Hi Sig; Re: "I may have reached agreement with Bilow, for the first time ever. Perhaps policemen can handle the terrorist problems, and we can eliminate much of the military."
I've never said that we can eliminate much of the military. As such, your implication that you have reached agreement with me on this subject is just another lie. It's clear to me that you're shameless.
By the way, if you're being sarcastic about the inadequate weapons of the police, you're failing to take into account that even US police are much better armed than any terrorist group that has ever set foot in this country.
Using the military against terrorists armed with box cutting knives is like trying to use a sledgehammer to stop a fly problem. All you end up doing is wrecking your house and ending up with a worse problem. If you have a war, you use the military. If you have a fly, you use a fly swatter. What do you want the military to do, use helicopter gunships in New York? That would be an Israeli solution.
And getting back to the discussion of whether the terrorist acts against us were an act of war or a crime, I note that the Bush administration itself treated the scenes as "crime scenes". Similarly, the insurance companies treated it as a crime, and therefore covered by insurance, rather than an act of war, and therefore not covered.
-- Carl |
