>Adherents to a mass movement are gained through individual conversation,
>not through reaching people en masse. I knew this from personal
>experience and discussion with others over the years but was happy to
>find out from Chip that formal research bore me out.
>
>Carrol
well, there's no reason for a war to do that. why did you wait all these years, eh? and why do you insist that only a war will do the trick?
the problem i have with your opprotunism is that we want them to stop dropping bombs NOW and that means writing letters, emailing, faxing, and yelling and screaming til they stop.
if they feel in the least that there's a growing movement, and we squawked enough NOW, then they'd back off fast.
this eager, hand rubbing over how there's just going to be this long protracted war is such incredible nonsense. they're going to cream Afghanistan, go in there, kill some terrorists, bring one or two home for a trial, declare battle victory. Media will focus on the trial, on the win, and on rebuilding Afg. Flash. Poof. Gone. Minds will be attending to that. Gary Condit will be resurrected. THEN, we can count on some wankers to encourage more internal terrorism and the war will be fought at home.
The rest of the "war" will be covert, semi-covert ops. Think late 50s and early 60s in Asia. Tracking down terrorists. Not many folks will even remember. It will keep the money rolling in for the military. It will act as a convenient excuse to fall back on when we screw up and have to explain what happened.
Oh yeah, remember that War on Terror. That's what we were doing.
Ahhh. Ok. NO PROBLEM!