Not sure what to make of this - Here is a direct quote from you saying if we are HIT AGAIN, we are losing (that we have failed) -
"IF al Qaeda succeeds in pulling off some kind of horrible WMD attack on American soil, then we should at least be willing to admit that our quasi-warfare strategy has failed"
That is a direct quote from you - My point being that is a silly premise - The fact is we are winning this war...and if Al Qeade were to manage to get lucky and hit us again....that does not mean all we are doing (and how we are fighting this war) is a failure.
The fact is we are at war - In war bad things happen - (to BOTH sides) -
The simple fact is we have been extremely effective...and the notion that we have to be 100% effective from here until the end of time....or in your mind it is a failure....is simply ridiculous.
That is your premise - a direct quote from you - A conditional premise or not.....The "conditions" you place on the premise are not up to reality.....when one understands a WAR.
No, no, no, no . . . I AM NOT saying that we will be losing in that case. Sheesh, it's completely irrational of you to think that. What I am saying is that the strategy of using low-intensity warfare to fight these mad dogs will have failed in that case to protect the American public, and we should be prepared to change the strategy. That's a completely different thing and IS NOT the same thing as saying we are losing the war. Sheesh, go battle your strawman over in DUmmyland, newbie.