[geeks] My take

[Mike Dombrowski]

>> attempts to get those responsible. We need to fight terror with 
terror, 
>> We need to send a message that states who support terrorism will not 
be 
>> tolerated. Our retribution needs to be so intense and horrific that 
>> people who commit these acts wll think twice. A couple cruise 
missles 
>> and a smart bomb run or two won't accomplish anything at all.
>
>Perhaps war is nescesarry (I hope not), but it certainly wouldn't do 
to go
>to war for revenge.  Revenge starts are unacceptable cycle of blood.  
Just
>trying to install terror in other people rather than effect a specific
>change in government is about as bad.

>War should only be used to force another country to permenantly and
>drastically change.  Failure to do so is to have wasted lives.  I 
think

The war I suggest is a war to do just that. Taking out the leadership 
of Afghanistan, taking out terrorist elements and bombing parts of it 
would most certainally change the country permenantly. Call it a war of 
revenge or whatever you want but I believe quite strongly that drastic 
actions but be taken to set an example. In cases of hundreds of people 
I think that surgical strikes and diplomatic means are the best 
options. But when you start talking about 10s of thousands of people...

>that pretty much everyone who died in Desert Storm was completely 
wasted
>since no apparent change has really happened in Iraq.  Saddam still 
sits
>there giving every appearance of trying to rebuild enough to fight 
another
>war.
>
>Likewise Vietnam was a waste since no change was affected against the
>North Vietnamese.

Yes, I feel that both were wasted efforts. "If you're going to do 
something, do it right"

>On the other hand, in the WWs, Japan and Germany were forcibly changed 
and
>rebuilt with virtually no remnants of the old evil.  Were the WWs 
worth
>it?  Looking at the horrors conducted by the Germans and Japanese,
>possibly.  But we didn't enter WWI out of a sense of nobleness, but 
rather
>to protect our shipping routes, and I can't say that we were that much
>better about WWII.  But, these are the details that doctorates are 
made

What else is war than an instrument to gain or protect property? Either 
directly in the case of WWI and WWII or indirectly in the case of 
Desert Storm and Vietnam.

>of.  All I can say is that in retrospect, the endings to the WWs were 
much
>more satisfactory, and the main difference is that the enemy nations 
were
>completely changed in ways that we controlled.

Mike