Ask yourself a couple of questions:

• Is the United States officially at war? (No)
• Will the current action prevent future attacks? (No)
• Will the suspension of civil liberties hold? (No)
• Will we catch those responsible for WTC-9/11? (No°)
• Where the hell does anthrax come into it? (No clue)

Nonetheless, and in that vein of performance art I usually refer to in an obscure manner, I had a fun moment with the Bush Terror War today. The situation was simple: Federal Express keeps missing a delivery but won't tell us when they're coming. In fact, asking them on the phone when that package will come does not produce an answer; judging by the "missed delivery" tags, we have a general idea of sometime between 8am and 4pm.

So consider anthrax-laden mail, public hysteria, and what it all will get us ... the following text was sent to Federal Express today, and, for the record, it felt great to be able to exploit the stupid hysteria of the War on Terror.Today we received the second of two door slips regarding the package bearing the above-listed tracking number. Someone would have been available for your courier, except on neither of the door slips did the courier include Courier ID, Delivery Attempt Time, Route #, or future Delivery time (approx). Lacking this information, it makes it quite difficult to have someone here to receive the package at the appropriate time. I find this less than encouraging; it speaks very poorly of your service, especially in light of the following notion, which seems rather macabre:

* Consider, please, the state of things in this country, what with an unofficial war and all. Consider our Homeland Security director telling us that we're going to die tomorrow in this or that terrorist-sponsored disaster. Consider, please, the focus given to the US Mail service. Now, please consider that at least one of your drivers is leaving door tags that contain no identifiable courier ID, do not advise of delivery attempt time, and do not advise when the delivery will be attempted in the future. SUCH A CONDITION IN THE US MAIL WOULD BE CONSIDERED SUSPICIOUS. AS SUCH I MUST DEMAND THAT YOUR COURIERS FILL OUT THEIR DELIVERY/PICKUP ATTEMPT SLIPS COMPLETELY AND ACCURATELY. ***FUTURE DELIVERY SLIPS OF A SUSPICIOUS NATURE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FOR INVESTIGATION.***

Understand, please ... it is my civic duty to report such irregularities to the proper authorities.

And please understand what impact such an event would earn Federal Express. Think of all the free publicity FedEx can get being investigated as part of the War Against Terrorism.

And please understand what the public perception of Federal Express will be when people learn that, among all their other fears, FedEx drivers might actually be terrorists.

Please fill out your own paperwork accurately and completely. I would file a complaint against this driver except that I have no ID to match to the courier.

I have worked with companies who use Federal Express as a primary courier. Your staff is usually professional, efficient, and courteous. Your phone representative this morning, in advising me regarding the package in question, maintained all three of these standards. However, I do not find the difference between commercial and residential customers an excuse for such poor performance.In the beginning, it was merely puzzlement, you know? I mean, it's an important package, they won't tell us when they're coming, and they manage to always leave the tag during a half-hour lag between one of my roommates or myself being available.

But then it hit me that the missing information, while merely inconvenient to me, was something that would be considered "suspicious" by others. I thought about it, and decided to run with it. A couple of my friends who have seen the letter have laughed their asses off at it. Sure, I'm exploiting the hysteria to be a brat, but come on ....

I mean, what if terrorists have placed someone at FedEx who will clear their bomb through the system and place it on a truck to be delivered to a residential zone in order to expand the range of targets selected in the fundamentalist quest to destroy the Great Satan?

Sure, it's borderline (at least) hysteria. But that's my point. I just threatened a company with federal investigation for simply not doing their paperwork properly.

To put it into context: We, the People of the United States of America, have surrendered our war against terrorism.

I understand, though. The guy's got a full truck, and needs to move. But if a guy trying to keep on pace with his delivery schedule constitutes suspicion (and I have no reason in this Bush War to believe otherwise, since one's handwriting on a parcel can make it "suspicious") we've already lost.

I mean, what has happened to the United States that some poor driver can't meet his company's financially-driven expectations without invoking suspicion against himself?

Of course, I know a couple who called the police after getting a letter with a New Jersey postmark. It was from their former pastor, just a note to say "Hi". But, of course, they didn't look at the return address for its name; handwritten envelope, NJ postmark ... must be suspicious. Anyway, they figured it out once the police, bomb squad, and HAZMAT teams were in place. And they were commended for their vigilance.

Terrorism works, unfortunately. It's no different from warfare, except that we Americans like to pretend there's some mystical separation between a state of terror and being in the middle of a war. When the buildings are exploding and fire is raining in the streets, it's really really hard to tell the difference. As long as we accept warfare, terrorism will be a successful avenue of change.

Remember: We're on whatever alert, so be on the lookout for suspicious people, suspicious mail, and oh, terrorists might blow up your city this weekend. But carry on as if nothing's wrong. That's the only way to win.

Hats off to Tom Ridge, George W Bush Jr, Don Rumsfeld, and others for losing this war before we even started.

Does my note to FedEx sound a little like a hysterical American? Good. It's supposed to. Maybe if they laugh hard enough about it at FedEx, they'll make the connection. Maybe if anyone laughs hard enough ....

But when the package comes, if the driver's Middle-Eastern, I'm calling the FBI. Hmph. Maybe I should get a gun. Then I can just shoot him for looking Middle Eastern and, technically, trying to deliver a suspicious package. But since the Bush War isn't that out of hand yet, I suppose that's a bit underhanded.

Welcome to the United States of Hysteria. Hopefully, we'll soon enough settle the wars we fight against ourselves, and then we can figure out the rest of it.

Until then, though ... we're screwed.

Looking forward to the weekend, let me wish you all the best. Sunshine and friggin' rainbows, I suppose. And also my sincere hopes that you aren't bombed, burned, shot, hit with anthrax, nerve-gassed, or otherwise destroyed painfully or unnecessarily.

Dance, child, dance, so that the rhythm might echo when there is naught left but darkness.

ttfn,
Tiassa :cool:

Note:
° Catching the culprits: Everyone cheered, it seemed, when Bush said, "We will not falter, we will not fail". Unfortunately, it was only a couple of weeks later that Rumsfeld, on Meet the Press (or some such) said that Americans must accept the fact that we may never catch Osama bin Laden. When called out on the quote the next day, Rumsfeld responded with the GOP classic, "I didn't say that." Nonetheless, if Osama bin Laden dies without the United States or its allies getting their hands on him, the message will spread through the fundamentalist movement that the One God has delivered Osama bin Laden from the clutches of the Great Satan. Sleep well.

"Sunshine and friggin rainbows" is a very useful expression :p

Is the USA government right to pursue this course of action? Well, what choice have they? As a governing body, they have to lay the smack down on anyone who attacks their state. It's part of the duty of being a government. Are they actually doing that, hitting those who hit them? Vaguely, indirectly. But if that's all they can do, then they have to do it.

As for that poll, well, I wish you'd included the "All of the above" option. I've seen all of them in Americans since September last year.

"Sunshine and friggin rainbows" is a very useful expression Yes it is. Especially loaded with as much disdain and self-superiority as the standard you set. Very useful, indeed.Is the USA government right to pursue this course of action? Well, what choice have they? As a governing body, they have to lay the smack down on anyone who attacks their state. It's part of the duty of being a government. Are they actually doing that, hitting those who hit them? Vaguely, indirectly. But if that's all they can do, then they have to do it.What choice have we? In the immediate, perhaps none. But what choice does the liquor store robber have when he shoots a cop?

I'll fill in the analogy: The United States has done certain wrong things for a long time. We apologize for them usually sometime after the last person involved is dead.

When we look at a terrorist act, we see a person going into an area and killing people. By the very word "terrorist", we erase the legitimacy of the act. It is presupposed that no terrorist attack can be credible or legitimate.

Like the IRA: bomb, and ten children dead. Or Beirut: bomb in a truck, and 212 US Marines die.

Bill Maher is leaving his show; this stems directly from his comments regarding courage, flying planes into towers, and cruise missiles. Or, to look elsewhere, Roger Waters wrote (sang):Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range

(R. Waters, The Bravery of Being Out of Range (http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stadium/4738/atdlyrics.html)) We could look elsewhere in the pop culture; the "Sand Spider" in Cameron's True Lies made the same point; you bomb cities and towns and kill children from 3,000 miles away and you call who terrorists?

But beyond the direct savagery of warfare, there are the conditions leading up to it. Certes, no American walked into a mosque last week and killed 100 people. But I guarantee you that yesterday at least 100 people died in poverty, sickness, of starvation, or in combat that occurs because "it's bad for the US economy" if the circumstances are otherwise. When children go to work because companies don't pay parents enough, they're not in school. Does this make sense? And when we consider that poverty and illiteracy breed violence, we might start wondering how important that $80 Nepalese shirt at Nordstrom's actually is.

When you look at the carnage of 9/11 and say, "Muslims did this", you are making the same generalization that the fundamentalists make when they look at children starving to death or standing in the streets to fight tanks and say, "Americans did this".

So when we cut through it all, and say, "militant extremists did this", the counterpoint in the Muslim world is that "greedy extremists did this". No matter how you cut it, the suffering that fosters the transition to fundamentalist political violence does, in fact, rest at least partially in American hands.

Consider a parent whose child dies in an act of terrorism. Now consider a parent whose child dies a slow death because the Americans have lowered the volume of, say, shirts made, by making them cost $80, while finding mostly internal ways to tack that extra money on. Whether the shirt costs $20 or $80, the worker in this or that backwater country is still getting the same thirty cents an hour, and that's a generous wage.

The US had a choice. The choice was to stop stealing from people and hitting them. Someone hit us back. I accept that we have before us a situation that needs to be dealt with. Someone, please, let me know when we start dealing with it. Analogously speaking, the liquor store robber had a choice. The situation he finds himself in, shooting it out with the cops, is no more a necessity than the present US military action. But, being that we are looking at the present and not worrying about how we got here, by the argument you've presented, Adam, the liquor store robber is justified when he shoots a police officer to death. I can't quite hold with that because while it's a fine equation, I don't accept such violence at all, and thus the result is inappropriate for all involved.As for that poll, well, I wish you'd included the "All of the above" option. I've seen all of them in Americans since September last year.That's why I'm seeking the general trend.

All of the above reflects human diversity. What is the general trend of American behavior? Adam, it's hardly fascism, but rather these sorts of moments of demonstration that lead me to such statements as those that indicate your lack of comprehension.

I mean, hell ... why not just say it's a nice day all over because it's sunny in Melbourne? Or, why not say the weather in Seattle is fine because it was nice on the day you happened to make a stopover on your flight to New York?

I wish you'd simply answered the question or not. Take a stand or don't. But it's a great Bill Clinton imitation ;)

Now then ... all of that aside, have you any thoughts on the rest of it? We could have a whole topic on the necessity of this military action, but I noticed you didn't address the notions of paranoia among Americans, nor the notion of losing the war before we started, nor the curiously subtle idea that we're so paranoid in this country, people can't do their jobs the same way anymore. Of course, there's another topic: quality v. quantity? Hysteria afoot or no, I'd rather that employees be asked to perform realistic tasks so that they can do their jobs right the first time. It makes me laugh sadly that people are so attuned to the economic priorities of their jobs that they might, in the course of doing their jobs, make themselves "suspicious" as our government has asked us to be vigilant of.

But that's part of the problem that needs to be looked at. Our way of doing things in this country has been from-the-hip for so long that people don't recognize that they're doing it "wrong" in order to do it right. Without 9/11, I still expect basic information to be included in, say, a FedEx delivery notice. Now that it's wartime, it's no longer slipshod in quest of efficiency, but rather it's "suspicious behavior".

I mean, I like to think that people could figure out the necessity of doing things correctly anyway, but apparently it takes a couple of blows to the head in order for them to get around to it. It's kind of like the old "scared straight" program, where they showed "at-risk" kids jails and so forth. Sure, it has an observable impact, but all you're teaching people is to behave out of fear of punishment, instead of doing their best for their self, their neighbor, and their nation. It shouldn't take a couple of 757's and thousands dead for Americans to realize this.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Yes it is. Especially loaded with as much disdain and self-superiority as the standard you set. Very useful, indeed.

ADAM IS ENSLAVED BY DEMONS, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?

What choice have we? In the immediate, perhaps none. But what choice does the liquor store robber have when he shoots a cop?

But the robber could surrender. When we battle demonic forces, we cannot surrender - WE CAN GIVE NO QUARTER TO THE FORCES THAT ENSLAVE MEN'S SOULS!

But I guarantee you that yesterday at least 100 people died in poverty, sickness, of starvation, or in combat that occurs because "it's bad for the US economy" if the circumstances are otherwise. When children go to work because companies don't pay parents enough, they're not in school. Does this make sense? And when we consider that poverty and illiteracy breed violence, we might start wondering how important that $80 Nepalese shirt at Nordstrom's actually is.

YES! It is good that you did not use demonic evidence or shallow athiestic logic to prove this!

ADAM IS ENSLAVED BY DEMONS, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?I'm sure this tidbit is useful to someone.

Anyone? Anyone?

Guess I was wrong.

Mulder, stop being useless.But the robber could surrender.The United States could surrender. Or, at least, stop stealing from people and slapping them around. You seem to have failed to grasp the analogy.

Why am I not surprised at that?When we battle demonic forces, we cannot surrender - WE CAN GIVE NO QUARTER TO THE FORCES THAT ENSLAVE MEN'S SOULS!Take it to the religion board, God-boy.

If you have nothing to say, Mulder, then don't.YES! It is good that you did not use demonic evidence or shallow athiestic logic to prove this!Gee, thanks for the affirmation. If you weren't such a shame to your namesake, Mulder, that endorsement might be of some use to me.

Take your demons to the religion board.

And do me a favor, eh? Next time, have something to say or don't bother.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

First, off, I congratulate you on turning this, again, into a page of "Adam, you don't comprehend anything or don't give a damn about anything".


But what choice does the liquor store robber have when he shoots a cop?

All the choice in the world. A government accepts the reponsibility of protecting those who it supposedly represents. By accepting that responsibility, it has the duty to fight for the survival and security of its citizens. The robber has no obligation to kill cops. The robber can simply put down the gun and start behaving in a civil manner.


I'll fill in the analogy: The United States has done certain wrong things for a long time. We apologize for them usually sometime after the last person involved is dead.

I agree. However, even if the USA's government went around slaughtering two billion people for having blue eyes or worshipping trees, they would still be under the obligation to protect their citizens.


But beyond the direct savagery of warfare, there are the conditions leading up to it. Certes, no American walked into a mosque last week and killed 100 people. But I guarantee you that yesterday at least 100 people died in poverty, sickness, of starvation, or in combat that occurs because "it's bad for the US economy" if the circumstances are otherwise. When children go to work because companies don't pay parents enough, they're not in school. Does this make sense? And when we consider that poverty and illiteracy breed violence, we might start wondering how important that $80 Nepalese shirt at Nordstrom's actually is.

When you look at the carnage of 9/11 and say, "Muslims did this", you are making the same generalization that the fundamentalists make when they look at children starving to death or standing in the streets to fight tanks and say, "Americans did this".

I agree. I've never said "Muslims did this". And I've never looked at the starving children in Iraq and said "Americans did this". It is a small minority responsible, but a minority with the power to do what they want. Is any larger group responsible? No. Every individual is entirely reponsible for his/her own actions. However, as individual parts of cultures, we have the ability to change our cultures if enough of us set our minds to doing so. For example, Americans can vote (although many don't).


But, being that we are looking at the present and not worrying about how we got here, by the argument you've presented, Adam, the liquor store robber is justified when he shoots a police officer to death.

See above.


All of the above reflects human diversity. What is the general trend of American behavior? Adam, it's hardly fascism, but rather these sorts of moments of demonstration that lead me to such statements as those that indicate your lack of comprehension.

Observation and discrimination is hardly a lack of comprehension. I suggest you work on this idea you have that those who do not agree with you are ignorant.

As I said, I have seen all those reactions/types among Americans since September 11th. I have heard Americans say "We should stop screwing over other countries before they nuke us" and "Kill em all!". Human diversity indeed. How could I possibly choose in a poll one of those options when I have witnessed all?


Take a stand or don't.

My stand is that I have witnessed all of the above.


We could have a whole topic on the necessity of this military action, but I noticed you didn't address the notions of paranoia among Americans, nor the notion of losing the war before we started, nor the curiously subtle idea that we're so paranoid in this country, people can't do their jobs the same way anymore.

Before you suggest the USA has lost this war, determine what the objectives were. A military action is lost only if the objectives were not met. I was under the impression that the stated objectives involved catching Bin Laden, smashing a network of terorist support centres, and removal of a national "government" which supported that network. Two of those objectives have been achieved; the third is, supposedly, underway.

As for the paranoia, well, I think that has happened in every war ever fought. It's a fairly common matter, I would think, to turn "the enemy" into something less than us. Remember those posters of Germans from the Great War? They had pig faces, tusks, evil little beady eyes. It supposedly makes it easier for soldiers to kill them, makes it easier for governments to gain the support of the people for military efforts, and so on.

Peoples' everyday lives change in every war. Did the lives of average Americans change in Desert Storm? Probably not, but then, the average American was several thousand miles away from what wasn't a real war anyway, more like a turkey shoot (I actually read an American air force pilot describe it that way). Now, however, the USA is involved in a war, because they were dragged into it. As with the Vietnam conflict, I see all sorts of responses in the USA to this.


Our way of doing things in this country has been from-the-hip for so long that people don't recognize that they're doing it "wrong" in order to do it right.

So what (in point form would be nice) is the wrong way, and what is the right way?

I'm sure this tidbit is useful to someone.

It is useful to ADAM who must realize that he is trapped in demonic bondage!

Take it to the religion board, God-boy.

Why? This is not religion, this is politics! "They" are trying to enslave mankind, and they do it through politics!

If you have nothing to say, Mulder, then don't.

I HAVE THINGS TO SAY! I AM SAYING THINGS!

Gee, thanks for the affirmation. If you weren't such a shame to your namesake, Mulder, that endorsement might be of some use to me.

I am glad to be of service.

And do me a favor, eh? Next time, have something to say or don't bother.

You are not a moderator! You cannot tell me what to say and what not to say!

Just a passing thought....

We are the product of Hollywood...our culture shapes our thoughts. May be we learn as we go....

Soon the same thing will happen to Europe - the EU part that is. Already laws are in place to control the populace. Soon, they will join the same muck....

First, off, I congratulate you on turning this, again, into a page of "Adam, you don't comprehend anything or don't give a damn about anything".Well, Adam, I keep wondering why you bother. If you were to address the topics at hand, maybe you could establish the relationship to the perspective you've expressed, but by and large your post had nothing to do with the topic, and no matter how much you bawl and pound your fists on the floor, you can't make it so until you address the issues.

So I, in turn, owe you congratulations as well, for your sterling demonstration of a classic failing. Thank you for that.

So while we're on the topic, Adam, what the hell is your fucking problem? It seems quite apparent that you want these topics to focus unnaturally on you. As I see it, there must be a reason that you make irrelevant comments in my topics and then have a tantrum when I tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree.

Now, a straightforward question for you, Adam: Are you unable or unwilling to comment on the topic? I did rounds months ago with Brad Rules on the justifications or lack thereof for this military action; point being, it's not like those topics don't exist.

So stop crying foul, stop crying fascism, stop imagining yourself so damned oppressed. And try discussing the topic for once.All the choice in the world. A government accepts the reponsibility of protecting those who it supposedly represents. By accepting that responsibility, it has the duty to fight for the survival and security of its citizens. The robber has no obligation to kill cops. The robber can simply put down the gun and start behaving in a civil manner.I must disagree with such a simplistic notion of the situation. After all, the robber has an obligation to the security and survival of that which he represents, namely, his own self.

In the larger picture, your point fails dramatically as well. A simple question: Where does it say that a government's duty to its people inherently requires the harming of others?

Just as the robber had the choice, so, too, did the government. Just as the situation stands before the government now, so it does the robber.

As far as I can tell, your argument presents at least three interesting propositions:

•*That hurting people to profit by them is robbery, unless ...
• ... unless it's a governmental body, in which case it's called "national security", unless ...
• ... unless that body happens to disagree with our government, in which case it's called terrorism.

We can look to the whole history of warfare among humans. The idea has existed for millennia. Look at it this way:

•*Violence against a people (warfare) is acceptable.
• Violence against people (robbery) is unacceptable.
• Violence against a people (terrorism) is unacceptable.I agree. However, even if the USA's government went around slaughtering two billion people for having blue eyes or worshipping trees, they would still be under the obligation to protect their citizensThe United States government, for all its faults, is elected. If the US slaughtered two billion people for stupid reasons, a number of problems arise.

•*Does a government have an obligation of foresight? (e.g. Just because John Smith didn't knock over the apartment building doesn't mean he's not guilty; did he cut too many corners trying to reduce costs and raise profits?) Governments necessarily must account for the safety of the people in times which have not arrived. TMI, Chernobyl, and WPPSS/BPA jokes aside, consider a nuclear plant built with no safety devices whatsoever. We install safety devices because in ten years, something will have worn down. Should they, rather, wait for parts of the plant to break before fixing them?

• Does hostile foreign policy endanger the citizens of a nation? In light of the above, and as such ....

• Does the government have an obligation of foresight in foreign policy? Did you know that I actually had teachers that tried to deceive me into believing that Marie Antoinette wanted the people to eat birthday cake? "What's wrong with that?" my teacher asked us when we learned Let them eat cake. A couple of points arise here, one of which might be helpful in our future conversations in general. Even believing, at nine years old, that the people were upset because they got angel-food cake with chocolate frosting (or some-such ridiculous notion), the self-evident question was, Why would she want them to eat only sweets? It's bad for them. I can only figure in retrospect that such a teaching was intended to discredit revolutionary thought. Nonetheless, there are several definitions of cake I've learned over the years that make the Antoinette story make sense to me, chief among them is the blackened, charred "cake" scraped from the inside of the (bread) baker's oven. I could actually look it up, but I'm feeling lazy, and will probably go smoke a cigarette after this paragraph instead of spend time surfing after Marie Antoinette. All of this to point out that there exists a Let them eat cake attitude among Americans and the governors they elect. On September 11, 2001, arriving home from work at 11:30 AM after the city shut down the financial sector in response to the bombings, I played (loudly) the song I cited above, and I was already drinking heavily at an Irish pub when came the first reports of rockets hitting Kabul, and I still hold by a CNN reporter I heard talking about cruise missiles. I have to say that I'm mighty confused in general at a strange observation. Perhaps it's a matter of the shock wearing off for most people, but it was only at my workplace that I was a clear minority in my reaction. First off, the story developed slowly for me because the guy who stuck his head in to tell me was a complete moron. But as a result, I went through the phases of wanted men from the WTC truck bombing, the idea of a Cessna hitting WTC, and finally getting him after a few moments out of my cube so I could hit the internet and see ... Oh. I see. They finally did it .... Fuck. And that's how I felt about it at first. It was only at my workplace that such sentiment seemed out of place. By the time I got home everybody arrived for the drinking, I was again among minds similar to my own. At the bar, everybody knew. On the streets of Fremont and Wallingford (neighborhoods), everybody knew. It was only downtown that people didn't get it. The end point of this paragraph being that I am quite comfortable in asserting that our government deliberately conducted a foreign policy that would eventually piss someone off this badly. If I recall, a murder was the catalyst for the mess of WWI. In our own nation, a man named Daniel Webster sold his soul to save the Union; he put his sacred honor on the line at a time when honor meant nearly everything. In other words, he spent his most precious currency in a desperate attempt to avoid policy-driven warfare. Our government used to operate with an eye to the future. Cady, in fact, points to the post-Civil War period and notes the rise of sloganeering; the Spanish-American War (April-August, 1898) relied on slogans ("Remember the Maine!") to bolster public support for what was purely a manufactured war. We even hedged from WWII, if anyone in Europe recalls; Germany had to declare war on the United States before we actually got dirty in that one. In the meantime cash/carry and then lend/lease of equipment was enough for Americans. We were protecting ourselves. Does a government have an obligation to foresight in foreign policy?

• On those points alone, the United States fails in its obligation to protect its citizens.

•*Furthermore, if the US went forth slaughtering two billion people for stupid reasons ... what, do you think the billions would go peacefully? By sending forth troops in the name of stupidity, the United States government denies its obligation to protect its citizens. By your example, the resolution to their obligation would come in not slaughtering billions.It is a small minority responsible, but a minority with the power to do what they want. Is any larger group responsible? No. Every individual is entirely reponsible for his/her own actions. However, as individual parts of cultures, we have the ability to change our cultures if enough of us set our minds to doing so. For example, Americans can vote (although many don't).If one chooses to blame, for instance, a "military-industrial complex" or other financial-centered interest for the wrongs of the US, one's own apathy contributes to the problem if one continues to buy the subsidiary products and never say anything's wrong. The term "boycott" comes to mind. So does the term "protest". That Americans aren't in the streets stringing up the executives of certain companies is a testament to either restraint, apathy, or endorsement. I voted for a third-party last election. First time I ever did that in a presidential election. But it turned out to not be as hard on my conscience as I expected it to be. But Americans keep electing the same political archetype. So we're responsible in our own way, as you note. Frankly, in a prolonged war, blowing up financial districts while they're full of people is strategically sound. It takes out both the instruments of finance and the experienced financial leadership. Same thing with utilities. Given the choice that civilians will die in any war, I'd rather it be the bankers and lawyers than the teachers and the children. I live in Seattle ... I do, in fact, wonder if the next one will be a nuclear strike against Microsoft. If I die in a combat zone, it's the price of endorsing a government that operates with such reckless disregard for the safety of its citizens. Imagine a million people in Washington, DC, pouring into the streets, chanting, singing, and telling their politicians that they are directly instructed by the Constitution to not execute hostile foreign policy. But they won't. They actually approve of this shit.See above.And I might refer you to the above as well.

However, I did manage to figure a context in which I can accept your argumentative point. If the people exist for the benefit of the government, then yes, I can agree that the robber has all the choice in the world.

However, I find such a relationship 'twixt government and its people untenable. Observation and discrimination is hardly a lack of comprehension. I suggest you work on this idea you have that those who do not agree with you are ignorant.Did I say you were ignorant? Stop being so presumptuous. Stop trying to feel so damned oppressed.

To be specific, Adam, your answer on that occasion was a Clintonesque waffle. One cannot straddle such a fencepost if one is ignorant.

:rolleyes: As I said, I have seen all those reactions/types among Americans since September 11th. I have heard Americans say "We should stop screwing over other countries before they nuke us" and "Kill em all!". Human diversity indeed. How could I possibly choose in a poll one of those options when I have witnessed all?Woo-hoo. I've seen 'em all individually, too.

Perhaps it is ignorance. (See? You shouldn't have brought it up.) After all, how hard is it to figure out that the general behavioral trend is what the rest of the world experiences? If the general trend approves of war, we're going to war. For instance, the general trend of the American people is that there's nothing fishy going on with Constitutional, civil, or human rights. What of the general trend of approval for this military action?

What? What the hell is so hard about actually taking a stand instead of just criticizing people all the time? It's not like you're being asked to take a big stand. You're just being asked your opinion.

And besides, if you've witnessed all in equal proportions, the necessary answer would not be All of the above, it would be None of the above.

And again, there is a strange way that I do, indeed, see your need for an "all" option. But that would be an unusual condition to see.

So in what proportions, Adam, do you see these behaviors? There are six possible answers to the poll. If you've received relevant data in exactly twelve units (as in two individuals of each opinion) then I'll believe that you've witnessed them in equal proportions.

Beyond that, Adam, the behavior which you've seen statistically most frequent will suffice for a response to the poll. In essence, that's all it's asking.Before you suggest the USA has lost this war, determine what the objectives were. A military action is lost only if the objectives were not met. I was under the impression that the stated objectives involved catching Bin Laden, smashing a network of terorist support centres, and removal of a national "government" which supported that network. Two of those objectives have been achieved; the third is, supposedly, underway.This is the War Against Terrorism. I won't deny that we've won significant battles. But this war cannot be won. There will always be terrorists, and they will always find a way. Martial law with no corruption and 24-hour surveillance of all people is the only way to get rid of those who will protest.

The limited objectives you've stated are, in fact, the small version of it. I can knock down your house, but if you can buy another one ....

Furthermore, judging by the goals stated to the people by the leaders of this war, I'd say we're losing badly. When did we win the War on Drugs? When will we win the War on Terrorism.

If you're referring to the destruction of specific sites, then I would agree with you should you say that we've undertaken several successful military campaigns. If, however, you missed the with us/against us threat, the axis of evil declaration and the number of times the Bush administration proactively ducks the issue of Iraq (by bringing it up to dismiss it), I would say that you haven't grasped the range of the action's objectives. But we've had three successful campaigns or so. Why not pretend the war is almost over? Nobody believes it is. And nobody can say that we're clearly winning.As for the paranoia, well, I think that has happened in every war ever fought. It's a fairly common matter, I would think, to turn "the enemy" into something less than us. Remember those posters of Germans from the Great War? They had pig faces, tusks, evil little beady eyes. It supposedly makes it easier for soldiers to kill them, makes it easier for governments to gain the support of the people for military efforts, and so on.Right ... and?Peoples' everyday lives change in every war. Did the lives of average Americans change in Desert Storm? Probably not, but then, the average American was several thousand miles away from what wasn't a real war anyway, more like a turkey shoot (I actually read an American air force pilot describe it that way). Now, however, the USA is involved in a war, because they were dragged into it. As with the Vietnam conflict, I see all sorts of responses in the USA to this.Well, we were dragged into it the way we were dragged into WWII. Someone got really pissed off at our policies and hit us badly. To the other, the Pearl Harbor strike was also the culmination of eighty-eight years of rocky relations that started with Commodore Perry (http://www.vintagetextile.com/new_page_11.htm) coming ashore by forceful dare; might is right.

Nonetheless, take a look at these changes. Our unfortunate FedEx driver, for instance. What was, on 9/10 satisfactory performance of his job is now behavior that is subject to criminal suspicion, all things considered. That's what has me so amazed at the American reaction. I think we're a nation that, generally, is in hysterics.

And the flip-side of this is what takes my breath away. How many of the changes people are enduring are similar in scale to that of our FedEx driver? Now, think about it ... had he filled out his paperwork correctly, there would be no cause for suspicion. Yet failing to fill out the paperwork completely (and therefore correctly) was, before 9/11, an acceptable method of doing his job. This is an interesting consideration, that incomplete work was satisfactory work. Think about it: if he'd just written the time he attempted to deliver the package the first day on the slip (gotta save those two and a half seconds, you know) my roommate would have known that the delivery was coming and would have stayed home a few minutes longer to get it. Now, think about it. Moving packages is the business. Finishing delivery routes is the driver's job. Those two and a half seconds two mornings ago could have saved him however many minutes coming back a third time because someone would have been there on the second occasion. And this is without considerations of war.

Much of this is needed; as we see, the airports could stand some improvement. This might seem wise to some, but I'll put it in context with a crime that moved many of my generation in my area, the Harlow mutilation. Our legislators were proud of their anti-crime package, but it came too late. Its impetus was the abduction, molestation, and castration of a 10 year-old boy by a repeat sex offender turned out from prison and psych facilities. The wisdom of updating the "system" seemed there. But instead what the people got was hysteria, civil rights issues, and a reinforcement of the notion that one is always a criminal (a broader effect than just sex offenders, but considering the common notion that we're born into sin and its resultant projection of the worst in people, the recidivist mania that caught in worthy sectors (e.g. sex offenses) swept through the whole of law and order. The dangerous recidivist hippie stoners. They looked at recidivism, for instance, in the case of black youth and drugs, as an issue of natural human corruption, and not as a case of circumstance and effect. With the airports, the update comes too late (after the attack, and despite the heavy sentiment that the attack was coming at some point, that is, inevitable), involves civil liberty issues (something about x-ray cameras in airports), and a reinforcement of what is, truly, pointless suspicion. And by pointless, I mean the kind of crap where everyone looks suspicious. An untended bag isn't pointless suspicion, but common sense. Fuses sticking out of someone's shoes ought to be obvious. But right now we're on the lookout for suspicious things (hence my razzing of FedEx) and the one upshot of it is that Middle Eastern ethnicities aren't getting it quite as bad as blacks or hispanics did during the drug war. (I know a black man who was arrested for looking suspicious; one of his neighbors called the cops because a black man in a sweatsuit was running down the street; it's not gotten that bad yet, so yes, I'm quite happy about that. It should be noted that the man lived two houses down from the lady and was actually out jogging.)

But we get weekly warnings about what will blow up next. The tricky part is a matter of image. We are not supposed to skip a beat. We are the United States of America, and no two-bit terrorist is going to screw with us. But the simple fact, as you've noted, is that wars change things. We were dragged into it, yes, and thus had credibility. But we're blowing it fast. We lost when we took down the Taliban; it is an admission of American foreign policy failure. That failure has contributed to the harming of Americans. We lost when we threatened the world. Division only helps the terrorist cause. The more the world stratifies and polarizes, the stronger they get.

Diverse reactions, yes. But if you dare suggest that the response is proportionate in its diversity, I'll laugh at you.So what (in point form would be nice) is the wrong way, and what is the right way?• Think about all of the noble things we say about the United States of America
• It would be nice if we delivered for once
• This applies to the government, to businesses like Microsoft or Nike or Eddie Bauer, and even to the little ice cream shop down the street where I actually watched the employees skimming the customers.
• It is said that our American cost of living would rise too high if we paid a fair wage abroad. I would hope that the problem is as self-evident to others as it is to me. (We shouldn't pay a fair wage because we don't want to pay for it.)
• Do not make any war about God (George W Bush Junior, I'm looking in your direction)
•*Do not invent terms designed to circumvent both Constitutional standards and international human rights agreements.
• Do not make such fools of yourselves as the feds did handling the Walker case; they don't actually have an existing crime to charge him with, and must invent the charges.
• Obtain a formal declaration of war if you're going to war.
• Do not declare unrealistic goals merely for morale's sake.
• Be forthright in all issues of governance

Or, if you're the average Joe:

• Do your f--king paperwork. Don't let your company make you circumvent their own policy. Make them rewrite the policy or fix the situation.
•*Realize that your job is the obtainment of goals through conduct bounded by the standards of your employer.
• Don't sacrifice those standards in pursuit of the goal.
•*Don't let anyone make you sacrifice the ethical standard in pursuit of the goal.

Or, simply:

• Operate with dignity and integrity in everything that you do.

The United States had many opportunities to choose human respect and propriety over profit, and we very markedly and consistently fail to choose respect and propriety.

Take Khomeni, for instance. Instead of working toward better conditions for the Iranian people (and therefore, as hindsight tells us, alleviating the pressure that contributed to the revolution that toppled Shah Reza Palahvi), the US (and others in the west) went forward kowtowing to the dictator in order to curry favor in petroleum dealings. In many cases, our government is seen by people as aiding and abetting the government that oppresses them. And the reason for this is that it's bad for our economy if we don't. Perhaps operating with dignity and integrity, with respect and propriety, would be the right way to do it.

It's not that hard in theory. It's just the people who don't want to understand the idea that make it difficult to put into practice.

Dignity, respect, integrity ... what, really, is so difficult about those things? If money is more valuable than these things, and if money is more valuable than life itself ... well, what did we expect? A parade with flowers and tickertape?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

It is useful to ADAM who must realize that he is trapped in demonic bondage!So tell Adam. The rest of us just think of him as Adam. Perhaps a note in green ink on pink perfumed stationery and a box of chocolates. Go on. Tell him. It's only because you love him, right?Why? This is not religion, this is politics! "They" are trying to enslave mankind, and they do it through politics!Demonic battles belong to the realm of religion. Politics is a little more mundane, unless of course you're an extremist prone to seeing devils and satans in governments.I HAVE THINGS TO SAY! I AM SAYING THINGS!No, you're not. You're just babbling out your ass like an infant ventriloquist.I am glad to be of service.Learn to read. The word If is only two letters long. It's not hard to figure out.You are not a moderator! You cannot tell me what to say and what not to say!That's why I asked you to do me a favor.

Petulance is stupid in an adult, Mulder. That's why I hope you're merely a child. Then I can write it up as symptomatic.

What's that on the ground? Is it your pouting lip?

Here's the bonus question, Mulder: After two posts, you have nothing but shouting and bullshit to offer this topic. Why waste your time convincing us all that you're a moron?

--Tiassa :cool:

... but by and large your post had nothing to do with the topic...

All but three sentences of my initial post in this thread were on topic. "By and large" should perhaps be replaced with "not entirely".

And now, to the topic...


After all, the robber has an obligation to the security and survival of that which he represents, namely, his own self.

You are comparing apples and oranges. A government is not free to choose, but has the duty to protect its citizens, with military force if required. The individual robber has the freedom to die in a gun fight, drop the gun and surrender, shoot himself in the head, et cetera. The robber has no duty or obligation apart from that which he chooses.


Where does it say that a government's duty to its people inherently requires the harming of others?

I never said a government's duty is to harm others. I said a government has the duty of protecting its citizens, by waging war if required. If harming others is required for the protection of the state and its people, then that is what the government is required to do by its very existence. That is different from saying a government has a duty to harm people, period. To put it simply: a government must defend its people, and that defence includes the neutralisation of proven threats.


As far as I can tell, your argument presents at least three interesting propositions:
• That hurting people to profit by them is robbery, unless ...
• ... unless it's a governmental body, in which case it's called "national security", unless ...
• ... unless that body happens to disagree with our government, in which case it's called terrorism.

1) The first step is false. Hurting people for profit is not necessarily robbery.
2) Governments also commit robbery. WW2, gold. No relation whatsoever to national security, and I don't recall hearing anyone claim such.
3) I believe I called the nuclear attacks against Japan terrorism on these very forums.


We can look to the whole history of warfare among humans. The idea has existed for millennia. Look at it this way:
• Violence against a people (warfare) is acceptable.
• Violence against people (robbery) is unacceptable.
• Violence against a people (terrorism) is unacceptable.

You could look at it that way, but I believe you are making up irrational points for the purposes of demonstration. Warfare is not acceptable. But it happens. Any further comparison using those points is based on that flawed assumption, that warfare is acceptable.


Does the government have an obligation of foresight in foreign policy?

Yep. However, it is not as simple as saying "If we screw them over today, they'll screw us over tomorrow, so we shouldn't do it". Creating long-term competition and tension is good for growth of the state. If you can generate an "us and them" situation, you create demand, and thus stimulate growth in your nation. The only problem then is that the state must not wipe out the threat of "them", else it loses its demand and growth; the state must instead remain ahead of "them" for its own survival, but must remain within their reach so as to keep that demand and growth. So, despite the occasional costs, it is in the interests of a state such as the USA to incorporate in its foreign policy foresight the methods by which the state will generate international tension.


If the people exist for the benefit of the government, then yes, I can agree that the robber has all the choice in the world.

I disagree with you there. I have never thought the people exist for the benefit of the government. I wonder why, or if, you think they do.


What? What the hell is so hard about actually taking a stand instead of just criticizing people all the time? It's not like you're being asked to take a big stand. You're just being asked your opinion.

I did not criticise the American public at all. I did say they deserve to be bombed for voting in Bill Gates as Pope, and that Seattle might be nuked. My stand, my opinion, is that there are very mixed feelings about the USA's current military actions. Because this opinion does not suit your poll does not mean it is not a valid opinion. As I have observed, the feelings among Americans about this current military action are very mixed. I see no general trend among the general populace. I see a general trend among reporters, news presenters, and government PR people, but that is hardly the same thing.


Furthermore, judging by the goals stated to the people by the leaders of this war, I'd say we're losing badly.

The stated goals of the WOT, as I have seen from people such as Rumsfeld, are as I said before. Two of the three objectives have been achieved. Yes, the hydra always has other heads. Personally, I see this as an enhancement of the foreign policy ideas expressed above. Maybe not a good enhancement, but still an enhancement.


Why not pretend the war is almost over? Nobody believes it is. And nobody can say that we're clearly winning.

Given the stated objectives... Who runs things in Kabul these days? Not Al Queda, and not the Taliban. Simple, but the truth. I would say that is winning. An attack was made against the USA. The USA suffers increased security measures, as is appropriate. The stated targets have been well and truly crapped upon. That is winning.

Increased security does not in any way equal hysterics. In the navy, we once recieved word that there was a Tribal class frigate where one should not be (we generally know where most threats are at any given time). The news of this possibility sparked an instant increase in security. The entire routine of the ship changed in moments. But there was no sign of hysteria.

Enough for now...

AdamAll but three sentences of my initial post in this thread were on topic. "By and large" should perhaps be replaced with "not entirely".Let us know what they are. I see three paragraphs. The first is one sentence long, and has nothing to do with the topic.

The second is seven sentences long and tends toward the military action itself, and has nothing to do with people and the state of things. It is better-suited for a topic discussing Is the US right to declare a War on Terrorism? which is a topic that already exists.

The third paragraph is two sentences long and comprises mere complaining. So you're right; by and large is the wrong term. That first response was thoroughly useless and irrelevant.You are comparing apples and oranges. A government is not free to choose, but has the duty to protect its citizens, with military force if required. The individual robber has the freedom to die in a gun fight, drop the gun and surrender, shoot himself in the head, et cetera. The robber has no duty or obligation apart from that which he chooses.And the United States government has the freedom to conduct itself in a manner that does not encourage violence by creating unnecessary suffering in support of luxury.I never said a government's duty is to harm others. I said a government has the duty of protecting its citizens, by waging war if required. If harming others is required for the protection of the state and its people, then that is what the government is required to do by its very existence. That is different from saying a government has a duty to harm people, period. To put it simply: a government must defend its people, and that defence includes the neutralisation of proven threats.Adam, I absolutely must ask. Why do you frequently disclaim yourself, "I never said ...."? Seriously. Who the fuck ever said you did? Furthermore, the cited paragraph is a complete irrelevancy. What is at question is this: Does the duty of the United States government's protection of its people inherently involve the creation of unnecessary suffering? Functionally, observably, and so forth, yes!.

Think about it: there are children working in sweatshops to make products for the American market. It is not a priority of our foreign policy to alleviate this condition, but rather to perpetuate and increase it in search of luxury for our citizens. Our foreign policy requires the harming of other people, even those who haven't done anything to offend us.1) The first step is false. Hurting people for profit is not necessarily robbery.
2) Governments also commit robbery. WW2, gold. No relation whatsoever to national security, and I don't recall hearing anyone claim such.
3) I believe I called the nuclear attacks against Japan terrorism on these very forums.It's a switch in contextual regard, but I can still follow it.

(1) Exactly. What about "unless" contradicts your "not necessarily"?
(2) Exactly. But when the US steals from someone, do we call it theft? No, we don't. We call it a national interest, or an issue of national security.
(3) And? There's the big flip-flop of terms I wasn't expecting. More fool me. But if we rain bombs on someone 3,000 miles away, it's a military action for national security. If someone 3,000 miles away bombs us, it's "terrorism". A hijacked 757 is a poor man's F-16, no matter how you cut it.

A note from Steven Brust:But how did we get ourselves into this? There were no great principles involved. I mean, you judge a war according to who is in the right as long as you have no interest in the outcome; if you're one of the participants, or if the result is going to have a major effect on you, then you have to create the moral principles that put you in the right--that's nothing new, everyone knows it. (Dragon, 31)You'll note that in Nepal, where two sides of a war are committing atrocities, the US government only refers to one of them as "terrorists". If the constitutional monarchy commits an atrocity, it's an atrocity of war. If the Maoist insurgency commits an atrocity, it's a terrorist act. It's all warfare. Calling one side of it terrorism is, as Brust notes, creating the moral principles that put you in the right.You could look at it that way, but I believe you are making up irrational points for the purposes of demonstration. Warfare is not acceptable. But it happens. Any further comparison using those points is based on that flawed assumption, that warfare is acceptable.Warfare is acceptable. As a pacifist, I'm in the minority. If warfare was unacceptable, we would prosecute the generals when we're done. Warfare does not "just happen". That, Adam is a ridiculously irrational argumentative point. At my least severe rejection of your point, I might phrase it that I can see your point if I restrict the world's regard to warfare to your opinion and mine. It seems to be a mistaken regard for which degree of expressed acceptability we're discussing. I "don't believe in" guns. That does not change the fact that they exist. I "don't believe in" warfare. That does not change the fact that warfare exists.Yep. However, it is not as simple as saying "If we screw them over today, they'll screw us over tomorrow, so we shouldn't do it". Creating long-term competition and tension is good for growth of the state. If you can generate an "us and them" situation, you create demand, and thus stimulate growth in your nation. The only problem then is that the state must not wipe out the threat of "them", else it loses its demand and growth; the state must instead remain ahead of "them" for its own survival, but must remain within their reach so as to keep that demand and growth. So, despite the occasional costs, it is in the interests of a state such as the USA to incorporate in its foreign policy foresight the methods by which the state will generate international tension.So in other words, the tension between nations that leads to warfare is justified by growth? Territorial growth? Population growth? Economic growth? Long-term competition is one thing, but there is a difference between Nike and Puma duking it out to sell you shoes and encouraging a state of suffering in another nation for profitability.

• If you can generate an "us and them" situation, you create demand, and thus stimulate growth in your nation. I'm picking this sentence out specifically for its depravity. Look at yourself, man. Creating enemies to foster economy?

• So, despite the occasional costs, it is in the interests of a state such as the USA to incorporate in its foreign policy foresight the methods by which the state will generate international tension. In other words, warfare is acceptable? What do you do when "they" have no money to buy anything with? Oh, you create an internal dynamic that fosters "growth". Hence, while the production cost of the shirt doesn't change, the price goes up anyway. Hurting people for greed: It's pretty fucking stupid.I did not criticise the American public at all.Oh, for fuck sake, Adam. Are you not aware of how often you complain about the question and thereby refuse to address it? It makes me wonder why you bother at all, aside from creating tension to foster the growth of your ego. And hey, such a process fits into a model you've described and approved of.My stand, my opinion, is that there are very mixed feelings about the USA's current military actions. Because this opinion does not suit your poll does not mean it is not a valid opinion. As I have observed, the feelings among Americans about this current military action are very mixed.Woo-hoo. And what were those mixed feelings? How proportionately do they occur?I see no general trend among the general populace. I see a general trend among reporters, news presenters, and government PR people, but that is hardly the same thing.Okay, that's a start. Now ... if people bought newspapers for content, the Workers' Vanguard and The Federalist and other journals of their like would outshine USA Today and New York Times at the newsstand. Furthermore, is the point important enough to you to actually explain what you're talking about? I would ask you to go take a look at everything Ridge's Homeland office tells us, and I would recommend that you read letters to the editors of newspapers; look around--the only way we can win this aspect of the war is by ignoring the Homeland office. Which I do. When handwriting is cause for suspicion, I think we've gone overboard.

Look at my topic post. Don't you think I was, oh ... just a little ridiculous, at least, in the way I treated FedEx?

To the other, I have violated my duty to my community by not calling the FBI. I have been a bad citizen and helped advance the terrorist cause with my inattention to duty.

Maybe that degree of suspicion seems normal to you. It could be as simple a disagreement as that.The stated goals of the WOT, as I have seen from people such as Rumsfeld, are as I said before. Two of the three objectives have been achieved.So, having dismantled the Taliban and beaten down some operative stations, once we bring in Bin Laden, the war is over?

Care to put money on that? I'll happily fleece you for whatever you've got.

Of course, two out of three ain't bad. If, however, in ten years we still haven't got Bin Laden, is it still as sunny a picture?

It's like saying, three of my four objectives are complete. I have dressed, tied my shoes, and stretched. Now all I have to do is run the marathon. Hey, I'm almost done. Three out of four ain't bad .... Given the stated objectives... Who runs things in Kabul these days? Not Al Queda, and not the Taliban. Simple, but the truth. I would say that is winning.You know, that's almost funny. Shall I pretend that the new government in Kabul doesn't have associations to human rights violations? Should I pretend that the warlords who are being roped into coalition are cooperating easily? Shall I pretend that Afghanistan has no human rights problems to worry about ever again? Or, at least, as few as we have to worry about in the US?

It might be useful to note that we "won" a while back when the US helped raise the Taliban to power. Victory, it seems, is fleeting.An attack was made against the USA. The USA suffers increased security measures, as is appropriate.In other words, we're not adjusting in response to common sense (e.g. before the attack), but in reaction to terrorists (e.g. after the attack). It's a sticky situation, I admit. We do need the increased security measures in some parts of society, but the simple fact is that we never do until it's too late. So despite our need to not let the terrorists change our way of life, they did.The stated targets have been well and truly crapped upon. That is winning.Nobody in a war wins. Winning is arbitrary and transfers suffering as compared to alleviating it.Increased security does not in any way equal hysterics.Nor does sexual intercourse constitute a crime against a person.

However, holding you down and raping you is.

And, frankly, I think that the amount of fear being poured upon the people by the Homeland office does, in fact, constitute hysteria. I mean, people actually check in with the Homeland office to see how frightened they're supposed to be. That's sick, at the very least.In the navy, we once recieved word that there was a Tribal class frigate where one should not be (we generally know where most threats are at any given time). The news of this possibility sparked an instant increase in security. The entire routine of the ship changed in moments. But there was no sign of hysteria.You were saying something about apples and oranges? How many airports, post offices, sports arenas, schools, fuel depots, bridges, holiday parades, and churches were in your unit?

And how many Americans have by their enrollment a military obligation? There is a difference between the military and the civilian world that you seem to be overlooking. I see some strategic wisdom in hitting the WTC, however it is a generally-accepted sentiment that warfare should be restricted to the military players. Given that you're discussing military people having a military response to a military situation, I don't see where you draw your basis for comparing notions of hysteria and reaction.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool: