Originally Posted By dlkozy <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/afghanistan.us.casualties/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/...dex.html</a> With this uptick in terrorist attacks, US bases, planes, etc., I am hoping that the US can stop this upsurge now. This looks like the pattern before 911.
Originally Posted By Labuda Well, thank God we have a President now who's not likely to ignore a briefing telling him that Al Qaeda is likely to attack within the US, eh?
Originally Posted By Mr X How exactly is this a "terrorist attack" when it occured in a war zone and was credited to the enemy? Convenient, sure. But not very accurate.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I don't understand why people act so surprised when someone dies in a war. That's why they don't call it vacation. I am a strong believer in a NO WAR policy but I know that sometimes they are necessary. World War II was, Korea, Vietnam and any subsequent ones have not been. History will tell if this one is necessary. It seems like something must be done in an attempt to stop a few idiots from terrorizing the planet, but I don't believe we know how to do that. We especially cannot do it without an all out effort, no holds barred, get the job done policy. The fact is that no one wants to see that happen so instead of inflicting casualties on a large scale we will once again, like in Vietnam, spread it out over many years and still get the same numbers, if not more. Remember 50,000 in Vietnam...I can't forget it. One thing I am convinced about is that if this country is going to be in a war, we need to reinstate the draft. We are putting this burden on too few and wondering why they aren't effective. Sometimes we are so stupid that I think we don't really deserve to be a world power. I'm not even sure that we are anymore. Either do the job or get out. I personally really don't care what happens in Afghanistan.
Originally Posted By ecdc A great point, Mr. X. We want them to be "terrorists" when it's convenient for us. We want them to be war enemies when it's also convenient for us. We've been slippery with our definitions in order to justify circumventing the Constitution and to promote our own brand of propaganda.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I agree Mr. X, that was a war action not a terrorist attack. If it happens here and is targeting civilian populations...that is terrorism. If it happens against military personnel...that is war.
