OK, you're correct, I wasn't clear at all. I was responding to was Kevin's statement
You claimed that directly attacking terrorist killers is a bad idea because more will be created by your actions than you eliminate.
Now you "apologize", but do you now retract that claim as being a bad metaphor? I am not being deliberately obtuse here -- I think it is a key point. If killing 1 creates X, then it is absolutely key to know whether X is more or less than 1, and helpful to know by how much, when deciding on what to do. (Of course, X could depend on the situation, sometimes being greater, sometimes less than 1, but the general point remains)
"What's the problem with the war against terror? Killing them when we can't catch them isn't working?"
What I should have said is that catching or killing them is unlikely to end terrorism by itself. A measured response (and I would consider our incursion into Afghanistan measured) is appropriate, but I don't believe that you can solve the discontent that breeds terrorism through violence alone. I think that if the response to terrorism does not take into account the aforementioned discontent and instead relies solely on punitive measures, the hatred between the parties involved increases. The larger the emotional barrier, the more difficult the problem.
That's true, but you have to consider that terrorists don't fall out of the sky. To go to the extremes that they do means to me that they feel that they have grievances that can not be or have not been addressed in a more moderate fashion. It also means that there are probably a large number of people that, while they do not feel as strongly as the terrorists do, they suffer the same disassociation. When you use force to combat terrorism, it should go hand in hand with a reasonable effort to understand and ameliorate the root cause of the problem.The more we invoke extreme emotion, the less we should expect a rational reaction. Anger and hate can be infectious memes, and our position atop the hill makes us the prime target. IMO anyway.
And sometimes the only rational reaction to an irrational person is force or violence.
Maybe there is no way to do that here, I don't know, but I'm sure that I haven't seen much of an effort.
The reasons Bush says he is attacking Iraq are that they have weapons of mass destruction and that they support terrorism. He has paid lip service to suffering of the people of Iraq, but his sincerity is questionable IMO.
I couldn't agree more.That is fine. But so is directly attacking the problem. We need both police AND social programs.
So you support the US attacking Saddam's regime? It is hard to
imagine a more clear-cut case of where force is the only rational
solution.
I am not convinced that Hussain's weapons are an immediate threat to us, nor am I convinced that he has supported Al Quida or any other terrorists. I listened to Colen Powel's UN speech from beginning to end and while it convinced me that Hussain probably has some weapons, the paucity of the evidence presented convinced me that the problem has been exaggerated. This was reinforced when I heard C. Rice interviewed the other day. When she was directly asked if our intelligence had detected evidence that they had to keep under wraps she refused to give a straight answer. If there is such evidence, how does it hurt to say so decisively?
I've listened to some of Blix's reports and believe that while Iraq is disarming more slowly than I would like, progress is being made. I do not discount the pressure Hussain feels from the presence of our troops, but I don't believe that it's necessary to use force yet.
Are we going to go, one by one, after all of the crazy, violent dictators? When (if) we succeed in Iraq are we going to move our 300,000 troops to South Korea? Are we prepared to be at a state of war for many years to come? I think that the problems we face with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are better addressed by a more measured, unified response than that outlined by the Bush administration. I feel that whatever they say their motivation for attacking Iraq, the strategic importance of that nation is the overriding reason they are willing to use force there. That being said, if Hussain completely stonewalls the UN and we can convince most of the countries that are holding out to do so, I would not oppose an incursion.Afterwards, then the more gentle means should be employed for long-term peace, but now with a crazy, violent dictator in charge?
Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
