[ninenot]

SOrry I mis-read your post.

But then, what's your point? Aside from annihilation--which is not too likely---and given that military occupation would not occur (or certainly would not be successful in reasonably short order)--why do you maintain that the oceans no longer provide the protection of the 1900's?

Economics???

Well, China, were they to call all the Fed paper they now hold, could collapse us tomorrow--unless we simply renounced the debt. And China COULD simply walk in with a few Red Army types and take over every factory we have there now.

Actually, they're already achieving some elements of victory: the natives are restless because there ain't no jobs. Turmoil usually follows this stuff.

[Mr. Mojo]

My point is that with the advent of WMD, the oceans don't provide the same measure of protection that they once did (for obvious reasons). And my concern is more with Islamic terrorist groups and their sponsors rather than with our more traditional enemies. These people are fanatics -- they don't act in any way like traditional nations do, so we should be careful before we look for reasonable movites for their actions. Simply destroying us is enough.

And so I advocate pre-emptive action against both them and their sponsors. I can appreciate your non-interventionist stance -- I held that same stance not too long ago. But I strongly believe that this situation requires pre-emptive actcion. And yes, I'm well aware of the dangerous precedent it could set.