[at-l] (Guest Post) 2002 hiking

[garyticknor@starpower.net (Gary Ticknor)]

ONLY BARELY ON TOPIC

Surely you're not seriously suggesting that this "war" is more difficult than the
Revolutionary War, which had we lost we wouldn't exist? Or the War Between the
States? Or WWII? Do you really think we are in danger of actually being conquered
and occupied by terrorists?

Again, a sense of proportion, please. I have heard this situation compared more to
the British Empire's campaign against piracy in the 19th century. I wonder how long
it took to lose 7000 (I heard more like 5,500 on 9/11, still a lot) to piracy.

This is not a war - more of a police action. Wars are fought against nations (only
one country  even recognizes the Taliban as a government). These people are
terrorists, criminals. Like pirates were criminals. Big scale criminals, but
criminals nonetheless, not a nation.

Yes, this will be long drawn out, like the "war" on crime, or the "war" on drugs,
or the "wars" on poverty or illiteracy. These also were not wars. Crime, drugs,
poverty, illiteracy, and yes, terrorism are facts of life. And none of these should
interfere with hiking, which is what started this thread.

- Gary from Fairfax, not much prone to hysteria

Bob Cummings wrote:

> "...If this is a big war, what was World War II? Or World War I? Let's keep a
> sense of proportion, here."
>
>  I hope Gary's right. But we lost 7,000 civilians in the first skirmish. Unlike
>  the wars Gary cites, I suspect civilians will be the primary victims this time
>  -- civilians and the freedom to move freely and fearlessly about the country.
>
>  Regardless of the size, it surely is the most difficult war we have ever
>  attempted.
>
>  Weary