All Comments on 'Conventional Military vs Terrorism'

What you wrote is so very true. We can't stop people that are willing to die. We can only slow them down. pauled47 at Yahoo

I think someone has been reading too much Howard Zinn.

poorly thought out rantings of moron that is so stupid that he cannot fugure why there is any reason for fight when he is being attacked

the great thing about pacifists is that in the end they die

Your right on the main theme. We need clandestine or special ops military and similar means. This uneccesary, wrongly targeted and incompetently led military disaster in Iraq is creating more "terrorists" than it can identify and kill. The "bull in the China shop" approach fosters anti-American nationalistic hatred against the U.S. around the world. Our good name and reputation, which is one of our strongest assets in getting "inside" or gaining information on terrorists, has been damaged beyond measure by the fools who led us into this folly.

military cannot stop the terrorists and the politicians in the SW United States do not want to stop illegal immigration.

Does anyone in the free world honestly think that a terrorist plot would not include at home military establishments? The purpose served by an attack would be to slow down and hinder opearations to include worldwide support of deployed troops. If you had been on a US base during the highest alerts and had seen the 3-4 hour delays in getting on the bases homeland/US attack is coming and will hit hard. Would this serve the terrorists or making the troops feel that they are not safe anywhere and might be needed at home rather than killing terrorists overseas. 911 had world outrage for a few weeks, then a new soccer season or football or something that really mattered came up.

Why would any terrorist think about a difference between on shore and off shore military establishments? Ask the 283 Marines killed in their barracks in Lebanon in the 80s. Ask the members of PanAm flight 803 over Scotland. Ask the Israeli soldier kidnapped in Israel that started the current fight in Northern Israel.

Where do you come up with any idea that the terrorists will not kill any target anywhere? Ask the Israelis killed in the Olympics in Germany a few years back. Ask the people in the Federal building in Oklahoma. Ask the people killed in the bombing in the Olympics in Atlanta.

Surrender early, avoid the rush; Michael Moore is waiting for you.

You remind me of the Beatles song ...Give Peace a Chance...

ask the survivors of Pol Pot, ask the South Vietnamese still in prison for fighting for their own country before an invasion spearheaded by more tanks and trucks than Patton had in his Third Army in WW2 overran the South. Ask the suicide bombers if they care who they kill.

REad any halfway decent book on terrorism, understand that the individual cells are very small groups (not like the KKK in the 60s that the FBI inflitrated to the point that a significant per centage of the total membership were law enforcement. Todays terrorists are in much smaller groups, I would like to hear your plan on how Tim and his 2 man group would be inflitrated prior to the Federal building bombing.

Read the history of Islam, read the Koran and other holy documents were the Emir of the attacking army that brought down "The City" now known as Istambul would be blessed in Heaven and the armies he led would individually be blessed.

We are at war with a religion that wants world domination, under their belief system and under their leadership. We are at war with groups of wackos that think anything done to hurt any target is justified. You can ID a target by listing anyone or anything the wackos dislike or hate. You can even include the US schoolteachers who have taught their students that they should think about, write about and hopefully even plan for the death of the US President. I do not recall any time in US history (excluding the US Civil war) that had the current amount of hatred toward an American Preident and number of death threats.

Do we infiltrate these class rooms also?

Count the number of countries that had citizens killed on 911. If you think the world would have joined in if Canada had been attacked, Wake Up. Spain had major bombings, they cut and ran, no one gets behind and cheers Spain. No one cheers the UK with all of their terrorist plots from shoe bombs to multiple airline disasters for not yielding to the terrorists.

>>The extra people on gates, the extra training because of the "what if" factor, to me are not worth the money spent.<<

9/11 The Pentagon,10/00 U.S.S. Cole DDG 67, 10/83 Marine Barracks in Beruit, and many others prove you wrong. Ask the Brits about it. The Irish had a tendency to go after "hard" military targets, like marching bands.

RAH once wrote that everything that was wrong with the world was the fault of language teachers. He was pointing out that if one doesn't dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s, one gets into the habit of lazy and shoddy work, which can then bite one's ass off.

While on duty tonight, I will provide a roving perimeter patrol, while members of my country's armed forces provide site security at their assigned locations. Do we expect an attack? No, not really. Will we be there to make sure that any attack that happens is repelled? Bet your ass on it! Terrs only win if we decide to be sloppy and not dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s.

I would like to thank all of those in the military who have been very industrious about extending force to other areas of the world, to make sure that terrorists don't get a base of operations where they can relax, plan, and train. Keeping them busy "over there" keeps them from being busy over here.

As a humble student of the Arabic/Islamic world (And Army vet)my question is who or whose responsibility is it to stop, minimize and prevent terrotism. In the long run that is a State Dept job. But in the short run, I would have to say the military's. Although the military has no business in 'nation building' (per Col Harry Summers [ret] in his book "On Strategy 2") it is certainly the military's job to stop the bad guys from killing us. Sadly the devil is in the details. while in Army I was a part of Civil affairs as part of SOCOM at Bragg. SirDonOhio@yahoo.com

1. Terrorism by definition involves attacking civilian targets. Attacking soldiers is called war. Attacks by combatants who do not wear uniforms and melt into the civilian population is called guerrilla war. The bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut is something of an exception to these definitions, since they were in Lebanon as peacekeepers, not combatants.

2. Black September, which committed the Olympics massacre, was essentially a nationalist group. The PLO’s ideology itself owed more to pan-Arabism and Marxism than Islam, which only became important with the rise of Hamas and Islamic Jihad (patterned after the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt). The point is that the blanket term “terrorist” conceals a variety of ideologies, only some of which are radical Islamic.

3. The “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” argument strikes me as a dangerous misunderstanding of the current conflict. Terrorism is very cheap, in manpower and resources. Think of how little materially actually went into 9/11. While access to a state is valuable to terrorists, it is not vital, meaning that they do not have to actually hold territory. As such, they cannot be bogged down in the way a conventional military can. In Iraq, al Qaeda is not the major player, it has merely exacerbated existing sectarian divisions and then leveraged them to their advantage, much as they have done in places like Kashmir. The fact that we have not been hit again is probably less a result of Iraq than of the dismantling of al Qaeda’s upper leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the simple time it takes to plan an operation which would top 9/11, and the general rejection of jihadist ideology by most American Muslims (eliminating the type of homegrown threat faced by Europe and meaning all attacks have to be coordinated externally).

4. It seems to me the question of the comparative roles of military and law enforcement is misdirected in this essay. Will al Qaeda hit military targets within the U.S.? Possibly, they hit the U.S.S. Cole and the Pentagon. Their attacks in the U.S. seem to focus on spectacle, however, and, as the author suggests, military bases are difficult to hit.

5. But stating the question this way is beside the point. The military without question does have a limited role in fighting terrorism, such as driving al Qaeda from Afghanistan, and operating in places where law enforcement institutions do not extend, such as the Pakistani border. One can also imagine a scenario, for example, where Musharref fell and we might act to eliminate their nuclear arsenal to prevent it falling into jihadist hands. The major part of the war, however, is law enforcement. The major victories in this war, outside of Afghanistan, have been of this nature: the capture of Khalid Sheik Muhammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the prevention of the recent plot in London, etc. One commentator dismisses infiltrating terrorist cells (with the completely inapt comparison to the OK City bombing, which was not conducted by an orgnization but a small conspiracy) but that appears to have been exactly what was done in London. As many knowledgeable people have suggested, the frontline in this war is not Iraq, its Europe.

Your story will be mentioned in today's New Story Reveiw Thread. Thanks ~ Red

.............is this site really the place for an essay of this type? a lot of what you say is good: no question about that. you write ok, all the rest of that stuff. whether i agree with you or not, (and i do, 85%plus) is irrelevant here.

my question?

simple: is this the best place to put a piece on military philosophy and geopolitics that you have obviously thought about carefully?

there are other sites, blogs, etc where material of this type, stuff which needs to be said, would reach a wider readership, maybe have a greater impact.

this is not to say don't do it - just a suggestion that to do it as well as possible, it needs to be somewhere else as well.

best regards

If people haven't realized yet I write about any thing and everything on here. Yes there are probably better takes on terrorism. I wasn't getting political just trying to stress homeland defenses are basically useless against terrorism. Also this is the essay part of the site so I think pretty much anything goes as long as it is done in essay style. Heck I have a story where I am speaking from a mosquito's point of view so...I am just glad it spurred on so many comments. Nothing like getting people to think and respond! Now for the guy who called me a moron and the other one that said Micheal Moore is waiting for me...you obviously didn't read the bloody essay. I did not say the military was wrong or a bad thing. I support the military whole heartedly but the way we are going about protecting our countries needs to be revisited and changed. But do you all want to live in a country under military law...NOT ME!!!!!

Peace Out

Conventional military can stop terroism, but the political leaders do not have the stomach for what it would entail.

In order to stop the terroists, unfourtunatley, one must in some ways use their methods. Whenever a terroist is identified, that terroist, and all who support him,to include his familiy, must be killed. Ruthlessly killed. And everyone in the world must be shown that when you choose to take on the mantel of a terroist, you put no only yourself in harms way, but your loved ones.

As an example I use the German soldiers from WW II who fought against the insurgents in Vietnam for the French. While the French were getting ambushed constantly, the German convoys moved with relative impunity through the country. Why? Because where ever they traveled, civilians from that area rode in the convoy with them. There were cases of where guerillas would kill other guerillas who were trying to attack the convoy in order to save their loved ones. Barbaric? Yes. But effective!

As long as we follow modern rules of war against terroists who refuses too, we will loose. And this doensn't even get into the ACLU and liberals using the court system to stop effective counter measures and survellance systems. As the title of the post says, the modern military can stop terroism, but the civilian leadership, and the general public, does not have the stomach for it.

18 year Vet

with Satyricon, sorry. This place is just as relevent as any other, and maybe even moreso, for putting forth discussions such as this one. Look at who actually makes up the military and then tell me, once again, why thought-provoking pieces such as this one should not be submitted here.

I despise anybody who tries to stand up before the American public and say what is wrong with military actions who never once served in the military. Rhetoric is wonderful, and we get more than enough of that from a majority of Congresspersons who are ignorant of just what it is that a military action actually requires. And, unfortunately, it is these self-important ignorant blowhards who control the money and the press.

I think it is wonderful that a member of the Armed Forces can vent his frustrations in a forum such as this one. Just because we like to have a little bit of smut in our diet, it doesn't mean that we are incapable of looking at the rest of the world around us. Of course I don't necessarily agree with the majority of what you postulated in your essay, but I relish in the fact that, at least, you have the freedom to say what you want wherever you want to say it. Isn't that the important thing?

The 100 vote is because it is a well written and very thought out essay. I may not agree with all you say, but that does not affect my vote on your ability to write.

If as a military we can not defend our families, our country, and our constitution, we have failed in our duties, in our oaths. Hindsight is always 20/20, and we can look back saying how many warning signs we dismissed because who would have thought it would happen here. Such poor excuses for so many that perished. It wasn't an act of war, it was a terrorist using guerrilla warfare tactics to strike deep into their enemy, the Western World.

You offered a suggestion of infiltrating the terrorist groups, this has been tried, and has failed far more often than any one really wants to know. It was published that the reason for the great difficulty in infiltrating the various groups is because many are filled with family members and if you're not family, you are an outsider. If you didn't grow up with those family members you are an outsider, and getting into the core, doesn't happen.

You offered that the only way for a conventional military to be effective is to call for martial law, and put all 'hard targets' under military guard. You define hard targets as where family, kids, money, food and water, and entertainment is located. Try hospitals, or better still, drug companies, taint the meds, how many would you kill? Sewer treatment plants, release raw sewage into any area and look at how difficult to near impossible it is to remain in that area from the contamination effect. This is to just name a couple, and there is not enough military personnel in the world to provide any true effective means to protect all 'hard targets' from a determined terrorist.

I went through rigorous training in alternative or counter terrorism measures to fight a changing and highly evolving enemy. The conventional military is being replaced by smaller, more mobile, better Intel equipped units with the abilities that a formal military doesn't have. Only advantage of a conventional military, size. Since we are not fighting another military, our military has had to change, to keep up with and hopefully surpass our enemy to accomplish the true goal, and that is an end to certain terrorist groups, with the hope that the others will dissolve but we all know that won't happen. It takes a great deal of courage to stand up and say what is working and what isn’t working while in the military.

I can only hope that the future USA military, and members of all the World’s military’s are successful in defeating an enemy of the World that hides behind murdering any number of innocents just to kill one enemy if that, and call that murder something to be proud of. That is an enemy that little mercy should be shown to, and should be condemned at every point. At least with a conventional military, it is known that innocent persons killed are never something to be cheered for, and accepted, that to me is why terrorists will never win against a conventional military. That oath to protect our families, our country, and our constitution, terrorists don’t have that.

I'd like to throw out a couple of tidbits.

1. This is as good as place as any to discuss this topic. If you take a close look at the writers and readers on this site you will find a wide variety of political leanings, socio-economic backgrounds, and widely varied educational and geographic 'conditioning'.

2. My background is 82nd Airborne and 7th Division Headquarters in Bad Kreuznach, Germany.

3. The only way to 'effectively' fight terrorists is to become one. No question on that. Should we? That's the rub and I don't have an answer. For instance - if you could torture a known terrorist and stop a small nuclear incident at some random location (given this site I'd suggest Hollywood and Vine) - and save millions of lives ... should you? would you? This cuts to the core of of what freedom and democracy means. Think about it: is it right to save freedom and democracy by usings means and methods that curtail same? I'm coming from a starting point of being intimately familar with the rise and fall (and subsequent rise?) of the Senderos Luminosos in Peru.

4. If you want a blueprint for terrorist imapct forget about killing people: go after the infrastructure! If you want a scary experience read P. T. Deuterman's great book, "Train Man." For personal reasons a guy blows the key bridges across the Mississippi. Orders of magnitude worse than the damage from Katrina. Or think about waht a well placed explosion would do the the 'stack': the intersections of the "Hollywood", "Harbor", "Santa Ana", and "Arroyo Seco" freeways - four levels of chaos on normal days (ask any Angelino!)

5. A suggestion from a friend: take all the illegal immigrants and offer them provisional citizenship if they join the Army for two years. Bring the Guardsmen home to our families! Two years later these people become citizens, have been trained (possibly) in a trade and have learned English. My addon: open it up to the Peace Corps or other public works programs.

6. The bottom line is that the very qualities we treasure about our great country are our limitations in an unconvential war! How many power lines do we have in remote areas? How many water storage areas do we have? How vulnerable are we to gas availabity disruptions?

I don't have the answers to these and many more questions - unfortunately I see very few positive discussions either. I applaud dirtyjoe for initiating the discussion at this level at least!

Regards Jake

"By the end of this essay I will demonstrate why there is no relevance or value in not only conventional maritime forces but military forces period, when responding to a terrorist threat. I will do this by showing different possible scenarios of likely terrorist targets and how we as a "conventional military" become less than adequate."

+++++++++++++++++

Such statements alone --- I don't care how such twisted and small world view has been nurtured in mankind --- tells me the shallowness, the violent nature of people.

All people.

It never fails to surprise me how stupid and violent they are and yet their fingers are always pointing towards others being the vicious, violent, and evil ones!

The broadest rule of thumbs is this: Violence breed itself.

You don't get rid of violence by using ovewhelming violence and call it "just a way to get rid of violence once and for all."

that merely momentarily REPRESS a weaker opponent.

it is in the NATURE of a violent species like homo sapien --- the most vicious species EVER arisen on the scene in the last a couple hundred million years, even more vicious than mutating viruses and bacteria --- to NEVER WANTING to be dominated or suppressed forever.

military might (which America has more than any other nation, in proportion mightier than the Romans in comparison to her competitors during the Romans height) and clever state-sponsor violence (which America has engaged in in EVERY CONTINENT in the past 100 years) do not make all people scare into permanent silence.

SOME will always been foolhardy enough to RETALIATE in any means they have in their deep, homo sapien selves, who are, after all, a deep part of a violent homo sapien creature, just like Americans and any other past mighty people...

get some fuckin' minimal education going and stop spouting nonsense as righteous wisdom!

in the living hell has this got to do with erotica?

Go to the fucking RNC and expound on the wonderment of US shock and awe and the rest of us perverted fucks to ready nasty stories.

This is Literotica.com not Suck Bush< Rove, and Rumsfel'd cocks......

Joe,

I disagree with your previous Anonymous(I almost always disagree with someone who is not cleaver enough to create a handle for themselves). But this particular Anonymous I have to disagree with. Literotica is THE forum for individuals around the globe who have their minds open and their brains fully engaged.

The advice I would give you, Anonymous, besides giving yourself a name, is to suggest you stay away from the catagory: Essays.

It is not as if Literotica has any shortage of catagories. How about we leave this catagory for the readers looking for... a little bit more.

Vee Rich

Succinctly, if the country's citizens in large part resist your presence and haven't bought into your purpose it aint going to happen.

This situation is much worse in principal and facets than Vietnam. Old waring factions, oil, religious radicals and very rich nasty neighbors funding the bad guys.

Solution: Who knows - but until the highest percentage of the populace stands up for their freedom we are throwing money and lives down a bottomless hole and the military knows it. it should be clear the oil companies don't really care - they just mark up for their excessive net profits anyway. Smoke and mirrors folks.

We could have stayed in Vietnam forever - well until we went broke in money and lives.

This should have or should be brokered with the surrounding Arab nations and failing that agreement just get out.

When will we learn. Ugly americans? Perhaps just overly presumptous?

Why should we stay involve? It is not just a matter of hubris. There are serious considerations regarding an American withdrawal from Iraq. These are the choices we are left with by a president who celebrates his ignorance and a secretary of defense who believes that smarminess is the same thing as competance. The question the Left has to answer is: if we withdraw and the result is genocide and ethnic cleansing in the mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad (which has already begun), what moral resposibility do we have?

There are two choices are are better than all, consideration ANY choice is bad:

(1). Rather than withdrawing or withdrawing slowly and HOPE that the "Iraqi army/security force" is going to be able to "take over the job", instead, SEND IN 500,000 more troops, "whatever it takes," and TOTALLY OVERWHELMING --- or hope to --- all overt resistance groups.

Quickly erect another 500,000 to 1mil or so IRAQI military personnel and do DOOR TO DOOR gun collection.... NEITHER ASKING NOR GIVING answers to civil rights, penal rights, or military shit this or that.

TOTAL AND OUTRIGHT OCCUPATION, with MARSHAL LAW, with only ONE promise:

That when we are satisfied that we have collected all or most of the guns and have instituted solid enough a SYSTEM of government, with enough man power and financial resources (Iraq really does STILL have ENOUGH oil reserves to generate most of the FUNDS needed!, let's not be shy saying so at this point in this FUCKED UP situtaion, okay?), WE LEAVE.

We don't promise the Iraqis will dance for us, give us flowers, whatever. They HATE us, the majority of them, except Dick and Rumself are too stupid to know it, so the had the Pentagon and other folks manufacture propaganda about Iraqis liking us for going over to liberate them. Stupid, UGLY AMERICANS, these war-mongering idiots...

We simply promise, ourselves and all of Iraq, that with a $500 Billion a year Pentagon budget, that we can and WE WILL pacify a country the size of Iraq, now that we are involved and involved without the UN's blessing and so very few others except some 15,000 or so bloody Brits willing to stay there with us.

(1,000 Aussies and 50 Poles and 2 Tongas don't count!, that is, if we already have 150,000 American GI's there and we are still dying a few dozen each fucking month!)

Our Idiot of a president had already use a spineless Congress to STAMP his WAR act and had already committed close to 1 TRILLION dollars, all told, along with the lion share of our active military wings,,,, so HE doesn't need to ask Congress again to send in more troops. The idiot is going out of office in some 2 plus years, too, so there's NO FEAR he would or wouldn't not get elected again!

Fuck the Democrats, Republicans, or Conservatives who are not having second thoughts.

(I am a happy, non violent Liberal, by the way. I don't own gun; don't know any thing about guns. Bush, to me, is a complete moron. But he IS the president and can and does order America's $500 billion War machine around, put them in any where around the world, so long as he can stupidly claim it is a "national security interest" issue.... Dickhead likely never took any world history class, logic, or political science,,, but his dad's an intelligent intelligence man so the dickhead --- though NEVER THE BRIGHTEST nor most "meritocratic"/deserving to be where he is --- found himself America's president,,, so let's not give him a hard time about it!)

Or,

(2). We get the hell out of there and say, honestly, "We fucked up and we don't really care. This is a religious and tribal society, UNLIKE Germany and Japan and South Korea, where we hoped to and did make successful democracies out of,,,," Lick our wounds and bury our less than 3,000 military deaths.

SHIFT our man-hunt for Osama and others WHEREVER THEY ARE, without wasting 150,000 locked up in the Desert of Iraq, doing nothing but fortifying ourselves in military zones with mountains of concrete to prevent drivers from driving cars and trucks with bombs in them through.... Where EVERY TIME we go into any district in Baghdad, we MUST fly half a dozen or so Apache and go in half a dozen or so armor tanks and can't even stop anywhere more than a few hours without FEAR that some bombs gonna get us, from some angle!

Saddam IS/was a very evil man, but he NEVER invaded America or killed Americans. Rumsfeld and Dole went and SHOOK his hands, smilingly in the 1980s. So don't give me crap about America saving the Iraqis from a dictator. There are doznes of dictators like Saddam and there are at least half a dozen of them WORSE than Saddam in the world today. We DO NOT have any moral, ethical, juridical or political right to dismantle their dictatorship...

By the way, for the really, really stupid: the way to stop terror or "terrorism" is to NOT create them in the first place. Don't go throwing rocks at wasps --- who are naturally protective of their territories and especially of their nests! --- and then when you get stung, cry moral outrage, demdanding that all wasps and other stinging insects be wiped out of the face of the earth!

You are a great liberal, but it scares me that you might be military as you claim. Your kind of mindset will always lead to terror acts being committed and then responded to.

But you overlook the obvious as you push what I have to assume is your liberal agenda. You fail to consider both ability and opportunity on the part of all terrorists. By hitting them hard in their safe havens, we have deflated their balloons in every other location where they are either active or sleeping. Their leadership is in shambles because we have taken the fight to them.

Anyone who still claims Iraq was not a legitimate terrorist haven for us to attack is simply brain dead. Hussein was actively supporting terrorists in many different ways, from direct aid in Iraq to paying the families of homicide bombers (which encouraged others to take up the Jihad so their families would become rich overnite as well).

Our offensive war has either removed or severely reduced both opportunity and ability on the part of the terrorist. Why hasn't a terrorist already taken out a cruise ship? Or sent a suicide bomber into a shopping mall? Or flown an airplane into a big building? They no longer have the ability to do so, that's why. And the anti-terrorist forces working for us have also removed their opportunities, not so much by hardening soft targets as by identification of potential terror cells, active surveillance and intervention of plots.

There was no viable response other than exactly what Bush did. He wacked Afganistan and ended the terror training. He wacked Sadam's kingdom and took away a major source of support. And we no longer have to worry about wacking Libia because that asshole saw the writing on the wall and caved.

The bigger question is Iran. Does anyone honestly believe that, if Iran gets a nuke, they will not use it? If they do, then they are also brain dead.

Author, you are stuck solidly on stupid. Get your head out of your ass and look at the bigger picture. Ask yourself why we have not been hit since 9/11? The answer is staring you right in the face, and it is called offense, not defense.

Len Bee

A United States Marine boards an aircraft in Bagdad.

At the window seat is an Arab, as is the one in the middle seat.

The Marine settles in and promptly takes of his shoes and gets comfortable.

The Arab at the window says, “excuse me, I would like to get up and get a Coke.”

The polite Marine says, “Please, stay seated I will get one for you.”

As the Marine leaves, the Arab picks up his shoe and spits into it.

The Marine returns with a Coke.

The second Arab says, “excuse me, I would also like to get up and get a Coke.”

The polite Marine again says, “Please, stay seated I will get one for you.”

As the Marine leaves, the second Arab picks up his other shoe and spits into it.

The Marine returns with a Coke.

As they prepare to land the Marine puts on his shoes, and realizes what has happened to his shoes.

He starts a conversation to the effect of.

“I can’t understand this animosity between our people. This total non acceptance of different cultures has to stop. How can we ever achieve a peace, with this spitting in shoes and pissing in Cokes going on.”

I'll go with your suggestion. After WWII Phillipinos (spelling?) served honorably in the U.S. military in many catagories. Sadly, many were initially relegated to the stewards in the U.S. Navy, but served honorably, and, at least as far as I was concerned, with distinction. Subsequently, many have served with distinction in all areas of the armed services.

Allowing others to serve, in the military, or in other service orginzations such as the Peace Corp is an elegant solution and should be explored further. I commend you for the idea. If I had it in my power, I would award you some kind of commendation.

My hat is off to you. You truly do think outside of the box, and as a man (or woman) of distinction.

Marc

"As a member of the military I expect to be in the line of danger . . .

If anyone thought other wise it would be like becoming a firefighter and thinking you would never have to go into a burning building."--True, but some people can get caught up in the patriot feeling without knowing where they really stand. Though, I couldn't imagine anyone signing up for something they didn't truly believe in, but some do it for the supposed "perks".

You make many good points though. Sadly, terrorism will probably always exist, unless...we eventually find an enemy who is even stronger than terrorism which would cause us to stop our petty bickering (well that's what I call it). After all, unite nations under the banner of a common enemy, and suddenly you have a little more team work, there will always be some prejudice, but the real goals should be get along where you can at least live together, without the need to wipe each other out (it shouldn't be cromagnon versus neaderthal , and what's more it shouldn't matter, both groups were needed for evolution, it's just the cromag, didn't want competition, when you think about it alot of silly things are done because of vanity or ego).

For me about the only thing really worth fighting for besides family or friends and freedom,the only true thing worth fighting for is love, and protecting the innocent or disabled, though everyone deserves some amount of protection, not just special interests.

You say: "Is it sad if a member of our military family dies in action? Of course it is horrible, but the day "said" member jotted their name on the line they knew what could happen."

Why is "'said'" in quotations? Are you implying that it is not really the same member who signed their name that is dying? This makes the whole military thing far more terrifying.