[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible"

At any given time, how many places in the world do you think there are, that are dangerous enough where (1) western nations are evacuating their embassies, yet (2) we have vulnerable personnel? Pretty much confined to a small space. We kicked all the Nazis out of western Europe, we drove all the Japanese out of the Pacific, how much more vast in scope was that? We had a much larger military then, obviously, but we are talking about a contained area. So I don't buy that it's not possible.

"even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup." That happens. A few hours. I don't believe that anyone who agrees to go into harm's way, in that narrow slice of geography, needs to be more than a few hours away from help. It doesn't even need to be troops, and armed drone is better than nothing.

""he doubted their utility to any threat his command might face on September 11."

If you don't try, we'll never know, will we? Success in these situation isn't guaranteed. A low-flying jet is better than nothing. You don't just sit on your hands, not if you have a conscience.

"Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed."

Pertaining my posts, I'd ask you to refer to any where I implied that the loss of life was larger than 4. Just make it up as you go along, anything to discredit those who dare to question your beloved.

I answered your points. Can you show me the same courtesy?

(1) why does your party have superdelegates?
(2) why did Hilary claim she came under sniper attack?

Off topic I know, but since I have your attention, and you won't respond in the other threads, I figured what the heck.

Is he going to answer these in order or???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device