You won't have accomplished anything really.
yeas we will.
the very simple fact that the prime directive is to fight them IN THEIR TERRITORY and NOT allow them to come to us, unconditionally, relentlessly, and on the OFFENSIVE, will REDUCE and possibly AVOID an attack IN OUR TERRITORY. to have a policy of appeasement, will assure their motivation and give them the necessary room to take the initiative, i.e. to attack us in our territory.
true, we may not succeed in all instances, but we will reduce their numbers and make them think twice, (particularly governments) in considering their ways or to harbor them.
their populations and 'regular' politicians need to FEAR the US might, MORE than hamas, al qaeda, and any other group that decides to use terror... and the USA's response must be swift and effective. no middle ground, no fighting with one arm tied behind the back (as in vietnam)...
you bomb us, we will bomb you bigger and MORE effectively
whether we like it or not, the bigger stick IS he only option left before they get hold of a nuclear devise
Well, I don't think we'll be invading Pakistan or Iran in the near future, not to mention the rest of the Arab world and other large Islamic countries.
who has said anything about invading...? luckily, the USA has never taken the approach of the spanish and british empires, (except possibly vietnam)
i am talking BOMBING... as in muammar qadhafi's lybia. we have far better technology, surgical bombing can be achieved... it is very simple, it is a matter of survival, it is them or it is us... THEIR real estate or ours....
i prefer THEM and THEIR real estate to be destroyed...
appeasement will achieve the opposite |
