Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I'd be interested in hearing an answer to that question. What would the consquences be?
|
What consequences will we accept?
That's the real question. If we angered the rest of the world, and they decided to use the UN against us...we would use our security council veto, and overrule their attempt to impose consequence.
Nor would we accept a outright invasion...we'd fight it off.
But since we are unwilling to create a security enviroment that prevents assymetric attack...
That seems to be the consequence we're going to be facing. This isn't normative...it's just descriptive. I don't know that it's better to take other kinds of consequences, while at the same time, there is nothing positive about being subject to terror attacks. Yet, the changes necessary to prevent all such attacks are draconian and pyhrric.
We impose consquences through the means we have available....hegemony of the West, cultural and fiscal power, military technology.
They impose consequences with the powers they have...nationalist and religious rhetorics, civil uprising and the "arab street," resistance to your cultural forms, and in cases...assymetric attack.
What the consequences should be? I don't know that we can ask that question. What are the consequences either party has the power to inflict or prevent?