Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gcbrowni
I disagree. I think the threat of a US invasion of rogue states/sponsors of terrorism is now much more credible. I know that's not what you mean, but I'm 100% certain the worlds leaders now know US foreign policy is different after 9/11.
I doubt the extremists really care about Iraq. It's just an excuse to them. They would have used Afghanistan if Iraq wasn't there.
I don't give a crap about global angst when it comes to state sponsors of terror. Sanctions and engagement is not any way to deal with terrorist states. There is only one way: the Afghanistan way. If you are a state sponser of terrorism then you don't get a state anymore. Period.
State sponsors of terror can not be allowed to exist. I believe there is pretty much global agreement on THAT point.
|
OK, so let's list the coutries that were sponsors or harborers of terrorism that no longer do so....hmmm, well Afghanistan isn't run by them anymore, but they're still there. Iran hasn't budged. How about Sudan? Nope. Syria? Nyet. Well, what about Libya? They seem to be behaving better, but there was that assassination plot against the Saudi royals. Shit, maybe someone can help me out because I'm at a loss here.
Even if we do accept that the ONLY way to deal with states that harbor terrorists (and any other state that the administration dislikes, ie Iraq) is via invasion, how many countries and deaths will it take? As Gore Vidal said, the war on terrorism equates to eternal war waged for eternal peace.