You wrote: "The State Department guy is quick to say what he thinks won't work. He's not too forthcoming on what he thinks will work."
Perhaps you didn't get to Mr. Arnold's final paragraph, where he wrote:
"The same rules apply to War on Terrorism as to all other wars. No real progress can be made until the fighting stops. Only then can we focus on the problems of repression, social, political and economic injustice, human rights abuses, and reactions to main-stream neglect that are the global breeding grounds for terrorism. Those problems exist in at least a third of all nations. If we do not recognize this situation soon and move with other nations and the United Nations system to deal with it, we are all doomed to perpetual conflict. Our best chances lie with dedicating many more aid resources to solving those problems and as quickly as possible shifting the fight against terrorism back to law, diplomacy and the justice system."
Might does not make right. Rather, might leads to more terror, as the Israeli experience vividly demonstrates.
sp
Current Events » in reply to Neither does appeasement nor diplomacy
Back to the Law of the Jungle then, eh?
The whole thread (29 posts)
- "The basic flaw is military power does not stop terrorism."
- If military power could stop terrorism, it would have stopped terrorism.
- As a matter of interest...
- So let us all lay down our weapons and sing cumbiaya!
- I disagree with the two premises completely
- Neither does appeasement nor diplomacy
- Terrorism fails
- Re: "The basic flaw is military power does not stop terrorism."
- No, but the private interests in the defense department sure look good
- Bingo!
- Bzzzzt. Wrong-o. WWII. § (n/t)
