Jay Honeck wrote:
It must be solved diplomatically simply because there
is an endless supply of willing to die terrorists and you can never
shoot them all!

I know I shouldn't ask this, but...

Why not?


Hell, if people had thought like you during the 1940s, we'd have never
beaten the Japanese. After all, they had an "endless supply" of
kamikaze pilots (** Note: Necessary aviation content **) willing to
die for their cause, and they were EVERYWHERE in the Pacific.

Because "Japanese kamikazis" are a finite entity as opposed to "people who
hate America" who, for every one you kill, two are created.


I guess we should have capitulated at that point, and just let them
keep China and the Philippines, eh? No sense in fighting a concept
like that...

That's not a concept, that's an invasion. Having trouble with this, I
see...


It's like George Patton said: "Your duty is not to die for your
country. Your duty is to make the OTHER dumb sumbitch die for HIS
country..." Substitute "religion" or "culture" for "country" -- and
you can pretty well sum up our war on terrorism.

It's a vicious circle fed by the obsolete mindset that you can just go kill
people and your problems will be solved. In reality it just creates more.

Personally, it's not one I care to lose.
But it will never be "won" unless you kill off everyone who doesn't think
exactly the way you do - and what are the odds of that happening? And who
else thought that was an appropriate action?

Look at the "drug war" concept - how long have we been "fighting" that and
how well is it going?