I don't know who right now can predict the future. (Nor could have
those at Munich). And the easy path can often turn out to be the
most treacherous.
If there indeed is a extended conflagration, when the hijacked
airliners start falling out of the sky, will there be unanimous
resignation and resolve as in WWII, or will the handwringing and
second guessers again be numerous and tolerated?
If the latter combination happens, America's credibility as a
world power will decline. Can't spin the big goof too many times
in a row.
Mike L
60A,67E,59Bug
----- Original Message -----
From <Daniel1312 at aol.com>
> I realise all the difficult decisions that have to be made about
fighting a
> war. I was an enlisted serviceman here in the UK when Kuwait
was invaded but
> a variety of reasons I didn't get to out to the middle east.
However, my
> brother did and when I said goodbye to him before he left I
never knew
> whether I would see him again or not. It was an answer to my
prayers that he
> returned safely.
>
> OK there are consequences of potential loss of life if the
> enemy/Afghanistan/Iraq whoever are attacked and killed.
>
> But there are consequences in not attacking an enemy, especially
one that
> will attack you whether or not or whatever you do to him.
>
> Which is the greater price? Not is there a price.
>
> Daniel1312
>
> In a message dated 13/09/01 20:30:32 Pacific Daylight Time,
> trev9@earthlink.net writes:
>
> << We already have at least one member of the list who is having
> reservations because of fear that a sibling might get hurt.
War is a
> dirty business and the only way to play the game is to win and
to
> win you have got to pay a price. The question is how much are
we
> willing to pay?
|