No, the secret to success is seeing the best option for what it is while it still exists.

Often the best option is long gone by the time it is realised (if it ever is) how good an option it was.

Case in point; Germany could have attacked Russia in 1905 but never seriously considered doing the only thing that could have given them victory.
Addressing the Obama nuke nuclear power stations could have been attacked.

Your question needs no answer - Kind of obvious no?

But Dr. Vomacts point remains valid, although I sincerely wish he had used the Name Chicago, instead of Manhattan.

But I ask, if Osama did blow up East 7th Street, would America surrender?

Whereas there was a measurable chance of losing either WWII or the Cold War. And there lies the point. Osama is just a terrorist, not capable of taking over a City Block anywere in America, Even if America had No armed forces and No police. That he is thinking in terms of the Second (Third, Fourth?) Caliphite is simply part of his delusion of grandeur.

Nor is it meaningful to point out that we don’t measure evil by the success of evil. Saddam WAS a bad man. Saddam Did deserve to hang. Hitler? Stalin? Without wishing to haggle over the numbers there’s a good chance we are responsible for the death of more Iraqi’s then he was.

And yes, it’s obvious also that we DO care. Why else are we discussing this? It seems to me the success in deminising our enemies into the entire Muslim religion has unhinged some Americans, who in their fear are prepared to murder millions of people. Of course, they are a small minoirity.

Dave

[CR: Suppose Osama had a nuclear device. Would he have used it on 9/11?]

That’s an interesting question. You seem to be thinking that there is a sort of historical Damage Club. Anyone who aspires to membership must have a very large damage total—specifically, killed a huge number of people and broken a large number of things. You seem to think that Hitler and Stalin are top-rankers in the DC for this reason, and that if some schmoe were to get his mitts on a nuke and blows up Manhattan, then he goes right to the top of the list.

Sure, we could look at things that way. But I humbly submit that this is not an illuminating perspective. Hitler and Stalin were key figures in 20th Century history. They achieved their status (yes, even the demons in Hell have rank) not merely by killing people, but by making them do their will. Hitler and Stalin enslaved millions; they turned entire peoples against one another; they twisted the course of history to their terrible will—making the world a much worse place than it had been. How is it in any way helpful to compare these two to the guy who (hypothetically) blew up New York? I guess one could call this the “body count” school of history. As for Saddam Hussein…I can only assume that you weren’t being serious when you mentioned that little pissant in the same sentence, Chet.

[CR: Saddam did the best he could with what he had -- attacking Iran and then Kuwait; gassing Kurds; destroying the ecosystem of the marshes (a crime against humanity for which he richly deserved to swing at the end of a rope). Can't blame the guy for not having the Wehrmacht at his disposal. You didn't answer my question, by the way, so let me state it more simply for you: If Osama gets his hands on a device, will he use it?]

[CR: Suppose Osama had a nuclear device. Would he have used it on 9/11?]

I’m really begining to wonder about that.

Individualy most Americans have a moral
compass, a concience, and can be trusted.

Collectively, it’s another story though,
all together.(pun)

Now, if you want to cling to the notion that
the agenda has been hijacked, that raises
serious issues about individual responsibility.

Not withstanding the US Constitution, it
turns out we’re not so different from
other cultures based on ideology who imagined themselves to be moraly superior, throughout history that have taken a bad turn, most of which
ended in oblivion.

Behond the moral premis,
The argument against the indescriminate infliction of collateral and non-combatant casualties is quite practical !

That is for every non-comp. you kill, there’s
a brother, son, daughter, sister, neice, nefrew, cousin, uncle, friends, etc, who are now your sworn enemies for life.

As we experienced in Vietnam, and more-so in the middle east, these pepole will now stop at nothing,
and pay any price, make any sacrifice, to get back at us.

I find it utterly astonishing, how increadibly inane to the concept so very many Americans apparently are, and incapable of putting themselves in the reciprocal situation.

If 9-11 demonstrated anything, it’s when simiarly agreived, how far we’ll go, in getting “even” even if it’s clearly not in our best interests.

Now Here’s a perfect example right here.
What re-procussions can you imagine ?
Look for continued American & NATO casualties
in the coming weeks.

This cycle will never end,
and we will never decisively prevail.
M

http://tiny.cc/3Cf53
http://tiny.cc/I8ExS

Only because of our rules of engagement. If we did not care about collateral damge the Shia militias would be no threat to us at all.

I usually start from the assumption that the American elites will quickly notice several big crises and break many laws covering them up. E.g., if hyperinflation is the first crisis, I consider what would happen if the Federal Reserve noticed hyperinflation and committed massive acts of forgery in order to cover up illegal banking acts that would hide the situation temporarily. Then I try to extrapolate from history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerce_International
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_scandal