I don't think anyone's going to win a war with statistics - though loud music has been hurled at opponents, maybe the complexities of the null hypothesis will force a few to surrender.

Do we have an ongoing conflict caused by irreconcileable needs and positions or is it a war? I rather think the use of the term war is convenient for the politicians.

So what are the objectives? To stop anyone in the world throwing a punch at us? Revenge on those who already have? National boundaries are irrelevant to Mr. Bin Laden, so being at war with xyz country is contradictory to the problem.

Jseal's long term suggestion is one of the few sensible policies that I have heard. Is it a stated poicy to seek out and destroy all known "terrorists" in the short term and who is to decide who these people are?

If I visit the States again, I will be fingerprinted and photographed - well the whole world is clearly a potential threat.

I hear lots of grand speeches but little in the way of a coherent and achieveable policy. This is precisely how to lose a war.

By the way, who won the first round of the mudslingers showdown? The BBC rated it a draw.

__________________
Vigil, if you were my husband, I would give you poison.

Madam, if you were my wife, I would take it.