Erik Reuter wrote:
OK, you're correct, I wasn't clear at all. I was responding to was Kevin's statement
You claimed that directly attacking terrorist killers is a bad idea because more will be created by your actions than you eliminate.
Now you "apologize", but do you now retract that claim as being a bad metaphor? I am not being deliberately obtuse here -- I think it is a key point. If killing 1 creates X, then it is absolutely key to know whether X is more or less than 1, and helpful to know by how much, when deciding on what to do. (Of course, X could depend on the situation, sometimes being greater, sometimes less than 1, but the general point remains)
"What's the problem with the war against terror? Killing them when we can't catch them isn't working?"
What I should have said is that catching or killing them is unlikely to end terrorism by itself. A measured response (and I would consider our incursion into Afghanistan measured) is appropriate, but I don't believe that you can solve the discontent that breeds terrorism through violence alone. I think that if the response to terrorism does not take into account the aforementioned discontent and instead relies solely on punitive measures, the hatred between the parties involved increases. The larger the emotional barrier, the more difficult the problem.
Doug
<snip a lot that might have mattered, but I have to go to work>
So the problem was I said something about the war against terrorism, because you said it wasn't working, and now the real problem is you can't see the Marshall plan against terrorism? Give it a few years. When we had complete victory against Germany and Japan, then we were able to help the countries help their people.
As a very bad tangent,what do you think of this:
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/14/143747
(I have no idea what newsmax is. I don't have time to search 'real' news sites.)
Kevin T. - VRWC
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
