|
I was just going to suggest we use the Nancy Reagan method. We could just say No to cancer and terrorism and then neither would exist.
Military action by itself will not "solve" the problem of terrorism. But one fact must be addressed. When nations sponsor or support terrorist with weapons, training, and base camps then the level and span of their activity increases. If terrorists must hide in every country, have trouble with funding and training then the damage they do will be less. Forcing nations to come to grips with the fact that they are part of the problem helps eliminate the scope of terrorists activity. Fear of military reaction will keep many despots from sponsoring the export of terror. Less training and poorer weapons means fewer innocent people dead.
If we are to look to the root causes of for example Arab terrorism aimed at European and America who will speak for the terrorist demands. If the first demand is that the USA completely repudiate Israel and cease all support of that country as the starting place for working towards peace then what? What if the demand is that we change and all become conservative muslims? Every demand I have ever seen presented is so impossible, so inflexible and so far worse than everything Europeans claim as American arrogance and excess that I don't know how to begin.
Maybe somebody here can offer a mutually acceptable starting point for peace.
We hear so much against military action but I haven't heard an alternative
offered to which both sides could agree. I don't think those in favor of military action are against peace. They just haven't heard an acceptable alternative offered.
__________________
|