Jacko, you don't know how relieved I am to know that I am not a Neanderthal red-neck.
The trouble with your interpretation of "proportional response" is that you see it as a passive response. You wait to see what the bad guy does and then react "in proportion".
Of course, it would be a silly extension of this argument to say that we still have some way to go if all that mattered was the casualty score. I hope and believe that that is not the intention of the allies.
What is happening now is proportional. But it is based on the enemy's known capabilities and intentions; in other words the aim is to deter and prevent. If it were not proportional, the US would have no allies at all.
When we think this through, we must not stop when the picture becomes unpleasant to our sensitivities and settle for what we are "comfortable" with. Keep going. Look to the really ugly sequels that are inevitable if the zealots are not stopped. They don't use our rules or values. Hearts and minds stuff may work on the people they subjugate but not on those who believe that suicide in the cause of a jihad is the gateway to paradise. To them, truly, there are no rules in a knife fight.
Although I had, like many, forecast something like this, my timing was out. But my instincts were right. And I know they are still right when people like Clare Short are prepared to speak out in favour of the campaign. We grieve for the misery of the people who are suffering - but they will never know our freedom and even our most basic quality of life unless we do something about it.
[ 05 November 2001: Message edited by: fobotcso ]