This is the first Spires comment where I'm not sure of the origin of one statement.

<you seem to have a problem with deadly force and just what is appropriate when and where.>

I DO think that violence which kills innocent civilians is reprehensible, whether it be at the WTC, in Asia or the Middle East. I realize that's not a popular item with some people. And an "innocent civilian" is an "innocent civilian" no matter the national boundaries. In a declared war with the goal of occupying the enemy territory that distinction can get blurred a bit. I don't know that I regard that as "a problem", might be to some folks.

And, let me reformulate the "Bowser Doctrine", a work-in-progress and not a ditch I'd die in, at least not yet.

No uninvited on-site inspection of facilities, anywhere, anytime. AND, if a weapon of mass destruction is used against the US or our interests, anywhere, anytime, if a country CAN'T prove you don't have the capacity to make that particular weapon, we will obliterate you. Every man, woman and child of you will be gone. Period. (At least the capital and political leadership as well as the manufacturing and utilities infrastructure would be gone. History, finis, over, a memory for those left to remember.)

If another country "frames" your country, we'll be sorry, and unless you could demonstrate you couldn't have made that weapon, you're gone. If you demonstrated before the incident you don't have a WMD capacity, you're safe, and we'll even include you under the "Bowser Doctrine" umbrella.

I'd publicize that doctrine far and wide, so that everyone in the affected countries would be aware of it.

<To run the assault correctly, though, I would expect the attack anywhere BUT New York.>

It intrigues me that both times they successfully attacked the US the World Trade Center was involved. In a single "episode" the Pentagon was also involved. I happen to think these guys are smart (opinion, please don't anyone ask the the URL with their Stanford-Binet scores). If they found a novel way to attack New York again, I think they'd really like to do it. It's just too tempting a target, vast, vulnerable, visible.

I believe that on the world scene destroying the WTC and 3,000 people had much more of an impact than if they had wiped out the entire city in which I live (pop. 500,000). So they got a lot of "bang" for our own "buck" with their choice of targets, and they went after it twice.

They also used "judo", they used our resources against us. While I don't think the al-Qeada will be in any shape to do much for a while, I would suspect they'd "hit us where we ain't" again.

If it were me, I think I'd learn from the disruption false alarms and unplugged metal detectors have caused. I'd have folks call in with threats, leave suspicious packages around, mail white powders, and in general cause "the system" to overload from the precautions. Smear a few shoe boxes with C4 and send them via airmail somewhere. That would be a safe, cheap way to raise hell. (I suspect someone will accuse me of giving them ideas. I think they are far cleverer than I, and have thought of it before. And I don't think they monitor this board.)

Or, I might ship some containers on a number of different American ships, if they could find any, or ships owned by American interests, with explosive devices timed to blow up and sink 'em at sea all at the same time. That would cause some problems.

And, if any of 'em want's to wreak total hell upon the entire world, a small nuclear weapon in NY or DC would be the way to do it. Then I think, at long last, we'd seal our borders. I think it's much easier to seal our borders than to try to seal theirs. And the consequences for everyone would be terrible.

Arf