3 edits
Originally posted by eljefejesusYes, and Vietnam was a host to communism.
And yet if it hosts and defends Al-Qaeda as its guests throughout the 9/11 attacks, that technicality didn't really matter as it ought not. In fact, the Taliban did not even want to give up its "guests" to the US. They are the willful launching pad and cohorts to an attack on American soil without repentance ahead of the retaliatory attack. They were ...[text shortened]... sors and co-horts should be, regardless of just how directly their dirty hands were involved.
By the way, US casualties in Iraq alone already outnumber 9/11 deaths. Do you really, seriously and honestly believe that without the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq there would have been another attack on US soil at least as devastating as 9/11? And then I'm not even considering the thousands of American lives which could have been saved with proper investment of all those resources.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMuch like with government solutions, military solutions are not always the only answer, but are sometimes an appropriate response.
Yes, and Vietnam was a host to communism.
By the way, US casualties in Iraq alone already outnumber 9/11 deaths. Do you really, seriously and honestly believe that without the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq there would have been another attack on US soil at least as devastating as 9/11? And then I'm not even considering the thousands of American lives which could have been saved with proper investment of all those resources.
If a planned and coordinated deadly attack kills thousands of your civilians, it is morally justifiable to send the military to punish the aggressors. You don't just say, well, our enemies are killing off our civilians, I guess if it were efficient we would get them back, but there's an option to instead use these resources more efficiently to deal with other problems so let's...
instead the military attack was dealt with as required when you want military aggressors to know the consequences of attacking your civilians, hence the military response.
Originally posted by eljefejesusSo, like generalissimo, you believe that being macho is more important than thousands of American lives? If the "response" does nothing to prevent further acts of terrorism, what is the point? Of course it would have been electoral suicide to do nothing after the 9/11 attacks, but it sure would have been in the interests of the American people.
Much like with government solutions, military solutions are not always the only answer, but are sometimes an appropriate response.
If a planned and coordinated deadly attack kills thousands of your civilians, it is morally justifiable to send the military to punish the aggressors. You don't just say, well, our enemies are killing off our civilians, I ...[text shortened]... aggressors to know the consequences of attacking your civilians, hence the military response.
After the Oklahoma bombing, should the US military have invaded the US to avenge the deaths of US citizens?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOk, now it seems you're grasping for straws in your arguments. I gather you would favor not responding to military aggression against your country and just letting it be taken over or its citizens attacked and bombed. Instead, you would put resources to some manner of use that you consider more efficient.
So, like generalissimo, you believe that being macho is more important than thousands of American lives? If the "response" does nothing to prevent further acts of terrorism, what is the point? Of course it would have been electoral suicide to do nothing after the 9/11 attacks, but it sure would have been in the interests of the American people.
After ...[text shortened]... ahoma bombing, should the US military have invaded the US to avenge the deaths of US citizens?
There is a difference, you know, from using the military to defend from a coordinated and well-armed thread from foreign lands versus using civilian law enforcement to catch, try, and punish local citizens.
What would you have done with home-grown bombers if catching and punishing them had been 100 times as expensive, would you have not brought the plotters to justice?
Originally posted by eljefejesusThe whole point is that "responding to the attack" simply does nothing to aid the interests of the US people. So why do it? I can catch a plane to the US, probably get a gun there and start shooting people. You simply cannot prevent all acts of terrorism, nor should you want to. An effective police force and intelligence service will help to prevent much, but 100% security is an illusion.
Ok, now it seems you're grasping for straws in your arguments. I gather you would favor not responding to military aggression against your country and just letting it be taken over or its citizens attacked and bombed. Instead, you would put resources to some manner of use that you consider more efficient.
There is a difference, you know, from using ...[text shortened]... shing them had been 100 times as expensive, would you have not brought the plotters to justice?
What would you have done with home-grown bombers if catching and punishing them had been 100 times as expensive, would you have not brought the plotters to justice?
Why would that be expensive? Let's focus on the real world first.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraResponding to attack does help the American people because the many enemies of a great power will not all see the great power as suddenly more vulnerable and passive towards attacks.
The whole point is that "responding to the attack" simply does nothing to aid the interests of the US people. So why do it? I can catch a plane to the US, probably get a gun there and start shooting people. You simply cannot prevent all acts of terrorism, nor should you want to. An effective police force and intelligence service will help to prevent muc ...[text shortened]... plotters to justice?
Why would that be expensive? Let's focus on the real world first.[/b]
It's a tit-for-tat and don't mess with me self-defense that is necessary to prevent being targeted. For example, do you think people familiar with the results of the two World Wars would see France or the US as more vulnerable to attack. The French collaberateurs are now duly maligned in France. The response to the Pearl Harbor attack are now known in much of the world. The appeasement crowd is well known in much of the world to have been wrong.
My basic point is that a major power that lets enemies attack it without response opens itself up to attacks by many others of its enemies.
Maybe if you're a small and internationally unentangled country you can surrender and await freedom after others offer rescue. For most great powers, it would mean fighting off many others who saw weakness.
Originally posted by eljefejesusOkay, so the UK and Spain did not invade any country as a response to the major terrorist attacks on their soil this decade. In what way has this contributed to more terrorist threats?
Responding to attack does help the American people because the many enemies of a great power will not all see the great power as suddenly more vulnerable and passive towards attacks.
It's a tit-for-tat and don't mess with me self-defense that is necessary to prevent being targeted. For example, do you think people familiar with the results of the two ...[text shortened]... ffer rescue. For most great powers, it would mean fighting off many others who saw weakness.
Stop this macho posturing and start thinking about what's really in the interests of the American people.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey have chosen that risk of being weak, plus they have the luxury of not being superpowers.
Okay, so the UK and Spain did not invade any country as a response to the major terrorist attacks on their soil this decade. In what way has this contributed to more terrorist threats?
Stop this macho posturing and start thinking about what's really in the interests of the American people.
Stop this labeling, Thor, and let's stick to the debate. It's hard to believe that one should not counterattack after being attacked, it's basic self-defense.