Nathan,
The question is: why do you mistake my criticism of tactics as criticism of America? Or my pointing out the realities of *any* war to reflect on America, only -- or even particularly? You seem to be only seeing a reflection of your own beliefs in what I am NOT saying.

Dan this is probablly spot on. Here's my reasoning. Our military is made up of volunters. These volunters are Americans, as are those who support them. You made some rather flat, generalized statements about the conduct of troops and about military planners in general. You energy and outraged seems focused in the direction to the exclusion of feeling true emotional outrage (hence the NOT saying part) about the crimes of the others. To point where I gathered the implication that you thought America's policy of pursing free market treaties was a legitimate cause for radical terror. So I admit to trying to draw you out just a bit. Guilty, but I wasn't trying to insult you.

First of all, I don't agree that Islamic extremists are *the* major threat to myself, my family, or the world at large. I know they are a threat a very real threat but so is global warming, though it's not as "sexy" as bombing people and special opps and cool battle emblems and slogans. And war rhetoric and all the rest.

This is an example of me inffering a generalized negative feeling. Are you saying the war is seen by its supports as a sexy fun diversion from "real" problems? Dan, is that what you are accusing me of? That there is no truth or reality behind what is going on but only rhetoric? If you read the news through that prism how evil this must look to you.

Yes Dan. But this can be settled by the democratic process. The democratic process continues during war. The idiot Bush isn't getting a free ride. Meanwhile, while we vote the DNC ticket people want to kill us because we have free speech and like trade treaties with soverign governments.

First, tactically. I don't care what a model of tactical special opps vs guerrillas says, I care about what war against civilian populations IS and that is WHAT we are talking about here, and it is real.

Okay. What does that mean to you when a dedicated urban guerilla takes the fight to civilian centers? I hear you saying it is real. I don't see you acknowledging that a war in such circumstances might still have to be waged. That is why I got confused about 'capitulation' -- you seem to be saying we can't fight a urban counter-insurgency because civilians get killed. What I was asking was, does this mean we don't fight in such a instance? If so what's to stop every group from making us say uncle by always fighting in a urban center? This is their plan. Your (real and true) moral outrage is part of their plan. You are a good person Dan, this is how they manipulate you. That's all I'm saying.

Dan I don't mean to be a jerk but in an above post you did say you were a lot more worried about women's rights here than over there. I happen to agree with you on Rumsfeld's tactics -- remember?

If you want to talk tough start aiming some of the tough talk at the bozos who are *losing* a war, emboldening the enemy, fighting fire with fire, and escalating toward nuclear devastation -- which, incidentally, won't do a damn thing to spread democracy or liberty or freedom or even help stop terrorism. It will just recruit more terrorists, cause more global destabilization, more civilian deaths, more damage to the earth's environment, and reveal one more demonstartion of man's lunacy.

Dan did you think I was 'talking tough' to you? Like calling you names or something? If so I apologize. I don't know why you think that. Several times I have said the Rummy Chenny and Bush were doing a sucky job. Dan you are also throwing nuclear war around like an agreed upon fact. It's dramatic but it is statements such as that which made question if perhaps you simply feel there are not viable military solutions -- I meant it as a point of clarification not as a taunt.

For the record, I never suggested capitulating to terrorism, I never suggested taking a peacenik attitude. I rather resent the implication that I can't disagree with an obviously insane military strategy and civilian leadership without being called a "Flower Child" wanting to kiss the Islamic Terrorists' behinds.
You want to stop terrorism by military means? Invade Syria. Invade Saudi Arabia. Dethrone the mullahs and the Saudi princes, stop oligarchy and American reliance on oil. Invade Iran.

Terrorism is bred from oppression and economic enslavement. Give women in Afghanistan poiltical power, give all of the poeple in the "Arab" street a reason to believe in democracy like they now believe in Osoma Bin laden. You say propaganda: I say *really do something* other than drop leaflets and rhetoric and go on killing just like everyone else.

My question about capitulation was meant to be specific to the reality of urban counter-insurgency. If we know that in any counter op [whether run by GOP or DNC] only 10% killed will be combatants do we then just not do it? If we just don't do it then do we capitulate when the terrorists run for civilian cover? It was a question. Also I did address those other countries; I said when & where you can get them as oppurtunity presents itself by fair means or foul, open or covert. I'll be honest under the label of "really do something" I'm comfortable placing the Taliban and the Saddam regime removals in that categoery.

The solution to global terrorism is economic not military. But I'm sure it will take much longer than our lifetimes combined before my point is evident in the world at large, at a very visible level.

Bombs and whatnot will be the immediate 'solution' I doubt we'll get past that any time soon, no matter how ineffective it is.
Here we disagree. There is nothing to do with the dedicated killers except for kill them. They're not mad they don't have jobs. They're mad there aren't enough Taliban-like governments in the world. This is a strawman. UBL had a great job and millions of dollars. This ain't why he orchastrated the war.

Now. As for peacenik and flower child and what else. Dan, you sound a little defensive. If I made you feel that way. I apologize (that’s twice now). If someone tells you “they bombed the twin towers” and your response is military solutions don’t work lets do ‘economic’ ones then what the hell, it sounds to my tin air like capitulation. Faced with aggression you what? Change American foreign policy? Allow the Saudi family to be replaced by the Taliban because UBL doesn’t like having a McDonalds in Mecca? Here we come back to the prism through which we see the world. America pursuing free market trade throughout the world is not a valid excuse for terror to my mind.

If you invest all of your emotional currency painting the US Army as “thrash metal, grenade chuckers” who “stalk and rape” while “killing babies” and can’t spare a minute of outrage on UBL’s legions and their tactics of preferring soft targets but instead are worried about getting them jobs I don’t what you expect people to think.