|
|
|
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On 24 Jun 2004 14:09:35 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
Actually, there are very few shaded of gray. They want to kill us, we
don't want them too. One side will win. Who do you want it to be?
That's as necessary as we need to be.
If you think that some sort of civilized, rational means of "talking"
this out will work, I've got some serious ocean front property in
Arizona that I'd like to show you......
Dave
Excellent example of binary thinking, Dave. The only two options are 1) trying
to talk to them or 2) abandoning all principles when conducting the war.
You have yet to offer up alternatives that are workable, practical,
and effective. So yes, the choices are limited, but you can't seem to
see that.
Let's explore historical methods of dealing with "hostile" nations
(Bearing in mind that these were whole countries which were easy to
identify), shall we.....
We have in the past:
Negotiated in good faith until the object of contention was resolved.
Objected to a particular course of action and advised that the action
would not be tolerated. After a little chest thumping and veiled
threats, nations of weaker resolve have backed down (Cuban Missile
Crisis).
Imposed economic sanctions until the hostile country capitulated.
Convinced several other countries of the "evils" of a particular
action and used collective intimidation to back the hostile country
down.
Used covert actions to infiltrate and influence government action in
those hostile countries.
Used military force.
Now, which of these actions would be the most effective against an
enemy who transcends borders?
Feel free to add any that I might have missed off the top of my
head...
Dave
|