OT (It's even controversy free) Here is an interesting scenario. . .

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html




Now suppose terrorist group B claims the $25 million bounty on
al-Zarqawi? Do we pay? On the one hand paying shows we keep our word
and could encourage further work by the "enemy of my enemy". On the
other hand it could put $25 million in the cofers of terrorists (be
they on "our side" or not). Glad that one's not my decision though I
suspect there could be a middle-man to grease the wheels. Technically
if we paid we'd be supporting terrorism or at the very least a
vigilante group. Of course here in the US our superheros tend to all
be vigilantes (Can we say Spiderman :-) ). Any thoughts?

We should make the bounty decline, quickly. It starts at $25M and is cut in
half every week or month. Frankly I don't like the bounty, I like
Roman-type ruthless pursuit of the enemy. Give those on the fence a choice
between ****ing off our enemies or us and make it clear we can make them one
thousand times more sorry they ****ed us off. We need a General Sherman to
conduct operations. The people in my part of the world didn't like that
stark choice but it put a stop to the fantasy of resisting. A quick
decisive war will kill fewer people than a generation-long small war. We
need more victory and less concern.

Make the locals race each other to turn in the people we are after.

--
Scott

"The enemy is radical Islam and state-sponsored terrorism; the obstacles to
success are the French and American liberals.." - Joseph A. Klein