************ Misparaphrase alert!!! *****************
My 2-year thingy was an unsuccessful attempt to pin down Carrol and anyone else who said the U.S. mission couldn't possibly work. The reasoning was that if some period following the conquest of Afgh passed with no big incidents, the mission could be called successful on some level. They didn't bite and a somewhat less than edifying discussion ensued on the low probability of any such incidents. So I never said because of this mission, we would be safe from 'terrors.' In fact, I had the terrors last weekend when I was stuck in a sandtrap, and we've all got troubles, right? But I digress.
Why, you might ask, would I support the war if I didn't think it would be successful? I do in fact think it will be successful. To some extent, it already has been. Prospects for a non-maniacal government are improved and some fascists are inconvenienced, not a few to the n'th degree. I also think Al-qaida has been and will be crippled. I do NOT think we are now free of terrorist threats; there will be more, without any doubt. I think we are more secure now than on 9/10, but obviously that's just a hunch, just as the opposite view is.
Just for the record:
Military tribunals: only for POW's in Afgh, presided over by new Afgh Gov Extradition to U.S. of those suspected of direct participation in 9/11, Cole, etc.: for Sentence for rank-and-file Taliban/al-qaida: prison Sentence for leaders, direct partipants in terrorist acts: to the wall, yanqui Assassination of Talib/al-q leaders: if they can't be captured, sure Invasion of Iraq, Somalia, Spain: against Secret evidence in U.S. courts: against Sentence for John Walker: prison Aid to Israel: zero it out; we've got a budget deficit, don't you know!! Use of Torture: only for appellate court clerks & ethnic studies grad students
mbs