[ninenot]

Your analysis does not hit the mark. Reagan was proposing an effective defense against missiles--NOT an OFFENSE.

Certainly one may feel safe if one simply seeks and shoots all the terrorists (imagining that this is possible.) But that's flat-out immoral, unless they have hit you first.

In the case at hand, yes indeed, the terrorists have fired first, and we are morally justified in pursuing them and disabling or killing them.

I merely argue that the BEST moral option is to assasinate their leaders, which will have most of the desired effect.
Once again, we turn to Israel for the example. They do not simply blow up the entire Gaza Strip--which might comport with YOUR seeming course of action. No--Israel prefers to take out leadership, correctly.

That does NOT preclude more drastic action, but it is a fair warning. In any case, neither Israel nor the USA is interested in killing a bunch of women and children.

[hchutch]

No, it is on target. Reagan had it right. At this point, we are merely avenging the lives lost on 9/11.

I'd rather have taken Osama and Saddam down long before they could have put 9/11 together.