obsess about those unlikely scenarios to the exclusion of other more likely scenarios... like the scenario that occurred last week. We should continue R and D into a missile shield, but the bulk of defense spending needs to go into intelligence and our conventional fighting force and weapons.

posted 09-22- 03:49 PM               

As far as using easier and more cost effective ways of terrorism, if (and that's a big if) the current campaign is successful then missles may be the only way left to launch a massive destruction attack with any chance of success.

According to former Israeli Prime Minister Netenayu (sp?) both Iraq and Iran are developing long range missles. His (Israeli Intelligence?) estimate is that in 5 years they will have missles which will reach Europe and in 10-12 years they will have one which will reach the US East Coast.

posted 09-22- 05:17 PM               

That's not exactly what I said though. I think they would use them if they felt they had no other way to hurt us, but I think they would prefer to hit us other ways... with either biological weapons or nukes on boats. Why? Because of deniability. They cannot deny firing a missile.

posted 09-22- 10:16 PM               

Nevertheless, getting back to the main point, I'm glad to see the resolve here (although I expected it given our common interest in history), but my fear was for the general population, which is sadly lacking in historical background. Watch the reports of interviews with what are supposed to be the best and brightest of us, college students, and you'll see what I mean anecdotally. Look at scientific study after scientific study about the lack of current affairs and history knowledge among the general population and you'll see what I mean statistically.

I and presumably many on this board will have the nerve to stick it out. The question is will the general public? And finally, if the public loses its stomach, will our leaders have the strength to carry on with what they know is right and necessary for future security, despite polls (which they all seem to live by) showing the general mood going against them?

Like I said, call me a pesimist . . .

posted 09-22- 11:54 PM            

Who do you think yer dealing with here, Spanker???

Argon, I haven't worried about insurance since I only drive drunk and totally rewired my house with 24 gauge speaker wire, saved a ton