TK,

I think I know better than to bother to engage with you. I guess I was just looking for a brick wall to beat my head against. Of course it was a speech. Buzz words are fine - if the speaker backs it up with meaning. I didn’t expect source citations in his speech, but I would expect him to have them handy for any in his audience who desired a more thorough explanation. You presented his speech here as text, with a meaning not self-evident. I think that makes you responsible for the back-up information in this case.

The list of nations to make war on could be very long. At least we won’t have to wage war on the U.S. since we are taking steps, like the Patriot Act, to diminish individual rights in the pursuit of terrorists, regardless of how ineffective. So, if Iran and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were known to harbor terrorists, and Iraq was suspected, but not known to harbor terrorists (we likely have differing opinions on the information about that), why didn’t we invade those other countries first? I’m accepting your premise for this exercise, but I expect some logic in our actions.

I agree with your sentiment that we could win this war by simply killing more terrorists than we create, but unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be so simple. From what I observe, it appears that so long as we kill innocent non-combatants, and support Israel at the direct expense of Palestine (sorry indeed to bring that up) we will invariably create more future terrorists than we are presently killing. This looks like we are on a path where we can’t get there from here. Actually, your response, “simply kill more . . .” was way too simplistic and extremely disappointing, coming from someone so interested, concerned, and as well read as yourself. I guess I engaged because I thought you would do better.

Your Nagasaki and Heroshima analogy is good. For better or worse, Roosevelt decided to kill a quarter million civilians or more (don’t think he knew what the death toll would be) to end WWII. People debate the wisdom of that choice to this day. My step-father was a Marine who survived three landings in the Pacific, and I don’t think a fourth landing directly on Japan would have been too good for him, so I don’t have an objective opinion. So from your response, I assume you’re OK with an unlimited number of innocent, non-combatant casualties in our war on terror. Is it because they are not white, not American? Personally, I think that’s sick. There are terrorists in Germany and the U.K. Should we attack them and accept unlimited collateral damage too? I hope your children are never in one of the countries we attack. Remember, we’re told this war will go on a long, long time and cover a broad part of the planet. As for proof of innocence, get real. See Harley’s post. So all those Iraqis we killed were harboring terrorists, eh? I didn’t think my lack of respect for you could drop another notch, but it has. And the civilian population really had/have a viable opportunity to leave before we conducted operations? Crimeny, that’s like saying we know New York is a likely terrorist target, and New Yorkers have an opportunity to leave before the next attack if they want to. I think you’re really grasping now, TK. There are about a billion Muslims worldwide. How much collateral damage are you going to accept in the effort to kill them all, which may be the only way to stop the recruitment of more Muslim terrorists?

Another cut-and-paste, I see. I’m with Grumpy. You’re really well read, but do you have an original thought?

Aunty M,

I understand the purpose of motivation. I’m more motivated by effective reasoning than by mindless cheering, “Now get out there and play some serious ball, boys!” I occasionally do some public speaking, and I listen critically to the same. Good speakers tie the message together, linking causes and effects, and linking that to specific actions that can be seen as effective responses. Captain Ouimette completely failed in that regard.

GP,

I understand your reluctance to jump in with other than your “dodge” ball, but I thought you’d be a likely one with something interesting to say. You usually exhibit reasoning skills I identify with even when I disagree with your conclusions.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.