Will there be another "9/11" ?

You seem pretty smart, so I assume you haven't given this much thought. Or, maybe I see so many possibilities that I am just more devious.The use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons can easily dwarf the loss of life and property (and damage to economy... i.e. more people) from 9/11. There are a number of dispersion techniques that would be difficult to detect and prevent.Even ordinary bombs in strategic places can have more aftermath effects than just the impact on the location. Your opinion, not mine. Neither of us has enough facts to make such a claim. The question is "is it worth the risk?" We are in a new era of warfare that some of us recognize, but liberals don't yet acknowledge. This comes in two forms: (a) the growing radical Muslim movement worldwide, (b) technology of weaponry in small scale plus more power/danger. Or as they say in law, motive and means. Just like a virus, the terrorists have found vulnerability by the very nature of our free society.So, what would be your approach to addressing terrorism?

You missed my point, and therefore made my point.
My statement was not about recognizing the issue of terrorism, but rather about a fundamental evolution in tactics and weaponry that changes the way it can be effectively countered. Sabatoge has always been around, but the weaponry was never a true major threat to a country as it is with WMD. Wrong. The rebel forces already existed prior to Reagan. US helped them win the war in Afghanistan against the Russians, yes. But "create"?, no. Funding from oil-rich Arabs and protectionist Muslim states built the terrorist threat since that time. I will pass on your slander of former presidents. Wrong again. The administration does "get it". Bush said it rather succinctly:
- Find the criminals and eliminate them as a threat
- Cut off the funding
- Eliminate their hiding places. Make it clear to harboring countries that we will not let the terrorists hide (i.e. or else risk invasion to go get the terrorists). Disagree that it is a police matter. The fact that folks are trying classify this as police or military shows that they miss the point of how tactics of warfare have changed. The purpose of terrorist actions is for political power.You are looking to control terrorism to "managable levels". This is saying you cannot win the war. As long as terrorism works (as it did in Spain), you will encourage the tactics, and lengthen the war.The war will not end until Muslims make it end. They have to take care of their misfits. They are the ones who must find out among the civilians who is a terrorist and who is an innocent.

I assume you are talking about Waco. You are using creationist logic to pick out something out of who-knows-where to make a claim that distorts the real facts:
- Saddam had WMD that no one (Allies) knows what happened to them
- Saddam had been given many UN resolutions (ultimatims) to cooperate with inspections and no-fly zones (where he frequently made attacks on our planes); he represented an example to all nations that they could thumb their noses at the UN and USA and get away with it (including supporting terrorists, not hunting them down)
- UN didn't have the gonads to enforce the resolutions (we find out later the French, Russians, Germans, and Kofi enjoyed the riches of unethical Iraqi oil deals... yep, it's all about oil... to those guys)
- Bush, Kerry, Congress, etc. was ill-informed of WMD in Iraq
- Saddam paid families of terrorists for their heroism (thereby encouraging it)
- Bush did not want to take a chance on terrorists getting ahold of those missing WMD to use on US soil
- A free Iraq has the potential of creating similar demands in other Arab countries that have subversive dictatorships... this is a better option than invading all of them
- Diverts energy, resources and funds of Al Qaida to Arab battleground

Wrong. If they weren't destructive (to lives) then there would be no sense in developing them, and no international ban and outcry over their use. On the battlefield, soldiers can wear protective gear, but that hinders their effectiveness. On civilians, it can be very deadly. In that case, maybe we should allow them at gun shows.
P.S. I though WMD was acronym for
"Weapons Media Denies" (or is it "Wimps Make Democrats"?) There are effective ways, even to get to people whose heads are surrounded by sand. Desperate, suicidal, Allah-glory seekers may be tempted to bring the great Satan to his knees. Uniformitarianism? It is more like Punctuated Equilibrium. This is not wind erosion; this is a strategic long term enemy who has aspirations of big orchestrated hits that will have maximum impact, because they know they can't have a steady stream of suicidal missions on our soil. The WTC hit is an example of careful planning of a big impact. I did not make such a claim. However, a dirty bomb is possible to make and smuggle into our country. They know that the target must be big and the mission successful. What??? No peaceful negotiation option? That is the traditional approach. Much of your analysis is history-based, and not forward strategic looking. It is even more clear to non-superpowers that traditional military gear and tactics are no match to superpower weapons. This is not the Al Qaida motive. Al Qaida sees us as evil and want to spread their religion and destroy us infidels. You are completely wrong, and insulting our military leaders that DO understand their tactics & motives (even from the beginning), and are doing something about it. You paint a false picture of what is really understood by our military.

"Massive aid"? Republican? You must be a Massachusetts Republican! Seriously, though. A free Iraq and capitalist economy (do you hear that, Contracycle?) is better than raising our taxes to feed the country. Actually, we don't have enough moola to do that, anyway.This will still not keep Al Qaida managable. You are missing their motive of destroying evil infidels whose culture is contaminating what they see as a fitting life for Muslims.

Both are irrelavant to the point I was making and you missed. Have you ever heard of "progress"? "Secrets"?
Not everything is published. Those weapons, the means of delivering them even today can kill thousands, especially in confined spaces. Has it ever occurred to you that terrorism would have increased anyway? Why do you think Al Qaida was training and buying weapons before all this? Your logic is baffling. The whole point is to scare people. That is why they call it "terror"-ism. Exposure means cancer to many, and fear of it for the rest. And, contaminated real estate is expensive to clean up. The WTC attack killed thousands (which is not trivial), but beyond that it disrupted our whole economy and severly affected the airline industry. I never said SARS was a threat. You did. This is your attempt to trivialize a real threat (if terrorist have or can get cholera and other deadly biological weapons). The flu seems fairly easy to spread around to many people, so the process of infection is a proven dispersal technique. The only question is how deadly a virus can be obtained and spread. Duh!! Rei, you missed the point punctuated by humor. Liberals tend to want negotiation out the kazoo before conflict. Your reponse seems to eliminate negotiation (I am surprised), and you don't seem to favor troop commitment, and you avoided answering the "what would you do?" question. I give up. You still don't get it. Apparently I've read more than you, since you are ignoring some things about America that he has stated. I guess I have to dig those up to convince you. Also, you have to put on your thinking cap to not take everything he says for its face value. Hmmm. Are you a fundamentalist Christian, per chance? Why are putting that in quotes when I did not say that?
Where is the Admin when you need him? Has it ever occurred to you that whoever said that is trying to lure them out? Why do you assume our troops are do dumb? Of course they realize they have the advantage in weaponry.You, Holmes, and others of the "long thread" ilk are relentless in extending each post to be longer and getting the last word. I think we've gone as far on this as necessary, but I assume you will follow-up.

Are you claiming that the oil industry was a free market in Iraq?
If I recall, Saddam had extravagant palaces and took to oil-for-food food and gave his military first pick.

Dear Holmes,
I was being general when I said that you write long replies. You are not the only one. I get caught up in the debates, too, and can't let it go. So do many others. Sorry to pick on you, but I figured you could take it. I love the debates, but I just don't have the time to keep up long ping pong matches. There comes a time when I surrender to the drip drip torture of illogical conclusions, subsets of the truth, misrepresentations, misreading what I wrote, and flat-out insults from some of the writers (not you, of course... you would never...).Oops! I take that back. Your last statement is so typical of a "last tag!"

The oil business, automobile business, and T-shirt business (in the USA, not China) all abide by our laws. I have stock in some oil companies, but I as hard as I tried, I couldn't buy Saddam Oil Company stock and share his profits. Yes, "We" is capitalized. (sorry, it's late in the day)

Obviously you think it's the USA's fault, and not Saddam's. Sigh.But by your logic, Iraq was not viable and therefore could be aborted.

Obviously you think it's the USA's fault, and not Saddam's. Sigh.But by your logic, Iraq was not viable and therefore could be aborted.

That is not at all what I meant, but if you take my words literally (as a fundamentalist might), I can see where you might get that idea.
I hate to explain a "joke", but briefly: the mention of T-shirt business in the same vein as oil and autos was to be slightly absurd, and the mention of China was to point out that the shirt business in USA is not really a big business, since it is dominated by China.
I don't think China is criminal. Good grief. Give me a break. I see that you knocked the "L" out of Halliburton (hint: that is humor). No. Sigh. I can see that for you I need to put smilee faces on humor, since you can't recognize it. This must mean that you also don't pick up the same level of humor with Rush Limbaugh.You can continue to deny the reality of the hardships in Iraq under Saddam's regime while the corrupt leaders and unethical leaders of other countries siphoned the oil monies for their personal benefits.Regardless of any terrorism-related issue, it sounds like you would prefer Saddam to remain in power rather a Iraq ruled by the people.I know some folks with KBR that worked in Iraq. They all clearly say that most of the Iraqis are grateful and love their freedom. However, some Muslims and the poor in particular have grown up seeing USA as evil, and others they think they can handle the situation and are ready for us to leave. It all comes down to the will of the educated and freedom lovers to fight to maintain their freedom.

Like a Democrat, you are counting two votes on one ballot!

I know.... I know... !You stated 2000 once and 2004 in the other, but I couldn't resist the punchline.

Doesn't the absurdity of the name "Saddam Oil Company" give you a clue? It's called sarcasm. There was no public way to share in Saddam's profits of his corruption. That was the point. You can believe that all the cover of "proper" oil business in Iraq, but the numbers don't add up (until you discover the under the table deals he made). I guess you believe the Mafia corporations are all prim and proper, too.I see that you and Holmes (and perhaps more) need a flag to recognize my sarcasm. I will try to remember that.