RE: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors PleaseStand Up?

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Mon, 15 May 2006, StyleWar wrote:

>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org 
> > [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On Behalf Of Drsolly
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:28 PM
> > To: funsec () linuxbox org
> > Subject: RE: [funsec] RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real 
> > Traitors PleaseStand Up?
> >
> > If it were a war, then we wouldn't be trading with the enemy.
>
> Agreed for the most part... but this is a war unlike any other ever fought
> before.

Yes - as are all wars. But this is the first shooting war I can think 
of, where trading with the enemy is permitted, perhaps even encouraged.
  
> > If it were a war, we'd have conscription.
>
> I guess the Gulf War Vets should turn in their medals then... they were all
> volunteers, who fought in a war that by your definition, wasn't a war...

You can have wars with volunteer armies - we did that in the Napoleonic
wars, and 1914 to 1916. But for a longer term modern war, the economic
cost of volunteers is too high.
 
> > If it were a war, we'd have more casualties from the war than 
> > from the roads.
>
> Again, the Gulf War proved different. The face of war has changed....you're
> operating off of an old paradigm Doc.
 
Well, I certainly like the idea of a war with little or no casualties.  
But I think most people wouldn't call that a war; perhaps "struggle" would 
be a better word. But "Struggle against drugs" or "Struggle against 
terror" doesn't have such a good ring to it.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.