Just to put things into context, we had withdrawn our combat forces from the Republic of Vietnam in 1973 in accordance with the Paris Agreements. We turned everything over to the South Vietnamese; it was their war. We only had diplomatic representation and a minimum military presence after our combat units withdrew. Even so, the North Vietnamese were still hesitant to attack the South. They probed and probed in anticipation of immediate US intervention. When they saw that the US really was serious about staying out of their war, they then invaded in a final assault against South Vietnamese forces which culminated in the images we see today of the US embassy in Saigon being evacuated.

Killing does work. We killed over 3 million North Vietnamese soldiers and wiped out the Viet Cong completely. The problem is not with killing. The problem is with hesitation to kill. And this was our greatest downfall. We applied rules that limited our ability to hunt down and kill the enemy. And the enemy took full advantage of this and used those rules against us to avoid being killed and ultimately to kill us in return. We will probably disagree on this point; I'm used to it.

Just to clarify one thing: I don't know who said anything about killing terrorists indiscriminately. Nothing should ever be done indiscriminately. However, terrorists do fear being killed. They do not fear martyrdom. The key difference is that in one instance they've been "blessed" for death, in the other, they have not. Nobody wants to die in vain.

Nam? Thanks to JFK the NV were allowed to build their trails through Laos and Cambodia and launch attacks into South Vietnam. Ike warned Kennedy that the NV would need to be isolated and stopped at the Laos border. LBJ and co. placed so many restrictions on offensive and even defensive measures that it insured a perpetual war. Thanks to one of the greatest Presidents the U.S.A. has ever known, Richard Nixon, the bombing the hell out of the NV in Cambodia and Laos was the answer. Due to the likes of the anti-Amercian crowd in the U.S. (Kennedy, McGovern, Kerry, Haden, etc. etc.) the U.S. failed to support South Vietnam and S.E.A. collapsed to the hands of the communist thugs.

To be blunt, in warfare the object is to kill the enemy until they succumb. It works, you just have to keep killing until the job is finished.

BTW, for the truth on the Vietnam Wars try Vietnam: The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict
by Michael Lind and Ending the Vietnam War : A History of America's Involvement in and Extrication from the Vietnam War
by Henry Kissinger and Why Vietnam Invaded Cambodia: Political Culture and the Causes of War by Stephen J. Morris

I don't necessarily disagree with the gist of your comments. I agree that the pendulum has gone too far in the direction of risk avoidance as opposed to stopping somewhere in the middle where risk management resides. By the way, nail clippers, corkscrews and certain butter knives are not prohibited, so you'll have to update your rhetoric some.

Statistically speaking, terrorist attacks only affects a very minute fraction of the entire flying public. You stand a greater chance of being struck by lightening than you do of being victimized by a terrorist attack. You stand a greater chance of being killed in an automobile accident than you would in any sort of aviation mishap, accident or terrorist attack. Heart disease and complications brought on by high cholesterol, high blood pressure and other related conditions will probably kill you more than any sort of terrorist attack, be it against aviation or something as simple as blowing up a shopping mall.

However, to dismiss the terrorist threat is simply naive. They are a determined foe and want to bring harm to us. The question is: should we accept terrorism as our European neighbors do and blame it all on simply having the bad luck of drawing the statistical short straw? I don't think that's possible. As a society, we value human life to such a degree that we will do what we can to avoid the death or injury of even one life no matter how remote the odds of a certain event. We put warnings on children's toys even though the number of toddlers who accidentally swallow small parts is a fraction of one percentage point. We require by law that people wear seat belts and that cars be equipped with seat belts even though there are people who can drive safely and avoid accidents without ever wearing a seat belt. We outlaw smoking in public areas because of our concern for second-hand inhalation of cigarette smoke.

I don't think the terrorists necessarily caused the overreaction you describe. It's in our nature. It's our culture to react in such a manner. Not to sound callous, but the 3,000 people who were murdered on that horrific day was, statistically speaking, no different than the number of people who die in a given week of any cause, the majority of those resulting from highway deaths. Yet to us, this is unacceptable, and we do what we can to take precautions and minimize the risk of death or injury.

A lot of it has to do with the horrific nature of these deaths. We simply find that intolerable and demand that something be done about it. I don't think it's panic even though we were panicked to such a point that it took over a year before the public gained confidence in flying again.

As I said, I don't disagree that TSA can tone it down some and come up with a more reasonable risk-management strategy. However, I think you need to look at the nature of our society, the nature of our political system and the value we place on human life to prevent harm no matter how remote the threat.

Well thought out response IMO.
My main point was that, as a society, we need to broaden and sharpen our �terrorist detection� skills and get off the airport/aircraft fixation.
I think even the dumbest of the terrorists have figured out that activity against aircraft is going to be a great deal more difficult than it was pre-9/11 and probably more trouble than it�s worth.
No question they are plotting attacks against other, softer targets in the future. We just need to focus on and try to determine where our future soft spots are and shift some of the over-eager security emphasis from aircraft to other potential targets.

Yes you may take the job. Yes you may refuse to take off the clothes you feel inapproparite to take off. Should you be denied flying your employer has to fix the situation, and tyour employer cannot take sanctions against you without being drawn into a sexulal harassment case.

Travel tips:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/travel.htm

Bart, I usually appreciate your comments so I will say to your entirely unsupported statement about European neighbors in the most respectful way I can manage: I entirely disagree. Here's one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of..._ring_of_steel

The U.S. has yet to create such a non-disruptive, but effective security cordon around softer targets. And speaking of harder targets, when was the last time there was a hijacking in the UK? I believe it was a lot longer ago than the last one in the U.S. The UK has its own homegrown terrorists and is very careful about security.

Wow, lot of stuff to deal with in that paragraph.

Not sure exactly what you think European 'acceptance' of terrorism is. If you mean that those governments take the realistic view that it is impossible to prevent 100% of terrorist attacks without imposing martial law or somesuch, then I would agree the US has yet to stumble upon that conclusion, unpleasant and emasculating as it may be.

Package warnings are there not to protect the 'victims' as much as to protect the manufacturers from lawsuits.

And I'm not going to even touch the second-hand smoke polemic

That's the administration's position for sure. Whether or not it is the absolute certainty they make it out to be may be open for debate.

This is entirely true. This country, her people, the media, etc., all have created this odd lack of understanding of risk and risk management. We see stories on the evening news that claim, "You WON'T EVER carry a lighter in your pocket again after seeing this!" (in regards to the 4 or so lighters that explode in a given year), and we have people pushing to make cars more "pedestrian safe" (to the tune of lower gas economy and $1000s more in costs) or to have special bumper-mounted cameras to avoid backing over small children (added cost to a car: about $1500 to prevent something like 100 deaths a year) We've reached the point where the perception of risk far outweighs the reality of it, and I've even heard it taken so far as to say, "If this would save even ONE life, it's worth it!"

Yet people keep eating awful food, smoking, being couch potatoes, etc., and do nothing to actually mitigate the risks that really matter, instead worrying about air crashes, getting killed in an elevator accident, having their plane hijacked, etc.

That's why so many people buy the admittedly poor, largely window-dressing security measures that are in place today. "Anything to make us safer!" is Joe and Jane Q. Public's motto these days, it seems. The media fed this, calling 9/11 "this generation's Pearl Harbor" and talking up a "war on terror" as if everything we do is part of a battle to make us safer. It's probably a facet of the innumeracy of our culture as well, but I simply don't have a good solution to change those perceptions.

I don't think we even necessarily need to change them to bring about sensible, effective security measures, though.

I'll go along with most of what you said except for the window dressing comment. I don't believe that our current security measures are window dressing. Window dressing, to me, means just for show with no real substance to it. I think there's a lot of substance behind the measures we use, I just don't think they're appropriate to the level of threat we face. I think that many of the procedures are overkill. This isn't to say that they're ineffective. We can afford to allow small scissors, baby Swiss Army knives and such to be carried on board as acceptable risks. What TSA needs to do is focus its efforts and fine-tune security procedures so that they adequately manage the REAL risks to aviation security.

Perhaps I'm being a little too harsh on our European neighbors across the sea. I was thinking primarily about the Spaniards, Italians, French and too a lesser extent, the Germans, who appear to be willing to accept terrorism as fait accompli similar to not exactly showing any compassion for the rape victim because, after all, she's a woman and men do these sort of things. Unfair or not, that's the perception our European counterparts give me.

I think you and I are basically saying the same thing as far as package warnings. Whether it be to protect victims or because lawyers can exploit our cultural tendency to care about victims, I think it all boils down to the same thing: we have this obsession about remote dangers. Victims feel entitled to compensation because they weren't warned about the dangers, others feel compelled to go on crusades to prevent similar repeat occurences, and lawyers cash in on the human emotions. None of it would be possible if our society didn't have a tendency to champion these causes in the name of justice, goodness and other Kumbaya-related qualities.

The better metaphor might be a leaky boat. You can't plug the leaks by reinforcing the solid areas of the hull, and that is what the TSA has been doing.

"Look we have a 6 inch steel hull. We have a strong safe ship!"

"What about that leak over there?"

"Look, if I add another inch to the hull, it will be even safer!"