Bombing our way to peace.

Nov 16, 2015 12:53

After any shocking event, it's pretty typical these days for people to divide into 2 camps. 1) We should kill those responsible even if it means some collateral damage. and 2) we cannot bomb our way to peace, bombings and collateral damage just radicalize ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

ford_prefect42 November 16 2015, 19:21:44 UTC
Another thing that there is no example of in human history is a people choosing to be completely eliminated rather than surrender to a stronger foe. The Japanese in WW2 were as fanatical an enemy as any in the history of humankind, they fought HARD, including suicide bombings, and yet, when confronted with the fact that, if they didn't quit it, they would be annihilated without even getting to honorably fight, they surrendered, and have been a steadfast ally ever since.

If you're *willing* to "leave no stone on top of another", then you're basically never going to have to. If you're unwilling, then the enemy never has compelling reason to stop.

As for Russia, I suspect that you're right, they're not interested in putting an end to terrorism, because, in the main, it's directed against us. Additionally, they are part of the same system as we are. The restraint of our type 2s does have influence over even Putin.

BTW, In my opinion, some type 2s are a good thing, voices of restraint need to be weighed against voices of aggression. The one thing that I wish is that our civilization would stop "splitting the baby" on methods. If we're going to restrain, we should restrain, and do things in the type 2 way. If we're going to war, we should war, and do things the type 1 way. "Limited military objectives", "humanitarian interventions", and "police actions" are recipes for the abject waste of lives and treasure to no advantage.

I am fine with letting barbarians barb, and I am fine with warring with Islamic culture itself, and I am fine with *nothing* in between.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up