[geeks] My take

[Joshua D Boyd]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 05:30:27PM -0400, Mike Dombrowski wrote:
> attempts to get those responsible. We need to fight terror with terror, 
> We need to send a message that states who support terrorism will not be 
> tolerated. Our retribution needs to be so intense and horrific that 
> people who commit these acts wll think twice. A couple cruise missles 
> and a smart bomb run or two won't accomplish anything at all.

Perhaps war is nescesarry (I hope not), but it certainly wouldn't do to go
to war for revenge.  Revenge starts are unacceptable cycle of blood.  Just
trying to install terror in other people rather than effect a specific
change in government is about as bad.

War should only be used to force another country to permenantly and
drastically change.  Failure to do so is to have wasted lives.  I think
that pretty much everyone who died in Desert Storm was completely wasted
since no apparent change has really happened in Iraq.  Saddam still sits
there giving every appearance of trying to rebuild enough to fight another
war.

Likewise Vietnam was a waste since no change was affected against the
North Vietnamese.

On the other hand, in the WWs, Japan and Germany were forcibly changed and
rebuilt with virtually no remnants of the old evil.  Were the WWs worth
it?  Looking at the horrors conducted by the Germans and Japanese,
possibly.  But we didn't enter WWI out of a sense of nobleness, but rather
to protect our shipping routes, and I can't say that we were that much
better about WWII.  But, these are the details that doctorates are made
of.  All I can say is that in retrospect, the endings to the WWs were much
more satisfactory, and the main difference is that the enemy nations were
completely changed in ways that we controlled.

-- 
Joshua D. Boyd