On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 10:39:59PM -0700, Doug wrote: > The point is obvious. If the way to combat terrorism and the threat > of WMD is to attack and subdue sovereign nations, it would seem > that we are undertaking a war that we can not win and that has the > potential to escalate into a wider more violent confrontation. If we > aren't going to go after everyone we consider a threat, why go after > anyone?
That is not at all obvious. In my experience, it is very rare to solve a difficult problem in one fell swoop. So you divide a problem into manageable steps and take action on one part of the problem. For this particular problem, it is decidedly NOT an all or nothing affair as you imply. Yes, there are a number of terrorist supporting countries and terrorist supporting groups in the world, but it is silly to say that we can only improve the safety and security of the world by eliminating every single one. The reasonable assumption is that regime change in Iraq will make the world a safer place, albeit not a completely safe place. A journey begins with the first step. > Do you think that Bush is going to go conquer Iraq and then declare > the War on Terrorism victorious? I hope not. I hope that the US and the world continue to put pressure on terrorism and terrorist supporting states. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
