Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
I don't think a nuclear attack, even though I agree it is becoming more likely, will lead to our destruction. It would kill many people and would be a horrible event, but if anything it would galvanize the world against such acts and would result in the ostracism of the perpetrators, IMO. SO it would damage us severley, but its destructive result would be physical only. We would overcome and continue.
I was referring to the destruciton of the values and freedoms we enjoy and our success as a nation. I don't think radical Islam cna do that.
|
I'm sorry, but I just cannot see putting the Patriot Act (my words, not yours) above a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda as the greatest looming threat to American society.
If Bush had declared himself a king, dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court, re-written the Constitution, and commandeered exclusive and autonomous control over the military, then you might have a point.
Short of that, it's just foolhardy to say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
I will respond for him:
1) higher stakes than with Al Qaeda
2) lacked the technology to avoid killing civilians
3) If you have seen "the fog of war" documentary about Robert McNamara, I highly recommend it. He said "the only reason I wasn't prosecuted as a War Criminal after WWII was because we won."
Morality goes to the winner.
|
You do what it takes to win. If bombing civilians is the last tactic left in your arsenal, and you believe it will bring about the desired result, then you do it.
Given that we haven't been attacked in so long, it appears that the decision NOT to do so was probably the right one. Moreover, we are trying to win "hearts and minds" in addition to the military war, and killing civilians who might otherwise side with us is not exactly the way to go about doing that.