I seem to be among the few in PDX that remember the divots at Liberty & Church Streets.

But we still haven't been shown any verifiable evidence that Al Qaeda/Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 as promised by Powell and Rice.

Scott Atran's superb lecture is a nice reminder that to effectively combat a problem one must first correctly understand it.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-enlightenment-2-0/scott-atran

This is what happens when we play with toys that kill indiscriminately.

You should read "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card...

Actually, everyone should read more science fiction, which is often well thought out speculation of what's to come, or is already here.

I was impressed at the audacity of this quote:

"When you're on the radio with a guy on the ground, and he is out of breath and you can hear the weapons fire in the background, you are every bit as engaged as if you were actually there," Major Morrison said.

Everyone wants into the fun. Supposedly, an Iranian drone was shot down deep in Iraqi territory in February:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-drone17-2009mar17,0,5748919.story

Agreed. You should read Ender's Game. It's a great book for many reasons. (Especially if you've got smart kids.)

But on topic - this is one of the most vile changes in military technology. Take it to the extreme: could we someday be able to wage war, on the ground and house to house, without putting a single American on the ground in the invasion?

And if we can wage war without risking lives, will we show any restraint at all?

could we someday be able to wage war, on the ground and house to house, without putting a single American on the ground in the invasion?

That was the whole issue behind the nuclear stalemate concept of mutual assured destruction. Or, alternatively, a nuclear strike on a nation without any means to retaliate, such as -- in the old days -- North Vietnam or -- more recently -- North Korea or Iran.

With a large enough nuclear arsenal you can wipe a country off the map -- as a number of conservatives have argued should have been done with various adversaries over the years -- and unless the country has the means to strike back (even after a massive attack) there's nothing to fear unless they're allied with someone willing to go to the mat for them.

For that matter, if the Bush administration and the people on both sides of the aisle who supported the Iraq war hadn't had the mistaken idea that they could use the country as a MIddle East base for US forces, the military could have just continued its conventional "Shock & Awe" campaign until they destroyed Baghdad, Fallujah, Tikrit, etc. more than they have. They wouldn't have had to risk nearly as many lives. Except of course, for the Iraqi ones, but those haven't seemed to be a particularly high priority.