Replies

Your right, I shouldn't have used that phrase.

I still stand by my assertion that if there is credible evidence that we are about to nuked, we should go pro-active, as opposed to reactive.

I still stand by my assertion that if there is credible evidence that we are about to nuked, we should go pro-active, as opposed to reactive.

This is one of the real problems in that we are not officially at war with a state. One cannot actually be at war with a terrorist group. These situations can be no more than a police action. You can't have a war unless your opponent is a foreign state. Gven that terrorists always hide among civilians, it is guaranteed that the majority of those you kill by using a WMD in those circumstances will be civilians, not terrorists.

Like the "War On Drugs", the "War On Terrorism" is an illusion. These are only police actions at best. Fortunately, our bombing and our support for the Northern Alliance force the Taliban to stand in as a national government with which we can pretend we are at war. Although they are hostile to us, there still is no proof or indication that they were behind the attack. The actual terrorists are Bin Laden's minions and allies. The Taliban only shelters them behind the Afghan civilian population.