Tom......
your central thesis that showing weakness when under attack is not a productive one I agree with...........beyond question you are correct.
Your point that a "weak" response to previous attacks may, probably did, encourage the WTC attack..........I also agree with.
In any US presidents shoes I would have gone after those responsible and cared little who got hurt along the way........... I would not have survived AS the President if I had not done exactly that.
Were we differ is that your first " weak response" was to launch dozens of Cruise missiles....if that didn't work.........why would a greatly increased use of the same stratagy... one that had demonstrably failed... be expected to succeed?
( Not saying it won't, just asking why you think it will)
And yes, I am aware that the free west has tacked on loads of other options as well such as trying to track down and control the money flows and laundering that funds these groups...
But then... hadn't we, supposedl;y, done all that, in relation to the drugs trade, anyway. That has demonstrably failed too.
A completely seperate but interesting point someone once made about how to beat the Drug cartels......... If we hung one wealthy, white, middle class banker a week. We'd see the money laundering and the drugs cartels collapse real quick.
Current Events » in reply to Re: Weapons, winning, losing.
Re: Weapons, winning, losing.
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Flight 93 [Sept/11/2001] and the White House building.
- Re: Flight 93 and the White House building.
- picky picky picky
- Re: Flight 93 [Sept/11/2001] and the White House building.