From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 13:32:05 MDT
In a message dated 9/12/2002 1:48:58 PM Central Standard Time,
eugen@leitl.org writes: How do you win against assymetric warfare,
specifically isolated acts thereof? I don't know. I doubt there are any easy
solutions.
Eugen,
You are right. After Pearl Harbor there weren't any easy solutions
just as this time there are no easy solutions -- however there are solutions
as we demonstrated against the Japanese. There is no reason in the world to
sit in hopeless resignation and cry "woe is me."
After Pearl Harbor we mobilized to an extent that most folks cannot
imagine today. We also shut this country completely down insofar as allowing
enemy agents to even wiggle. As a boy, we could not have any ball that
contained an airbladder as the rubber was required for the war effort, there
was no chewing gum for the same reason. We saved our drippings from our
frying pans and donated that to the war effort. We planted Victory Gardens
all over this country to ease the job of feeding the men in the service.
Many women would not date a civilian man unless they knew him and knew what
his story was. And, Eugen that was only the small efforts I can remember,
there was much more.
But, this opponent in my opinion is only an international pirate.
Sometimes pirates got strong enough to take over a weak country and civilized
countries had to send their Navies or Armies to sort them out. That is all
we are called on to do this time. I doubt there will even be a draft.
You said, "I guess this means you intend to nuke the entire Muslim
world, including these Muslims at home? Hint: whoever did it doesn't have
convenient unerasable "666" glyphs engraved on their foreheads."
Eugen, please don't attempt to insinuate words into my mouth. That is
beneath the standards of the kind of people on this list. If you will
refrain from doing that we will all think better of you.
You also said, "When lots of people die, it's always a tragedy." Yes,
used in that sense it is a tragedy but tragedy is also being used to blur the
distinction that we had a deliberate act of war committed against us. It was
only one of a long string of such acts, although admittedly it did kill the
most people.
You wrote, "I believe the guys who said that would have said anything
furthering their agenda. In fact I believe they did just that." Do I
understand you correctly, you are admitting that bin Laden's forces committed
that act of war against us and then described it as an act of war? I can't
imagine how under the circumstances bin Laden's forces thought describing the
destruction of the WTC as an act of war would advance some cause of theirs.
It was an act of war, they had previously declared war on us and committed
other acts of war against us -- they only used the appropriate word in my
opinion.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:59 MST