That should have read

If I mange not to have to fire my weapon in anger in this or any deployments I will be happy.

Sorry about the typo.

I understand that such set backs in China and such should not be a reason to discard non-violence, but things like this should always play a part in planning. Because something that works well in one area may fail miserably in another. Also with the development of today’s media and communication it is easier for acts of violence and terrorism to received more publicity then those of non-violence. That is why non-violence is often painted non-effective because it seems that humanity as a whole is gotten attached to instant gratification added with a chronic short attention span. That the effects of a long term non-violent moment can be overshadowed because it is cannot be described in 15 words or less.

I think that ideally you have to consider using both violence and non-violence in any situation. But there have been some areas that I do not understand. For example; before we invaded Iraq, we had sanctions on Saddam to try and put pressure on him about his WMD programs (or lack of). But then there where people protesting the sanctions saying that they are hurting the population and should be stopped. But even with the sanctions Saddam still managed to find the fund to build many palaces. What other options did people want if they thought that sanctions where the wrong choice. Also with Gaza, aka Hamas, Sanctions where put on them because of Hama’s view that violence should be used against Israel and it’s refusal to stop rocketing rural towns. Again people where saying that sanctions are hurting the people but I doubt that Hamas will change it’s position without some kind of pressure.

But back to topic, one people should consider is that if a nation does have a imposing government and the population wants the government gone, does not mean they have a willingness to work together when it is removed. I think Sharp was talking about Yugoslavia in that non-violence was used to help bring around the removal of the government. But because people had different aims for how the area should be run, plus the added hostility between the different groups that had been present for decades erupted into bloodshed. (It could also be argued that the Communistic government in Yugoslavia was preventing the groups from fighting and providing a common target of displeasure). That is what I think we did not consider as a nation when we took Saddam out. That we assumed that because there was a overall unity in the hatred for Saddam that it would equal a unified front on making a working government. That assumption is why fixing Iraq is taking as long as it is. But also any success or failures can be said to be influenced by events that happen elsewhere. For example, I would imagine that the events in Berlin might not have happened in Russia and likewise if not for Berlin the events in Eastern Europe might not have happened also.

As far as helping the locals, the biggest thing is to come into the talk asking about their situation first before any plan of action can be made. The biggest answer that we have gotten is the need to improve the overall quality of life and be able to provide for their families. Because medical care is expensive considering that a doctors visit can be as high as 100 dollars and the average pay per month is 200. That is the weak spot that the insurgents have been using to plant IEDs in the past. The people may not have a interest in the fighting but if they have bills to pay, getting a 1000 dollars to dig a hole in the ground is very hard to pass up. That is why we started to use the Sons of Iraq and why they are not being put into the Iraqi police force. Because Democracy is not doing to do any good if it is unable help people survive. Also it helps that when you have leaders that are filmier with these problems. Pope John Paul the second was a major voice in helping the decline of the Iron Curtain because he lived in Poland when it was under Stalin. There is a story about a guy that held out in Afghanistan work with the local leader by the name of Michael Bhatia. It goes into how understanding the challenges can make a big difference in outcomes

I still think that it is unrealistic to not use violence when the situation demands it. If I mange to have to fire my weapon in anger in this or any deployments I will be happy. But there is no guarantee that will happen. (it does not help that when I first got here I was told that there was a bounty of ten thousand dollars US for the death of any American medical personal). Also there is the welfare of the injured to think about. A example of that happen in America was a Paramedic team was working on a guy. Some one came over to ask about if the patient was going to live. The second the paramedics said yes, the guy pulled out a pistol and shot the injured guy several times. Even though the paramedics did not kill him, it would weigh heavy on me if I was in there shoes because the person died while in my care.

Than you again for the offer, oh the newspaper that I read here is the “Stars and Stripes” so you have a idea of what stories I am referring to. I have been here fore a few months and Afganstan is just a feeling that I have given that I am reenlisting for another 4 years, so it is a good be that I will be going.

As far as why we went to Afghanistan, it was because of the overall history of attack on and off US soil by the same group. Also the Fact that the Taliban was protecting them to allow them to conduct further attacks.
If we had not gone there, it would be safe to assume that they would still be launching further attacks. They did not stop after the failure to destroy the twin towers in 1993 and was almost 10 years before they tried again.

Does that translate in to safer flying, not directly because even if we do catch him, compliancy can be used against us in the idea that nothing has happened in the past does not mean that nothing can happen now. But there is a big issue of balancing safety against privacy rights that is still a big issue.

God bless.

Really? Then can you explain how I was able to bring a Swiss army knife in my carry on bag through airport customs while I came back on leave? It got x-rayed and everything.

I had forgotten it was there because I got it as a last minute gift a few days before. Right when you get on the plane the door to the cockpit is open. There is little room to move around, so if you had something you could charge it and have a hostage real fast. Even if you do not get off the ground, you have raised serious doubt the ability to ensure that people are safe when they fly.