Terrorism

Ok so some shitty ass obscure tyranny pisses off some of it's citizens and we happen to buy oil from them so they decide to murder some of our civilians.

We retaliate and the terrorists say "THEY ARE AT WAR WITH US NOW".

We do nothing and the terrorists say "THEY ARE WEAK, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT!".

If you hate america and love terrorists, even by taking the terrorist's side it is obvious that there is nothing we can do to stop them attacking us. So we must retaliate. Therefore the war to defend Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians from terrorism was the correct course of action.

>>8

Strawman. Nobody has proposed giving terrorists billions in reparations and even if someone with any say in the matter did, it certainly doesn't have any meaningful support and is therefore immaterial.

Your second statement is factually untrue. Terrorism always fails because it is unpopular and ultimately winds up losing the support of the people it supposedly represents, not because it can be defeated using standard military tactics. If you truly believe you have invented some new tactic where brilliant military strategists have failed for centuries, do contact the DoD immediately.

Individual battles can be won using military tactics, obviously, but history tells us that no manner of brute, short of indiscriminate mass murder, will defeat the amorphous enemy called "terrorism". And while simply carpet bombing terrorist hotspots around the globe with nuclear weapons would almost certainly work, at least until the rest of the surviving world united and wiped us off the map, it would just make us terrorists anyway, so we would logically have to do the same to ourselves.

Finally, Saddam was not a terrorist in the sense you're obviously trying to maintain, nor was the Taliban. Each was a maniacally repressive government (in fact, Hussein was a semi-legitimate leader as he took the presidency through succession after forcing the previous, ailing president to resign) that horribly abused their peoples and threatend external nations. That's tyranny as government policy, not terrorism as an ideological imperative.

Furthermore, you have still failed to define the criteria for "correctness" and you have still failed to acknowledge any other policy decisions that are available to defend the United States from terrorism.