Ron Anthony wrote:
>
> i never said my policy was revenge for revenge's sake.  i simply said to
> thrust upon all rougue nations a "reverse article 5" process, that is, we
> are now treating an attack againts one nato nation as an attack against all
> nato nations, and likewise, we should consider such origin of attack all the
> nations on the rogue of nations list and pursue cripplintg surgical strikes
> against their top level infrastructure.  how is that revenge for revenge's
> sake?  And yes, there is something to be said for revenge.
>
> Senator John McCain said today "May god have mercy on you, because we
> won't."
>
> And, I've read most of the NY area papers today.  All the editorials are in
> agreement, using terms like "insane suicidal madmen" quite freely -- and are
> almost all asking for pure revenge for revenge's sake.  And this, from
> normally left leaning liberal strongholds, especially the New York Times,
> for example.
>
> I'd be surprised in Bush does't lay heavy waste to vast areas, including use
> of US ground forced to occupy necessary foreign lands.
>
> I can't wait.

I fervently hope that you wait an eternity before we use US ground forces
to occupy an Islamic country.  We tried in Viet Nam ... at a price of
58,000 American boys' lives.  The USSR tried in Afghanistan at a price
of 12,000+ Soviet boys' lives.  We both failed.  The only way we can
conquer determined guerilla warriors is to flatten and scorched their
entire country ... and maybe that is what it will take to make the
world's terrorists decide that the price of attacking the United States
is too high.

I cannot believe the George W. will lay heavy waste to vast areas.
His political advisors won't allow it ... and we'll likely be mired
in an ongoing confrontation ... technical might against guerillas and
terrorist ... much like Israel ... and our children will live in fear
of the next car bomb.

  -Nick T.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu