It's still possible that a smashing, quick, complete and overwhelming military victory will spare us the necessity of becoming a police state.
That kind of victory would likely so discredit Islamic fundamentalism and validate the modern world that its adherants would no longer be welcome in their own communities.
It's still possible that a smashing, quick, complete and overwhelming military victory will spare us the necessity of becoming a police state. That kind of victory would likely so discredit Islamic fundamentalism and validate the modern world that its adherants would no longer be welcome in their own communities. I, too, think that a decisive military strike against the locations of the terrorists encompassing most of the nations surrounding those locations is the minimum required. Only that will give even the minimum assurance we need that we can stop terrorism.
Massive military strikes (like, say, carpet bombing) would hopefully whack out many or most of the terrorists. MORE importantly, the terrorists and their friends and families and government would be UNABLE to be in the terrorist business for the rest of their lifetimes, because they would be too busy trying to build shelters and obtain food.
That neutralizes the offshore threats. THEN, we have to contend with the cells among us...
I'm sure as heck not a liberal but the talk in this thread of fighting Islam is a huge mistake. B.Laden wants us to attack mainstream Islam. Laden's approach counts on us to push mainstream Moslems his way and you guys are doing his bidding. I loathe Bin Laden but have to say his realpolitik touch is better than the thinking I'm seeing here. Disheartening.