Government Exposure To Anthrax More Widespread

[jadedskies]

Originally posted by jourgenson
I think we all need to have realistic goals in this endeaver. Results will not necessarily be apparent anytime soon. Part of PITs comments were that the U.S. is waiting too long to deploy troops. Evidently there are already U.S. and British troops there so that has already occurred. The U.S. et al has stopped "screwing around."

No, they haven't. The troops still haven't done much, and from media reports, I doubt they ever will. It's a race against time to get in before the Afghan winter, and regardless, Bush doesn't want to send any more than a token force in. I don't think the U.S. is ever going to stop screwing around on this. They can keep pounding Afghanistan for the next decade if they so desire, but it's not going to change anything. The U.S. simply doesn't want to put in the extra money, and the extra risk, to finish the job.

Originally posted by jourgenson
I'm really more amazed that the "war on terrorism" has moved along as quickly as it has. International politics and multinational involvement coupled with fairly remote battle grounds would make me expect a lot of delays. The coalition has come together in such a way as to make this all go rather smoothly thus far, all things considered. I credit Tony Blair, George Bush, Pakistan and also France, the members of NATO, and all the other countries in the coalition for speeding this up. By joining the U.S. early in condemning terrorism and sporting action they gave the U.S. and its people added determination. Since generally the world community takes delight at pointing out where the U.S. is in the wrong. Unilateral support was pretty amazing and showed just how much support there was.

I'm not surprised. A lot of countries said no, NATO and a few others said yes, because they would anytime, and as for Pakistan, I don't think they had a whole lot of choice. Musharraf, like Mubarak in Egypt, knows how quickly his regime could fall. You can have the support of every country in the world, but it doesn't do any good unless you actually act. And no, by "acting" I don't mean a token ground presence and belting the living crap out of the country with bombs. Bush is all talk.

Originally posted by jourgenson
As far as track record of pulling out, that is pretty offensive to the average U.S. citizen. I'd be interested to know what you are referring to. The wars of the past 100 years, Persian Gulf, Vietnam, Korea, Cold War, WWI and WWII, do not provide good evidence for you. Sure Korea was a draw, Vietnam however was the exact opposite where the U.S. stayed way, way too long. The Vietnam war is what made the U.S. a bit fearful of overly long and meaningless wars.

Need we say Gulf War? That's come back to bite the U.S. government in the **** this time - some of the moderate Arab nations want Hussein, Assad, and these guys gone, but won't come out in support of the U.S. because they know they're likely to be left in the lurch.

Originally posted by jourgenson
Trust me, there is no lack of meaning in this war. With continuing Anthrax attacks happening even now, the U.S. is only getting more fired up.

It's only what, the second or third week, of the campaign? They're going to get sick of hearing about it eventually. Especially if nothing is actually done. The operation, as it stands at the moment, is a waste of time, effort, and money. This is one time we really can't afford to leave the job half-done.

 

[jourgenson]

The Gulf War was over within 2 weeks with the objective of getting Iraq out of Kuwait accomplished. The U.S. was not in that war in order to set up a new Iraq government. In fact it was probably the quickest and most decisive victory of all time.

PIT you have to understand that war simply takes a long time. You freely admit that there have been reports of U.S. and U.K. troops in Afghanistan. These are most likely special forces used to ferret out terrorists from caves. That's how you do it, with small groups of highly trained soldiers. PLus you don't tell anyone what you're doing, which means we have no idea how successful anything has been. There is no race against the winter, the special forces can operate in harsh conditions and eventually it will be warmer again.

I believe that Bush, although many things, is not an outright liar. This is one time that it is actually nice to have a Texan in office. He is quite obviously determined to bring the culprits to justice and this includes their harborers. I respect that you may not believe the man, but I happen to. And I am no lover of the Republican party in general (no offense to KNS ).

And quite frankly, even if the U.S. citizens got sick and tired of war, they can't do a damned thing about in any short term way. (see: Vietnam) As far as America getting sick of the war, you'd really have to be here to see the unlikelihood of that. Constant reminds such as Anthrax, hightened security at airports, police/troops with machine guns at airports, no trashcans on the subways, and constant news reports. There has been a complete change on one day in the feeling of the country. It's hard to have a conversation that doesn't hit on Spet.11. People are constantly ask if life will ever be the same. To which the answer is a resounding no. I think this was worse than Pearl Harbor in many ways.

Yes the U.S. has been gun shy recently . Why? There are 2 main reasons. Fear of another Vietnam and because the world community frowns on everything the U.S. does. If they get involved in a situation then it is said that they are imperialistic and if they don't that they only get involved when there own interests are at stake. Is there a certain amount of truth to these charges, yes, but it isn't the whole truth. These factors are involved in everything and it is just a matter of weighing them out and making decisions. Are they always right, of course not, but no country is.

I guess I just have faith enough in the British and U.S. military commanders to think that they have the knowledge and experience to come up with the best possible plan for eliminating terrorists and toppeling the Taliban. And I assume that the plan is not necessarily apparent since they are not really telling anyone anything, as that would make the plan less effective.

 

[jadedskies]

Originally posted by jourgenson
PIT you have to understand that war simply takes a long time. You freely admit that there have been reports of U.S. and U.K. troops in Afghanistan. These are most likely special forces used to ferret out terrorists from caves. That's how you do it, with small groups of highly trained soldiers. PLus you don't tell anyone what you're doing, which means we have no idea how successful anything has been. There is no race against the winter, the special forces can operate in harsh conditions and eventually it will be warmer again.

Most of that is correct. However, we do have some idea how successful anything has been, thanks to the Internet. And yes, there is a race against the winter. Bush is unwilling to keep even the special forces in Afghanistan over winter. If we don't move in the next couple of weeks, we won't be seeing anything major against the Taliban until the New Year, if ever.

Originally posted by jourgenson
I believe that Bush, although many things, is not an outright liar. This is one time that it is actually nice to have a Texan in office. He is quite obviously determined to bring the culprits to justice and this includes their harborers.

I agree. I'm unsure as to exactly what he's pulling. If he takes the whole Arab world head-on, which is looking a possibility, then I'll be pleased with him, but on the other hand, he could be doing a typical American operation, aka Kosovo. I would rather Bush in power than a Democrat right now. He's more of a hawk, and is more likely to do something. But alas, I fear he's taking the easy option.

Originally posted by jourgenson
He is quite obviously determined to bring the culprits to justice and this includes their harborers. I respect that you may not believe the man, but I happen to. And I am no lover of the Republican party in general (no offense to KNS ).

In his rhetoric, he certainly seems like he wants to bring the culprits to justice. But that isn't matching his actions. The coming weeks may well change that. But I'm sticking to my belief that he's all talk and no action. But like I said, I'd rather him in power than a Democrat, simply because he's a hawk (and might I add that I believe he's an evil, evil man, but he's still a hawk). I very much doubt he'll bring the harborers to justice. Come on, can you see Bush going after Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, as well as Afghanistan? It's probably possible, but I'll streak across Princes Bridge if it happens.

Originally posted by jourgenson
To which the answer is a resounding no. I think this was worse than Pearl Harbor in many ways.

I don't think that anyone's doubting it was worse than Pearl Harbour. That time, America took the hint and dealt with it. Unfortunately, this time, I doubt that's going to happen.

Originally posted by jourgenson
Yes the U.S. has been gun shy recently . Why? There are 2 main reasons. Fear of another Vietnam and because the world community frowns on everything the U.S. does. If they get involved in a situation then it is said that they are imperialistic and if they don't that they only get involved when there own interests are at stake. Is there a certain amount of truth to these charges, yes, but it isn't the whole truth. These factors are involved in everything and it is just a matter of weighing them out and making decisions. Are they always right, of course not, but no country is.

Another Vietnam? *cough cough*
I thought Afghanistan was mostly desert? Did it turn into jungle or something? Vietnam was such a farce for two reasons. a) there was no need for foreign troops in the first place, and b) it was jungle. This is desert. There's one hell of a difference. A coordinated operation, Gulf War style, would see the whole blood Middle East taken in a few weeks.

I don't think the world frowns when America intervenes. The Arabs frown: the civilised world applauds. America DOES only get involved when it's own interests are at stake. Can you name any time they've got involved for humanitarian reasons? I can't.

Originally posted by jourgenson
I guess I just have faith enough in the British and U.S. military commanders to think that they have the knowledge and experience to come up with the best possible plan for eliminating terrorists and toppeling the Taliban. And I assume that the plan is not necessarily apparent since they are not really telling anyone anything, as that would make the plan less effective.

I have a lot more faith in the British commanders than in the American commanders, but I don't have that much faith in either of them. No one knows exactly quite what their plans are - but with the events that have been unfolding on the ground over the past few weeks, many that weren't broadcast throughout the mass media, you get a fairly good idea of what's happening. I may be wrong, but this is starting to reek of Kosovo.

 

[jourgenson]

Originally posted by PsychoticIckyThing


Another Vietnam? *cough cough*
I thought Afghanistan was mostly desert? Did it turn into jungle or something? Vietnam was such a farce for two reasons. a) there was no need for foreign troops in the first place, and b) it was jungle. This is desert. There's one hell of a difference. A coordinated operation, Gulf War style, would see the whole blood Middle East taken in a few weeks.

Desert or jungle has not a thing to do with fear of another vietnam. Another vietnam simply means a war or police action that takes far to long, wastes too much life, and does not achieve any tangible goals. Obviously the goals are different here, but, for example, if this last 10 years and Bin Laden's terrorists are still hiding and running and no end is in site then it would be "another Vietnam."

I have to admire your cynicism here, but I can't join in it with you. Recent events have brought the U.S. and possibly other countries together in such a way that bipartisanship and trust is at an all-time high. I don not think that Democrats or Republicans would treat this any different. The Taliban declared war on the U.S. in a big way. This not like any of the recent wars that you bring up and that you think should have been handled differently. I'm not saying you're wrong, however, or right as far as Kosovo or the Gulf war. But as far as the U.S. and its people are considered, those are fairly unimportant foreign issues that we unfortunately had to get involved with. And I'm not saying that U.S. isolationism is a good thing, but that it is hard to avoid during a long period of peace.

The U.S. was attacked on it's own soil. The last time this happened was 1941 and prviously in 1814. When was the last time the U.S. was on the losing side of a real war? By which I refer to WWI, WWII, 1812, Revolutionary. And maybe WWI doesn't even fit in with that group.

 

[KNSinatra]

Originally posted by jourgenson
And I am no lover of the Republican party in general (no offense to KNS

Jourg, minus that *one* itty-bitty statement, you're speaking *my* mind, as well as your own. Which is why I seldom find myself needing to add more to this debate, than is already said. Keep up the good work -- I find myself nodding with every word you say. In layman's terms, no offense taken


I must say though, those who cynically analyse ulterior motives for the present American sprirt are obviously not Americans -- they obviously do not feel what we feel - and know the atmosphere of what we know at this time. Our spirit is a unique and distinct type of pride, unfathomable to many -- to an extent it always has been, but now moreso than ever. Our love for freedom, our passion for liberty...Like many a bumper sticker read, I've "never been prouder to be an American" .

 

[jourgenson]

Originally posted by KNSinatra


Jourg, minus that *one* itty-bitty statement, you're speaking *my* mind, as well as your own. Which is why I seldom find myself needing to add more to this debate, than is already said. Keep up the good work -- I find myself nodding with every word you say. In layman's terms, no offense taken

thx KNS

I should probably add that I tend not to see eye to eye with any U.S. political party accross the board.

I don't think I'm going to add to this thread any more as it has gotten a bit off-topica any way. I'm sure in the coming weeks there will be more to discuss in government & politics.

 

[jadedskies]

Originally posted by jourgenson
Desert or jungle has not a thing to do with fear of another vietnam. Another vietnam simply means a war or police action that takes far to long, wastes too much life, and does not achieve any tangible goals. Obviously the goals are different here, but, for example, if this last 10 years and Bin Laden's terrorists are still hiding and running and no end is in site then it would be "another Vietnam."

Oh yes it does. Vietnam *took* so long and was such a waste, because it was jungle. In Afghanistan, or even in the whole bloody Middle East, if you did a Gulf War style mission, you'd be finished within a month, with minimal casualties. It's only taking forever because Bush doesn't have the balls to send in a full force. THAT's why Bin Laden's terrorists will still be around in 10 years.

Originally posted by jourgenson
I have to admire your cynicism here, but I can't join in it with you. Recent events have brought the U.S. and possibly other countries together in such a way that bipartisanship and trust is at an all-time high. I don not think that Democrats or Republicans would treat this any different. The Taliban declared war on the U.S. in a big way. This not like any of the recent wars that you bring up and that you think should have been handled differently. I'm not saying you're wrong, however, or right as far as Kosovo or the Gulf war. But as far as the U.S. and its people are considered, those are fairly unimportant foreign issues that we unfortunately had to get involved with. And I'm not saying that U.S. isolationism is a good thing, but that it is hard to avoid during a long period of peace.

For now. Only what, two, three weeks into the campaign? Especially at the rate it's being dragged out, I'd bet it won't last long. I don't think Americans are prepared for a few of their boys to risk coming home in body bags to see justice done.

Originally posted by jourgenson
The U.S. was attacked on it's own soil. The last time this happened was 1941 and prviously in 1814. When was the last time the U.S. was on the losing side of a real war? By which I refer to WWI, WWII, 1812, Revolutionary. And maybe WWI doesn't even fit in with that group.

I know it was attacked on it's own soil, and I know it hasn't happened since 1941. Then why in the krett isn't a full force being sent in?

 

[jadedskies]

Originally posted by KNSinatra
I must say though, those who cynically analyse ulterior motives for the present American sprirt are obviously not Americans -- they obviously do not feel what we feel - and know the atmosphere of what we know at this time. Our spirit is a unique and distinct type of pride, unfathomable to many -- to an extent it always has been, but now moreso than ever. Our love for freedom, our passion for liberty...Like many a bumper sticker read, I've "never been prouder to be an American" .

And what, pray tell, is that supposed to mean? That Americans actually go in to warzones for humanitarian reasons and I just haven't noticed?

 

[mthrlangl]

Quite frankly, I got tired of reading this whole thread, so I'm just going to post my 2 cents without finishing it. If I've hit upon a point that's already been made, I apologize.

First off, I'm with PIT on this one. Most likely, any training camps and what-not that we know about are now abandoned. Secondly, the two main guys, bin Laden and the Taliban leader (Or is he 2nd in command? Anyway.) have already gone into hiding. (Remember when Hussein did this? We tried to bomb him, didn't we?) I'm not claiming I know how war is done or that I have the solution. However, I think that if we don't do something more than drop bombs and replay the same old crap on tv about how brave the rescue workers are and how we have to watch out for white powder in the mail and how we're bombing the crap out of Afghanistan, the American people are going to get sick of hearing about it. Personally, I already am. I watch CNN every morning, and all I ever hear is a rephrased repeat of the previous day's newscast. If we're going to do something. Do it. Don't talk about it. This isn't a *time* for talk. It's a time for action. Good grief. I'm not saying we should throw lives of service men and women away, but we have the armed forces for a *reason*. Let's use them.

 

[meezercat]

Originally posted by PsychoticIckyThing

Especially at the rate it's being dragged out, I'd bet it won't last long. I don't think Americans are prepared for a few of their boys to risk coming home in body bags to see justice done.

Originally posted by PsychoticIckyThing
And what, pray tell, is that supposed to mean? That Americans actually go in to warzones for humanitarian reasons and I just haven't noticed?

You know, it's things like this that started the whole problem in the first place. Don't presume to know how I, or my neighbor, or my grandmother, or whoever, must feel about things just because we're all Americans. True, you're not saying we deserve to be the targets of terrorist attacks, but all this negative BS about Americans as a whole originates with the same kind of mindset.

Oh, and if you want to send your troops rushing in blindly, go for it. But we're the ones who were attacked, so let our government decide how it wants to manage our military forces going into this situation.

 

[jadedskies]

Originally posted by hermanm
You know, it's things like this that started the whole problem in the first place. Don't presume to know how I, or my neighbor, or my grandmother, or whoever, must feel about things just because we're all Americans. True, you're not saying we deserve to be the targets of terrorist attacks, but all this negative BS about Americans as a whole originates with the same kind of mindset.

I'm not quite that stupid hermie, much as you'd like to think so. I know that not all Americans think that way, but when I speak of 'Americans', I usually mean the American government - and those who insist on defending their isolationist policies. I just use 'Americans' because it's shorter. I know there's Americans who agree with me.

Originally posted by hermanm
Oh, and if you want to send your troops rushing in blindly, go for it. But we're the ones who were attacked, so let our government decide how it wants to manage our military forces going into this situation.

Oh come off it. Blindly?
But then again, that would be a typical response from the American government. 'Hey, we know best, we'll blow the sh*t out of this country, and then our little friend Osama will run out screaming and surrender'. And because the US government will sit idly by, and won't risk a few military lives, this will happen again, and again, and again. After Pearl Harbour, they had the sense to get in and finish the job. But this time, they're not going to, and it's going to pop up again, and again, and again, with many more civilian lives lost, until someone finally gets the guts to go after the Arab fundamentalists and the countries that harbor them. What's the point of having an armed forces on which god-knows-how-many-billion is spent on, when you won't even use them when your country is attacked?

 

[jourgenson]

I just want to reiterate that the U.S., U.K. and everyone else is doing their best and will continue to do so until at the very least, Osama is found and the Taliban is gone. Send in the whole of the U.S. army would not speed anything up. We are talking about looking for a small number of people in a large area. Sort of like a needle in a haystack. A smaller group of special forces will be much more effective in smoking out the terrorists. And the Taliban fiorcves themselves will not require the whole of the allied forces to defeat them. Plus they are getting weaker by the day as their moral dwindles and the continue to defect. It is also important to remember that it takes quite awhile to assemble the sort of forces we are talking about.

I just want people to realize that military planning is a very complicated thing and this particular issue is very tough complicated indeed. It's not the kind of situation were throwing more and more troops at it is the answer.

 

[mthrlangl]

Originally posted by jourgenson
I just want to reiterate that the U.S., U.K. and everyone else is doing their best and will continue to do so until at the very least, Osama is found and the Taliban is gone. Send in the whole of the U.S. army would not speed anything up. We are talking about looking for a small number of people in a large area. Sort of like a needle in a haystack. A smaller group of special forces will be much more effective in smoking out the terrorists. And the Taliban fiorcves themselves will not require the whole of the allied forces to defeat them. Plus they are getting weaker by the day as their moral dwindles and the continue to defect. It is also important to remember that it takes quite awhile to assemble the sort of forces we are talking about.

I completely disagree. While the special forces may be more qualified to ferret out people in hiding, we're talking about a *VERY* large area for them to cover. If you want to find something more quickly, add more people to the search party. If I were Osama, I'd be a hell of a lot more likely to run in screaming surrender before 5,000 ground troups thatn 100 special forces troups. In this case, I think we need a show of strength rather than a show of smarts.

 

[jourgenson]

I just want to point out that I, in fact, have no actual military training and therefore and not really qualified to make such decisions. So as far as I know you may be right. But, I am willing to put my trust in the military leaders of the U.S., U.K. and anyone else involved. Plus I don't really think 5,000 soldiers is all that much. There may in fact be that many there already. There really isn't any reliable way to find out unless told by the gov'ts themselves and they of course don't let info out that could aid the enemy.

 

[Diesel]

What might be underestimated here is the capabilities of the US special forces units. 100 Army Rangers might very be more effective than sending in 5000 regular troops. Plus, there's less of a risk of casualties when using a reduced number of highly skilled ground troops.

 

[jadedskies]

Originally posted by jourgenson
I just want to reiterate that the U.S., U.K. and everyone else is doing their best and will continue to do so until at the very least, Osama is found and the Taliban is gone. Send in the whole of the U.S. army would not speed anything up. We are talking about looking for a small number of people in a large area. Sort of like a needle in a haystack. A smaller group of special forces will be much more effective in smoking out the terrorists. And the Taliban fiorcves themselves will not require the whole of the allied forces to defeat them. Plus they are getting weaker by the day as their moral dwindles and the continue to defect. It is also important to remember that it takes quite awhile to assemble the sort of forces we are talking about.

They're not doing their best. Bush isn't going to send in any more than a token presence. Hell, I doubt he'll even topple the Taliban. Kill Bin Laden, get out of there, job done, next terrorist pops up, said terrorist blows the crap out of the Sears Tower or something, and here we go again. Or we can finish the job once and for all.

Originally posted by jourgenson
I just want people to realize that military planning is a very complicated thing and this particular issue is very tough complicated indeed. It's not the kind of situation were throwing more and more troops at it is the answer.

Unfortunately, throwing more troops at it is the answer. For any more than a simple kill-Bin Laden effort to be undertaken, a Gulf War style mission needs to be undertaken. Minimal casualties. Maximum effect.

Originally posted by mthrlangl
I completely disagree. While the special forces may be more qualified to ferret out people in hiding, we're talking about a *VERY* large area for them to cover. If you want to find something more quickly, add more people to the search party. If I were Osama, I'd be a hell of a lot more likely to run in screaming surrender before 5,000 ground troups thatn 100 special forces troups. In this case, I think we need a show of strength rather than a show of smarts.

Agreed.

Originally posted by jourgenson
I just want to point out that I, in fact, have no actual military training and therefore and not really qualified to make such decisions. So as far as I know you may be right. But, I am willing to put my trust in the military leaders of the U.S., U.K. and anyone else involved. Plus I don't really think 5,000 soldiers is all that much. There may in fact be that many there already. There really isn't any reliable way to find out unless told by the gov'ts themselves and they of course don't let info out that could aid the enemy.

I'm not willing to put my trust in the military leaders of the countries involved. 5000 soldiers out there? Not a chance. Through the Internet, I'd have heard of it if there had been. There's just the special forces. They're doing a good job so far, considering, but it's just not enough.

Originally posted by Diesel Dan
What might be underestimated here is the capabilities of the US special forces units. 100 Army Rangers might very be more effective than sending in 5000 regular troops. Plus, there's less of a risk of casualties when using a reduced number of highly skilled ground troops.

Like I said before, it depends on your objective. What are we trying to do here? Simply kill Bin Laden? Blow up a few terrorist camps to put on a show for the folks back home? Topple the Taliban? Topple the OTHER governments that support terrorism? Go after the other terrorist networks? If we're simply trying to accomplish the first two objectives, then the Army Rangers and SAS are the folks for the job. However, if we're trying to fix the wider problem and exterminate the whole bloody list of terrorist organisations Bush wants gone, more is going to be needed. It's a bit beyond the capacity of Special Forces to take down governments.

 

[monsieurjohn]

i'm joining the air force as soon as i graduate. that much is sure - i'm in rotc now. as i watch the news, there is little doubt in my mind that at some point i'll be directly involved with what is going on now, even though my graduation isn't until 2005. because of the rotc program i'm in, i frequently talk to high-ranking air force officers who do know what is going on. and although they can't tell me any more than they can tell the media, they know their military strategy, they know the facts, they know the choices that have been made, and they are in support of U.S. actions and have a firm conviction that we are going about this the right way. i'm inclined, frankly, to trust them. they know better than i can speculate.

yes, osama bin laden is a needle in a haystack. but there's nothing wrong with that haystack. the only thing we have against afghanistan is their harboring of bin laden. if we burn down the entire perfectly good haystack looking for the needle, we fail just as badly as we would if we'd never found the needle. that's exactly what will happen if we go overboard sending troops in.

if there were an enemy lined up to fight us, then sure, we could send in everything we've got, dispatch the enemy in thirteen hours, and come home. but this war is *totally* unlike every war we've ever fought because we have a hazy objective and an invisible enemy. as such, we can't fight it like any other wars we've ever fought. the élite special forces are trained for situations like this, and they are teh ones best suited to carry out the operations. if we start using the shotgun approach and sending in massive numbers of soldiers, nothing will be accomplished beyond what the special forces can accomplish except for collateral damage and loss of life, both of our men and of the afghan people

Originally Posted by PsychoticIckyThing:
Or we can finish the job once and for all.

one more thing... as horrible as it is, there is no "once and for all" - even if we destroyed bin laden, the entire taliban, every terrorist training camp, and wiped afghanistan off the face of the earth, there are still terrorists, and tehre are still followers of bin laden somewhere, and an entire new era or terror has been born and there will be no end to it. our ways of life can never be the same, and we have to live with the fact that no matter what kind of fighting we do, the world will never be the way we knew it a month and a half ago.

 

[KNSinatra]

Originally posted by PsychoticIckyThing


I'm not quite that stupid hermie, much as you'd like to think so.

Let's not start materializing personal attacks out of statements intended as contributions to a political dialogue. The business of politics is heated, granted, but in order to function within the sphere, one must take care not to hastily label statements as personal attacks. This is not to say that a person can't say "I disagree with you" and "I really don't like what you're saying" and "I'm sick of what you're saying". These are actually valid opinions, and everyone who voices an opinion runs the risk of being directly criticized. I personally view a personal attack as something such "you're stupid" or "you're a moron"...and Hermie certainly did nothing of the latter's type. My only advice is, if you're going to hammer out advice and opinions with the intention of having people hear them as *your* voice, be prepared to face criticism -- Sensitivity of this type really has no place, when a person themselves is arguing in a heated fashion.

 

[Banshee Laughter]

Although I've read quite a few of the posts on this subject, I didn't manage to make it through ALL of them... so forgive me if I repeat anything anyone else has said.

Haven't been here for awhile, but figure why not put my two cents in and hope y'all don't mind.

I guess the first thing would be about the airstrikes and why they are important (in my view). Not only do we need to do it, we need to do it thoroughly. We need to knock out their communications, their supply and refueling depo's, their airstrips, their radar sites, etc. All of which needs to be done before we fly the troops further into Afghanistan. Not smart to have a plane load of troops shot down, when airstrikes could have eliminated the problem. Last I heard there were close to 30,000 of our troops over there... where is the 5,000 number coming from? I'd also like to say that our nephew is over there (or on his way there now, we're not sure since he can't tell us) in one of the tank divisions... and every airstrike that knocks out something that could harm him (or any of our guys) is fantastic by me.

Whoever it was that said President Bush doesn't have the balls to stick it out over popular opinion... yikes! He hasn't even been president for a full year yet! What is giving you that opinion? We have no idea how he will react, but I'm betting that he WILL stick with it til the end. He doesn't strike me as the type of person who would pull out over re-election/popularity polls. Besides, American's (or the majority of them) are fully behind this war.

I have to agree with the people here who say let's take our time about it. Sure, emotionally I'd like to see us storm in there. But then again, it's not ME over there and it's not YOU over there. Those of us here in our safe homes have to take more of an intellectual -vs- emotional look into the situation. The troops we do send in are not nameless faces... they are the sons and daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of other Americans. Their lives should not be casually tossed away in order to achieve immediate gratification.

Back to the Anthrax outbreak...

I'm wondering if it is a radical group within the US that is doing it to speed up the war on Afghanistan... or if it is indeed another terrorist attack. What do you think?

 

[jourgenson]

I doubt it is being done by radical Americans, but that is certainly an interesting possibility. I'm not sure who might be organized enough and who might benefit greatly from an Afghani war.

My assumption is that it is being done by similar terrorists to those who attacked NY and DC, but even that has its problems. What sense does it make to go for a grand slam and then to top it off with some bunts. It may be that the originally acts have awakened some other terrorist groups. But, it is odd that some of the letters originated from places where the WTC terrorists were known to have been (trenton, NJ) and hit near places (FL tabloid offices were near an airport where some of them learned to fly).

Of course, there could be "copycats" trying to make it look like they were the same terrorists, but this is unlikely due to how quickly it started and the lack of flights at the time.