Forums | MacLife

menglish wrote:

First, I agree with your notion that there are lots of things to try in combating terrorism.

Farmerkev wrote:

You can't rule out military actions either but they have to be more targeted.

Thinking through this, I'm trying to imagine what targeted military action looks like.  Is this where we have a surgical strike and only kill the bad guys?  Would this be very similar to where we have a police force and only arrest the bad guys?  What is the fundamental difference here?  Is it that with a military action we have to violate the sovereignty of the nation where the bad guys are?  Or is it that we have to be a little less certain who the bad guys are and who we will be killing?

I'm confused how the difficulties of police action become more tractable when we turn it into a military action.

Strikes against known strongholds and camps for instance. (like was done in the past) I'd even go as far to say Afghanistan was a proper military response. Done correctly with the follow through and even a fourth of what we wasted on Iraq and I think quite a bit of good would have been accomplished.
You just can't go out and blow up everybody though.

Pariah wrote:

I want one of the pro-Iraq invasion people to explain to us all exactly how invading that country has made us safer.


::::::::::::waits with low expectations:::::::::::::

Flypaper; sacrificing thousands of Americans in Iraq means unaffected shoppers stateside.