Say Anything Blog

The Rand Report appears to promote talking and persuasion as useful instruments in addressing terror.  Have you grown soft on fighting the jihadists and is that why you’re advocating such Chamberlainish methods?

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

They advocate refuting jihadist ideology as a long term strategy; no diplomacy involved.  In the meantime, it is necessary to continue to wipe them out militarily.  When the ideological war kills the roots of terrorism, then the military part of the operation will no longer be necessary.  First things first.  I suppose you would run away from the terrorists, while trying to convince them that their ideology is flawed.  That just won’t work.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

MikeA, Chamberlain would probably have advocated engaging the terrorists in diplomacy and negotiation. 

That is not what the Rand Corp is proposing at all. 

What they propose doing is the equivalent to discrediting the Nazi ideology with the German people. 

Chamberlain no doubt pretended that there was anything consistent or cohesive about Nazism, just as he would no doubt pretend that radical Islam is anything other than disjointed nonsense.

Chamberlain wanted to appease Hitler; the RAND corp wants to destroy radical jihadism by revealing its flaws; no comparison whatsoever.  Sorry, Mike, you missed completely on this one.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I suppose you would run away from the terrorists, while trying to convince them that their ideology is flawed.

Enough of the personal attacks. I never said anything about running so you’ve invented that all on your own. You should address my comments which did not include “diplomacy” by the way...yet another of your haughty personal jabs I note. The Rand Corp. is advocating talking and persuasion as part of a prudent strategy in defeating the terrorists. I happen to think this is a good idea but I have been ridiculed for this position in the past and I’m curious why you would even entertain their idea.

Carrick...you are right about Chamberlain. My comment is related to a discussion on another thread and I think the Rand’s thinking is bang on.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

The Rand Corp. is advocating talking and persuasion as part of a prudent strategy in defeating the terrorists. I happen to think this is a good idea but I have been ridiculed for this position in the past and I’m curious why you would even entertain their idea.

Mike, I’ve criticized you in the past for this because a) all you advocate is diplomacy and b) you never offer an alternative for our current situation.

I just don’t see how you expect to win anyone over to your way of thinking when you can’t offer any alternatives to the current plan and all you offer is diplomacy.  Iraq thumbed its nose at diplomacy for over two decades.  How many UN resolutions was it?  15 or so?

Diplomacy only works when there are no consequences, and you never seem willing to make those consequences a reality.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

MikeA: You are right; it was wrong of me to put words in your mouth.  I apologize.
Part and parcel of the RAND call for destroying jihadist ideology(not “talking and persuasion” as you said), is a strong military response to their murderous terrorism all over the world.  If we are weak in that, why should they respect us at all, including what we have to say about jihad?
Now, when you wrote: 

Have you grown soft on fighting the jihadists and is that why you’re advocating such Chamberlainish methods?

You know that I have not “grown soft on fighting the jihadists”, nor am I “advocating such Chamberlainish methods”, so you must simply be putting words in my mouth, right?  Why did you do that?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

From the article I posted:

The study’s authors recommended the Bush administration expand “decapitation strategies” to include ideologues, holding up as examples decisions by British and Indonesian authorities to either jail or deport hard-line Muslim clerics. “Preventing Al Qaeda’s ideological mentors from continuing to provide theological justification for terrorism could expedite the movement’s ideological deterioration,” they concluded.

Does this really sound like “talking and persuasion” to you, Mike?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Yes it does...it is a different approach than the purely military solution suggested by some here and definitely not the kind of appeasement that some feel I am advocating. I’ve always maintained that the military card needs to be played when circumstances warrant but the more often it’s played the less useful it becomes.

Rob...I talk about diplomacy so much because there are so few others suggesting it here. I’ve always maintained the necessity for military action when circumstances dictate...Iraq is the prime example of a military approach completely mucking things up so it is important to apply a variety of solutions and solutions appropriate to the problem.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Unlike our leftist brethren who are oddly inclined to call themselves “Democrats,” conservatives actually encourage free thinking and a diversity of ideas, rather than a mere mouthing of this week’s designated buzz-words.

So it is that Barbara Lerner takes issue with the editors of National Review, the premier conservative magazine, and their recent editorial assessment of the tenure of Security of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his policies regarding the war in Iraq, and those very same editors are then pleased to publish her rebuke.

As Lerner notes,

… the basic objective in counterinsurgency warfare in any country is to provide security to the population. We have been trying to do that in Iraq with something like 130,000 - 160,000 troops for over three years now, and we haven’t succeeded.

Ms. Lerner’s contrarian view is that Rumsfeld has always seen the Iraq war, and the current “insurgency” not as a separate and specific engagement, but as part of a larger, regional conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran,

…a war that Iran, aided and abetted by its client-state, Syria, and its proxy army, Hezbollah, is waging against us…

(In this context) the war in Iraq, as President Bush has thus far insisted on defining and fighting it, ends up being for Iran an all-gain, no-pain proxy war — a war in which Iran can insure our eventual defeat in Iraq, without paying any real price for it, by continuing to refuel both the insurgency and the civil war there for as long as it takes to get us to give up. How this is done is no secret: Iran sends a never-ending supply of money, men, and weapons to Sunni as well as Shia terrorists inside Iraq, and gives them all a safe-haven network of extra-territorial training and supply bases — some on Iranian soil, others just across the border in Syria.

If this is in fact Mr. Rumsfeld’s view, and that view is correct, then throwing more troops at the Iraqi “insurgency” is indeed pointless… even counterproductive.  As Lerner observes,

We would still be fighting a basically defensive war, and doing it in a way that would greatly increase the cost to us, in money and perhaps in blood as well, without dealing with the most intractable of the many problems we face in Iraq: the Iranian offensive. From this perspective, it makes much more sense to send American planes, warships, and missiles to strike Iran hard enough to cripple its regime’s ability to make war on us — in Iraq or anywhere else — with either the conventional weapons they already have or the nuclear weapons they are racing to produce.

Personally, I am convinced that Donald Rumsfeld’s view is as Barbara Lerner describes it, and more importantly, that this is the only strategically and tactically correct assessment of the situation in Iraq and in the greater context of the Middle East and South Asia.

There are those who continue to call for a more refined and nuanced approach to the War on Islamist terrorism.  More understanding and negotiation, and less violence.  Their pleas are all but barren of even the most modest details, however.  With whom would we negotiate?  Under what auspices?  And most importantly, as negotiation is by definition, the art of compromise and accommodation, what should we be prepared to concede and what should we be prepared to accept in return?  These are not rhetorical questions, but issues that should clearly be resolved before entering into any sort of negotiation.

If Ms. Lerener, and the Islamist terrorists who have themselves are correct in what they have told us, we are in for a very long and arduous struggle. (To his credit, President Bush has, thus far at least, tenuously held to the same view.)

If we are unwilling or incapable of dealing effectively with but one aspect of that struggle, Iraq, lacking either the insight or the fortitude necessary, then we are ultimately doomed, and mankind’s “last best chance” has been frittered away in a tedious fit of leftist-induced, effete, self-indulgence.

I’ve always maintained that the military card needs to be played when circumstances warrant but the more often it’s played the less useful it becomes.

Agree with the first part, and now is the time.  Disagree with the second part, and here’s why: Continuing victories enhance the playing of the military card.  One defeat, like Vietnam, has cost us dearly in the effectiveness of our military card, and a victory in Iraq will bring back much of the luster.  You never noticed that our loss in Vietnam hurt our military reputation?

I talk about diplomacy so much because there are so few others suggesting it here.

I would think that using diplomacy would be because it is seen as being the most effective solution, not because “there are so few suggesting it”.  After all, as you point out, it was Chamberlain’s choice, and we all know how well that worked out!  /sarcasm

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...I don’t know why you can’t get that diplomacy does not equal appeasement or acquiescence. As for matters military, it’s best that we don’t discuss them as you think you’re winning in Iraq and I’m liable to pop another gasket.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

I don’t know why you can’t get that diplomacy does not equal appeasement or acquiescence.

For diplomacy to work, both sides must be willing to comprimise.

As the enemy wants us to be destroyed and we wont let them, there is no middle ground.  Thus diplomacy can only lead to surrender and defeat.

I agree with this report.  But you know the libs will decry any effort to silence Islamic fascists under the guise of freedom of speech.  It’s going to take solid, clear leadership to pull this off.  I don’t think we have it right now.

r108...I don’t know why you can’t get that diplomacy does not equal appeasement or acquiescence. As for matters military, it’s best that we don’t discuss them as you think you’re winning in Iraq and I’m liable to pop another gasket.

Sorry about your gasket, but it’s true; I have a post on the reader blogs about how we are winning in Ramadhi.  Read it at your peril, I guess.
As far as diplomacy is concerned, you are again putting words in my mouth; I never said it equals either appeasement or acquiescence.  Diplomacy, combined with military victory, is the essence of real change.  Diplomacy without military victory has a very poor record in world history.  In dealing with radical Islam, diplomacy without military victory is regarded as cowardice by them, as was illustrated by OBL’s writings about Somalia, for instance.  I think you can reason only with reasonable people.  Ghandi said that his method only worked because he was dealing with Great Britain, and I agree with him.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

free said

For diplomacy to work, both sides must be willing to comprimise.

The thought occurs to me that some think I’m talking about negotiating directly with the terrorist groups. When I’m talking about diplomatic avenues I am referring to dialogue with parties in a position to influence the operation and particularly the recruitment activities of the terrorist groups. It is this type of discussion with the Iranians and the Saudis and others that must happen in order to beat the terrorists...there may be military operations to undertake as well although hopefully nothing as wrong headed or half baked as Iraq.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

When I’m talking about diplomatic avenues I am referring to dialogue with parties in a position to influence the operation and particularly the recruitment activities of the terrorist groups. It is this type of discussion with the Iranians and the Saudis and others that must happen in order to beat the terrorists...there may be military operations to undertake as well although hopefully nothing as wrong headed or half baked as Iraq.

That would take more regime changes, and I think that doctrine has run its course for now.

The United States could discredit Al Qaeda in the Muslim world by challenging its violent Islamist ideology and muzzling its leading proponents…

“If the ideology is countered and discredited, Al Qaeda and its universe will wither and die,”

You still think RAND is suggesting “talking and persuasion”, Mike?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

MikeA: Despite your mischaracterizations, I have never advocated “a purely military strategy” against terrorism.  In the same way that our illegal immigration problem needs border enforcement as the first step, we must establish withing the terrorist mind that we can defeat them any time we choose; then diplomacy(or a guest worker program) has real meaning.  Without establishing our power in the situation, diplomacy(or amnesty) is simply a sign of weakness.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Nice try, Mike, but they would never respect us if we had to work through “intermediaries”.  Besides, we are winning in Iraq; check out what is happening in Ramadhi.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

You still think RAND is suggesting “talking and persuasion”, Mike?

Yes.

Nice try, Mike, but they would never respect us if we had to work through “intermediaries”.

I couldn’t care less if you earn the terrorists’ respect or not. What is important is that the people of the Middle east believe that the terrorists are not working in their best interest and the best way to accomplish that is to extinguish the reasons for supporting the jihadists...demonstrate that the West’s interests are not inimical to them and allow them political choices other than the status quo.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Uh… Mike.  So who exactly are we going to negotiate with?  And what are we going to discuss?  And what should we be prepared to give up (surrender?) in exchange for what promises or assurances?  And whose assurances are we to rely on or trust?  And why?

The best estimates to date are that there are somewhere around 2 billion Muslims in the world, and that somewhere between 10 and 25% of them support the Islamist terrorists.  Rough numbers all, to be sure, but what I find compelling is the relative silence of the other 75 to 90% of the world’s Muslim population.

Mike, the basis for all this virulence is not nationalism, nor is it a matter of race or ethnicity.  Its Islam.  Pure and simple.  Those who fought the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan included Muslims from South Asia, the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, Chechnya and the Central Asian plateau, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and the Balkans.  There are known Islamist terror organizations or cells in each of those areas, plus the South Asian/Malaysian archipelago, the Philippine Islands, central Africa, Europe, and reportedly South America as well.  And let us not forget those who are likely here in the US.

So who exactly were we supposed to negotiate with, again?

Mike, the basis for all this virulence is not nationalism, nor is it a
matter of race or ethnicity.  Its Islam.  Pure and simple.

I don’t think so at least not in the sense that it is Islam itself that poses the threat. There is no doubt though that the Wahabi variant of Islam has captured the fancy of those who feel unfulfilled in their present lives and with their place in the world. Because this fundamentalist strain is so out of place with mainstream Islam I wonder if another outlet wouldn’t have sufficed if Wahhabism had never developed.

It all has a very Leninist vibe to me as well. It’s a vanguard leading the unenlightened for their own supposed good. It’s not a sufficient condition but it is necessary to bring the Saudis and the Gulf states to account for their financial support of jihadism and for the informal agrrements they have made with the terrorists to operate outside of those countries. As I’ve already said, the people must be given real alternatives other than the terrorists...that and to co-opt groups like Hezbollah and Hamas which are already real parts of the political landscape in Lebanon and Palestine are logical diplomatic initiatives to be undertaken in the future.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Islam, even among organized religions, is particularly totalitarian.  It is really that part about “kill all the infidels” that is the convenient hook for the extremists.
Without the sure knowledge that we can defeat them militarily and economically(my vote for best bet), they will just keep coming, and no amount of diplomacy will do any good.  However, if we bring them to their knees militarily and economically, then diplomacy will be just the thing.  They will have to deal with us.
In poker terms, Mike, you want to bluff with a potential straight, while I want to be holding four aces.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

In poker terms, Mike, you want to bluff with a potential straight, while I want to be holding four aces.

I honestly don’t see how your analogy applies but I believe we have both acknowledged that military and diplomatic approaches have their uses.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

I honestly don’t see how your analogy applies but I believe we have both acknowledged that military and diplomatic approaches have their uses.

I have said straight out that effective diplomacy flows from first having established military dominance, especially with insane terrorists.  First military dominance, then diplomacy.  The poker analogy should be clear, but here it is:  You want to bluff, which is pretending to be strong without actually having good cards to play; I want to have the strongest possible hand first.  Understand?
If your bluff fails, we get overrun; if my diplomacy fails, we still win with military power.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...that’s fine when there’s a military solution and I suppose there always is one to a romantic spirit like yourself. Using your poker analogy, the problem becomes clear when you finally realise that you simply don’t hold the cards to win.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeA: In case you haven’t noticed, we do hold the cards, militarily and economically.  We just have to have the resolve to play them.  Once again, you make some ridiculous personal reference instead of reasoned debate.  Those that hate the US do so because we are so wealthy and powerful.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...I haven’t noticed that you hold the cards. If I knew that you did or even thought that you probably did then I wouldn’t be raising my objections.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeA: Maybe you don’t agree that the US is the most powerful military force on Earth, and is also the wealthiest country on Earth.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...I agree that America is both but I also believe that the world is much more complex than you imagine. Times change and we change with them or we get left behind...it turns out that the sun did set on the British Empire for example.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

it turns out that the sun did set on the British Empire for example.

The great example of the folly of colonialism.  It’s economically unfeasible.  That has nothing to do with US foreign policy, though.

r108...I agree that America is both but I also believe that the world is much more complex than you imagine.

Yet another inaccurate and irrelevant personal reference.  You just can’t stop, can you?
You have absolutely no idea of what I imagine, or know.  What is the point of making such a statement?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

...the problem becomes clear when you finally realise that you simply don’t hold the cards to win.

MikeA,

As always, when you start with the wrong problem, you’re sure to come up with the wrong solution.  The problem is not an inability to win.  The cards we hold include more than sufficient firepower to run the table.  The problem, thanks in no small part to folks like you, is a reluctance to keep in mind the entire evening’s poker and all of those at the table (to continue the analogy), and focus instead on but one hand and one opponent.

Those who carp incessantly about dialogue and negotiation, yourself included, are strangely silent when questions of specifics arise, such as I have asked of you before.

There is apparently no credible forum for the actions you blithely suggest.  No auspices worthy of the task.  Nor have you answered who specifically we should be talking to, what goals such negotiations should be focused on, what concessions we should be prepared to offer, or what assurances we should accept in return.  Most importantly, you have yet to designate who would be capable of insuring the sustained viability of any of the agreements you find so appealing, or why we would accept any sort of proposal, from those whose most fervent religious convictions include our death and destruction or those of our allies.

I said

r108...I agree that America is both but I also believe that the world is much more complex than you imagine.

r108 responds

Yet another inaccurate and irrelevant personal reference.  You just can’t stop, can you?
You have absolutely no idea of what I imagine, or know.  What is the point of making such a statement?

It’s called conversation and it happens everywhere every day. If I call you a dolt then I have engaged in personal attack. If I say that your points are typical of right wing idiots then I have engaged in personal attack combined with political generalisation. If you perceive my comment as a personal attack then perhaps you need to grow a thicker skin.

Bat One...your observation regarding lack of detail is unfortunately accurate. If the terrorists are to be defeated then the enemies of the terrorists in the Middle east are going to have to get on board. I am thinking here of the Saudis, the Gulf states, the Pakistanis...these are examples of states where the primary financial, recruiting and moral support can be found. These are examples of people I would talk with. If I had a more detailed or complete plan then I would be rich so I fly by the seat of my pants like most of us.

Who do you think should be the recipient of our military might? The Iraq experiment is not faring well and I’m not sure whether you’re advocating taking out the whole region or countries you feel support terror or don’t worry about the countries and just get the terrorists where ever they are? I know I sound flippant but I’m constantly asked for specifics of a diplomatic plan and I’m not sure how developed your military plan is. How do we stamp out the terrorists militarily?

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeA: Trying to denigrate my thought processes by saying that the world is much more complex than I imagine is a personal attack, and is irrelevant to this discussion.  If you don’t like my conclusions, that is your right, but to imply that my thinking is inadquate to the task is personal attack.  Most often I find that if someone has reached what I regard as a wrong conclusion, it is caused by erroneous premises, not a personal deficiency.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...I’m dubious but I’ll try to do my part.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Mike, who, specifically, are you saying we should negotiate with. Name them. Including nationality.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

MikeA.,

I appreciate your brief reply.  If you are genuinely serious about a list of those with whom we should be talking and negotiating, here’s one less to worry about.  Compliments of those who would destroy us, and Israel, and all of western civilization as well. 

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Pierre Gemayel, an anti-Syrian politician and scion of Lebanon’s most prominent Christian family, was gunned down Tuesday in a carefully orchestrated assassination that heightened tensions between the U.S.-backed government and the militant Hezbollah.

Anti-Syrian politicians quickly accused Damascus, as they have in previous assassinations of Lebanese opponents of its larger neighbor. Gemayel, 34, an outspoken opponent of the Syrian-allied Hezbollah, was the fifth anti-Syrian figure killed in the past two years and the first member of the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora to be slain…

The assassination, in Gemayel’s mainly Christian constituency of Jdeideh, threatens further instability in Lebanon at a time when Hezbollah and other parties allied with Syria are planning street protests unless Saniora gives them more power.

The Iranian/Syrian/Hezbollah axis is trying to undermine the freely elected government of Lebanon to use that country as a base for further attacks on Israel, and I cannot for the life of me imagine that the discussions and negotiations you find so appealing as an alternative the brutal application of military force would in any way dissuade those who murder innocents, whether those innocents are Lebanese, Israelis, Iraqis, Americans, Australian tourists in Bali, etc., etc.

Besides, whatever makes you think that we are not talking to the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the Afghans, the Uzbekis, Egyptians, Filipinos, Malaysians, Indonesians, Turks, Jordanians, Indians, et al?  The problem isn’t that we aren’t talking earnestly with them.  The problem is that you keep addressing the wrong problem and thus continue to come up with the wrong solution.

MikeA: I guess the difference between us is that I believe the terrorist leaders when they say they want to wipe Israel off the map and blow up the White House.  This doesn’t sound reasonable to me, and I think it’s crazy to try any sort of diplomacy with people who hold those views.  I am guessing that you don’t believe them, and that is the difference.
BTW, when I say “terrorist leaders”, I mean all those who speak for the terrorist cause of destroying the West, be they titled officials, like Mahmoud and Hugo, or simply unwashed leaders of terrorist groups.  I see no real difference between them.  They are united in their cause to destroy/subjugate us.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Yes it does...it is a different approach than the purely military solution suggested by some here and definitely not the kind of appeasement that some feel I am advocating. I’ve always maintained that the military card needs to be played when circumstances warrant but the more often it’s played the less useful it becomes.

Hijacking planes and Blowing up building would probably warrent military action in my opinion.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World