<< If the Sudanese people don't like innocent people being killed then I suggest that they look at why those people are dying and get up the backbone to do something about it whether it be for us or against us.>>
The problem I have with this is one of definitions - one man's terrorism is another man's freedom fighter. Using your logic, the Sudanese would be perfectly justified in using chemical or biological warfare to destroy Los Angeles (good riddance!) because of the "terrorist" acts of our government. Many other nations, especially those you talk about in your posts, consider the U.S. to be a terrorist nation. I think you are saying that, since we are bigger and more powerful, they should shut up and sit down. Might does not make right.
The problem with terrorism, is that it is not one country against another, but one person (or a relatively small group of people) against a nation. In effect, it is guerilla warfare, a fight that is very difficult for the U.S. to win, as we found in Vietnam.
I don't disagree with the general concept of going after the terrorists with everything we have, but we need to make sure we are on the moral high ground, and have picked the right targets. Otherwise, it will be the U.S. against the whole world, a fight we can't possibly win, especially with the current state of our military. |
