> All of which, however, is irrelevant to our current dilemma. > Saddam Hussein is in power in Iraq. Assad is in power in > Syria. Radical Islam does have great power in most of the > Middle East. The Taliban were in power in Afghanistan. Now > they're not. Perhaps there's a lesson in that, and how it was > achieved. Not with foreign aide. _After we win_ we should be > generous. That is in the best American tradition. But first > we have to win.
Its just as relevant as your appeasement analogy, AFAIC, perhaps more so. You say they have "great power" but they have been unable, despite a tremendous effort for a half century, to destroy a tiny nation in their midst. They pose no threat to us _other_ than terror. You can't really believe that the West would succumb to their religious meme, can you? Please don't take this to mean that I am for any kind of "appeasement" of Hussein or Al Qaeda or of the Palestinians for that matter. Its my contention that the use of force should always be a last resort (as it clearly was in this most recent conflict). -- Doug Not sure where I said they have "great power" - certain ideas of theirs have great power in the Muslim world. They pose a real threat to us other than terror - nuclear weapons. How many American cities would have to be destroyed by nuclear bombs before we just gave up? New York? New York and Chicago? New York, Chicago, and DC? New York, Chicago, DC, and LA? When would we just give them everything they asked for? I don't want to find out - so we have to do everything we can to make sure that they never get nuclear weapons, and we have to do everything that we can to destroy their base of popular support. You say you're not in favor of appeasement, but you don't appear to be in favor of using force either, Doug. What _are_ you in favor of? I see lots of criticism on the list, but no one who is making a suggestion that I find even vaguely convincing. We can't just pour money into these states, first because it would not improve our popularity - we pour money into Egypt and, after Saudi Arabia, Egypt supplied the most hijackers, second because it would serve to strengthen their governments who are the problem, third because it _would_ seem like appeasement, and fourth because even if those first three things didn't matter, the governments involved _don't want_ their people to be rich and free. Force shouldn't be a last resort, actually. I'd rather fight than surrender. I'd rather fight than pay tribute. There are things that are worse than war. Force should clearly be far down the list. But when it is time for war, it is morally unforgiveable to shy away from it. Even Christian just war theory, for example, holds that it is just as great a sin to fail to fight a just war as it is to fight an unjust one. Right now it's time for war - the careful, calibrated, deliberate, purposeful, and ruthless use of the American military has the chance of improving our own situation, and that of people all over the world. To not use it out of some moral fastidiousness would be a sin. Gautam
