--- Scribe1865@xxxxxxx wrote: > > Omar, hi to you too. I meant really terrible > measures. The (by comparison) > polite, media-friendly actions in Iraq and > Afghanistan were not what I had in > mind. Iraq and Afghanistan were leisurely, not > desperate actions. *I think you are confusing representation and reality, Eric. Iraq may have seemed not so terrible in the US media, but take a look at the current Iraq Body Count (rather conservative estimation): http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm I would guess that for those 8437 to 10282 civilians killed, their families, friends and so on it couldn't have been so pleasant. (snipped) > Besides, who would the US negotiate with? It would > only take a single > loose-canon cell to violate an agreement and send > any negotiation down the tubes. *I recognize that the Al-Quaida structure is a problem. I am not, of course, arguing against negotiations with regional cells or organizations that would involve local governments, but it looks like some form of global-level negotiations will be necessary and it only has a chance to succeed if it is conducted by the US. Also, I do not promise that it will work - it is possible that there is no quick way to stop it, but it is pretty clear that attacking and occupying nation-states is only making the things worse. Another possibility is to keep a low prophile politically, apply low-key security and police measures and hope to outlast it. Finally, of course, there is the issue of long-term policies that need to change, but I will talk about that some other time. O.K. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html