<HTML>ISHMAEL wrote:
>
> this is ultimately a war against terrorism, not against
> nation states! (But if you disagree with the last point,
> please do say so.)
> -----------
>
> I do disagree (and apologize for the length of the post to
> follow).
>
> Terrorists are merely the bullets in the gun
There is a distinction between 'terrorism' (which is what I was referring to) and 'terrorist'.
[...]
> The disarmament process involves both prosecution (I do not
> mean to imply a stricly legal "prosecution") of the
> terrorists themselves but, most importantly, punishment and
> policing of the *S*tates that have made or might be tempted
> to make use of the terrorist option.
Probably every nation in the world, including your own, has either used or funded terrorism at some time or another. Where do you draw the line?
>
> My advocation of *invasion* and *occupation* of those
> coutries whose governments may bear indirect and/or direct
> responsibility for the most recent attack stems from three
> beliefs.
...and entirely ignores the consequences of invasion and occupation. Afghanistan, for example, is possibly the most difficult country in the world in which to sustain an invasion and occupation. You ignore the 'Hydra' effect. As I asked you to do before, look at your own response to the horror of last week's events; surely you know enough about human nature to recognise that the citizens of other nations would be as outraged by the bombing and occupation of their nation as you would be by the bombing and occupation of yours.
> Firstly, *S*tate sponsored terrorism is the *clear and
> present danger.*
Do you include (for example) the US-sponsored terrorism in Sudan?
[snip rationalisation of military options with which I disagree and have stated why elsewhere]
> All Diplomacy ultimately depends upon a nation's ability to
> put an army in the field. This principle was formulated
> theoretically in the days of Metternich and Bismark - it
> still holds true to this day.
Look where Bismarck's methods ultimately led!</HTML>
