Might does not make right, in the moral sense, but it sure as hell works. Please check your history.
If we were the monsters that everyone says we were, we would have responded to 9-11 by dropping a fusion bomb on Kabul, along with a warning to the entire planet: "capture or kill every terrorist within your borders or the same will happen to you. Maybe even if it wasn't your fault." Maybe the next nuke falls on Baghdad. Maybe some other city. It goes without saying that nukes would also be falling on rural terrorist camps.
At some point, organized terrorism against America would utterly cease, as the life span of an Al Quaeda representative standing up to recruit on the streets of any Arabic city would thereafter be measured in minutes.
America would no longer be attacked. Price: hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, and the complete negation of our nation as any kind of moral entity. But it would prove military power works.
Maybe what you are arguing is that military power restrained and controlled by civilized leaders and nations, pinpointing targets, using precision strikes, and attempting to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties, doesn't work. Maybe. I guess we'll see.
I notice no one has come up with an answer to my original question: assuming military action is out of the question, what would you offer bin Laden that would make him quit and go home?
Current Events » in reply to Back to the Law of the Jungle then, eh?
Re: 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)
