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.

>>22
And I pointed out that nobody has proposed any such thing. If you're going to press that claim you're going to have to cite some examples.

Furthermore, you can't "root out the terrorists". They'll just move to another location. Reference: Afghanistan. Al Queada dispersed all over the region after we invaded and now that things have gone into a backslide they're re-entering the country.

You can't shoot "terrorism" down, it's not an army, it's not a machine, it's not a person. No nation in history has successfully used non-genocidal military tactics to defeat terrorism aimed at its country.

Terrorism is an ideology that feeds on hate - real or manufactured, poverty, nationalism, religious fervor, and a host of other emotional and anti-social causes. You can't shoot hate, you can't shoot nationaism, you can't shoot poverty, so you can't shoot terrorism. You can shoot terrorists, but unless you can shoot them faster than they can be recruited - unlikely while you're shooting them since you're also shooting people's brothers, husbands, wives, uncles who believe they're fighting a worthy fight, a sentiment they're families often share - you can't win solely by that tactic.

>>24
Nothing even remotely close to that appears anywhere in posts 19 or 3. Maybe you're confusing my posts with someone elses?