|
And so the rest of the world has to appease the US?
The problem with the 'kill them all' policy is that you can't complain when your enemies take up the same policy. Add a little collateral damage into the mix and it's not long before everyone is adopting a 'kill them all' policy.
The results are either
a) A long, drawn-out, meaningless and unwinnable conflict that does little except spread animosity, hatred and distrust (not to mention bring many to their untimely deaths)
b) The capitulation and surrender of one side or the other.
c) The complete annihalation of one side or the other.
d) A realisation of the failure of the policy and subsequent attempts to undo the harm it has caused.
Which one do you want? And which one is most likely to occur?
Other alternatives might include infiltration, diplomacy, trade and other economic tools of persuasion.
It's so much cheaper (for the taxpayer) to help another nation out than it is to wage a war with it.
When the 'nation' you are waging war with has no borders, the cost rises astronomically - the truth is that this policy can't continue for much longer, and that's just plain old economics. If the US really extolls the virtues of the the free-market and democracy, why doesn't it put its trust in these ideals when conducting its foreign policy?
|