Very cool. 

Did you get my e-mail about the game and Sat night?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Bobby Eberle" <eberle13@hotmail.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Bobby+20Eberle+22+20+3Ceberle13+40hotmail+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent:	Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:59 AM
To:	Weldon, V. Charles
Subject:	Fwd: Guest Commentary: Now, more than ever

FYI.  My column was picked up by UPI.

Pretty cool man.

Bobby




>From: Peter Roff <PRoff@upi.com>
>To: Peter Roff <PRoff@upi.com>
>Subject: Guest Commentary: Now, more than ever
>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:53:27 -0400
>
>Guest Commentary: Now, more than ever
>
>By BOBBY EBERLE, Special to UPI
>
>HOUSTON (UPI) -- After the Sept. 11 attack on New York and Washington,
>there
>are some who have begun pushing more earnestly than ever for a missile
>defense system. Others have scoffed, asking, "How can a missile defense
>system stop an airplane from hitting a building?"
>
>Well, guess what... it can't. In fact, depending on how much notice is
>given
>for such an attack, there is not much that can be done to stop an airplane
>from hitting a building. Anti-aircraft batteries on rooftops, which were
>recently deployed in Moscow, may or may not be effective. But we are not
>helpless in the face of such attacks. One way to stop airplanes from
>hitting
>buildings is to stop them being hijacked. With the resources at our
>disposal, there is no doubt that airports can be made much safer for
>travel.
>
>But the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon also reveal
>a deeper security need, which extends beyond the necessity to stop
>airplanes
>from being hijacked. These horrible terrorist attacks paint a clear picture
>of the need for a missile defense system.
>
>America, as a sovereign and free nation, has an obligation to defend itself
>and to ensure the safety and well-being of her citizens. This is a
>fundamental function of government; something upon which liberals and
>conservatives easily agree. In the face of danger -- whether from an
>aggressor nation or a group of religious extremists -- the United States
>must be able to defend itself using whatever means are necessary and
>appropriate for the situation at hand.
>
>What is meant by necessary and appropriate? Let's look at our current
>situation and construct a possible scenario:
>
>The Bush administration orders the build-up of military personnel. Plans
>are
>made to attack Afghanistan through bombing and ground assault in order to
>give the ruling Taliban regime no other choice but to give up suspected
>terrorist Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and end their support of
>terrorism. The Taliban assemble their forces in an attempt to fend off the
>U.S. attack. Unsuccessful, lacking other means of direct retaliation and
>subject to increased pressure from surrounding countries, the Taliban
>deliver on America's demands.
>
>But this outcome is possible only if the nation being attacked lacks
>nuclear
>weapons. What if the terrorist attack came from a nuclear power or one
>suspected of having that capability in the near future? The options for the
>United States quickly become infinitely more complex.
>
>Consider a fictional scenario in which the terrorist attack came from
>people
>within a country possessing nuclear weapons.
>
>Terrorists attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Intelligence
>sources suggest that the culprit has ties to Country X and is being
>sheltered there. The U.S. denounces the attacks, calling them an act of
>war.
>Negotiations to persuade the Country X to turn over the leader of the
>terrorist assault are opened.
>
>At the same time, the U.S. prepares a plan of attack to apprehend the
>terrorists. The negotiations fail. The U.S. begins bombing. As a result,
>fanatics seize control of the government of Country X. The new leaders,
>knowing their conventional forces are no match for the United States -- and
>believing that the United States and Israel are twin pillars of evil --
>launch a nuclear missile at Israel. What happens next is anyone's guess.
>
>There is an obvious question which should be asked when contemplating a
>retaliatory strike against potential enemies like North Korea, Iran, China:
>"How would the U.S. react if attacked by conventional weapons from a
>nuclear
>state?"
>
>If we were to invade, the consequences could include the destruction of New
>York, Los Angeles, or any other major metropolitan area in the U.S. by a
>nuclear missile. Are we prepared to take that risk in order to obtain
>justice? Would we launch our own nuclear weapons?
>
>If a strategic and theater missile defense system were in place, the
>fictional scenario described above would likely have a completely different
>outcome. Missiles launched against Israel, or long-range missiles launched
>against the United States, could be destroyed, allowing U.S. conventional
>forces to do the job they were ordered to do.
>
>America cannot be held hostage by rogue states or unstable governments
>simply because they possess nuclear weapons. The effectiveness of
>conventional military forces is greatly reduced if the United States is
>afraid to use them because of the potential consequences.
>
>One threat against the United States and its allies, who are now easy
>targets of any fanatic with a finger on the button, can be virtually
>eliminated through an effective missile defense system. We can give America
>a means by which its hands are not tied when it comes time to take action.
>The best way to ensure that America's conventional forces are feared is to
>render the enemies' nuclear weapons ineffective. We can't afford to wait
>much longer.
>
>-0-
>
>(Robert R. Eberle, Ph.D. is president and chief executive officer of
>GOPUSA,
>an Internet-based news, information, and commentary magazine with a
>conservative point of view.)
>
>--Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.--
>
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp