It's starting to get a bit absurd. I'm not sure how much longer the government is going to be able to sell the War on Terror when we must go to war with a new country every six months. First it was Afghanistan and Iraq; yesterday it was Pakistan and Iran; today we're discussing Yemen and tomorrow it's going to be...Oman? Jon Stewart points out the criteria by which Yemen qualifies to be the next country in line for American occupation.
Remember W's "Axis of Evil" speach? The "Axis of Evil" we bad because they paid, trained, and sometimes directed "Terrorists"?
So, if he really believed it, then why didn't he ask for a Declaration of War against them?
A terrorist is someone who uses public attacks against defenseless targets to intimidate people into doing whatever the terrorist wants.
That is a METHOD of using coercion to produce generalized fear in order to get something that some entity desires.
But who are the people who do it? When a government pays, trains, and directs those who use violence we usually call those people collectively an "Army", individually, we call them "Soldiers".
So, when a state-paid, state-trained, state-directed person uses violence via the method called "terrorism" why do we call them "terrorists" rather than "soldiers". And if they clearly identify their affiliation as required by the Geneva and Hague conventions, then why are they not treated as LEGAL COMBATANTS when captured, i.e PRISONERS OF WAR? And if they don't do those things then why don't we treat them, as stated in the Geneva and Hague Conventions, as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS - criminals - to be tried in the locality where they conducted their crimes?
And in recoginizing that "State Sponsors of Terrorism" are really just deploying an Army which uses a particular tactical method called "terrorism", why don't we treat that country the same way we would treat any other country who attacked us using more conventional tactical methods?
If we did it that way wouldn't it result in, eventually, some kind of armictice so that the war could END???? If there was not yet an Armistice, wouldn't that lead to a clear understanding of how to get to one?
Why do we continue to pussy foot around the source while knowing that doing that extends the bloodshed, and expense? Having been attacked 8 years ago, why drag it out? Why spend the money and blood to do it in an ineffective way?
Bring them home! If we are attacked again, then get a Declaration of War and then get it done!
Stop wasting our blood and treasure!
The wholesale marine supplies business has to make money, right? I don't know how much longer can the US spend money on wars, but the US is already in a lot of debt and mainly because of the wars they have.
Superbly written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a far better place Find IP Address
Post new comment