"cheeky"? Damn straight! For your info, my default post setting is HTML formatted, not plain text, so I have to remember to change it each time I post, and I forgot that time - so shoot me. It was all nice and paragrahped when I did it...
It's difficult to believe that someone would even think of suggesting this. How can you have such a callous disregard for human life? And don't go and say 'neither do the terrorists' - what is the point of ignoring human rights to fight a war to pretect human rights? Your proposition of bombing the terrorist citeis into dust is severely flawed, for numerous reasons, some of which I will deal with...
First of all, it's already been said, but I think it's important to emphasise - bombing the terrorists cities (assuming you can find them, but that's another of my points) would only make more terrorists. Look at Israel - they tried the hardline retaliation methods, and look where it got them - more people who hate them because their families were killed for being in the wrong apartment building next door to a HAMAS operations center! Look at Afghanistan, how the USSR lost the war - not because they were weak, but because the way they fought gave their enemies the opportunity to recruit even more troops for their armies (informal as they may have been). A retribution of blind force will only hurt more civilians, generate more hatred and give the terrorists greater numbers of recruits.
Secondly, the issue of location. Firstly, terrorist groups are decentralised for this very reason - like the hydra, you cut off a head and another will emerge. They are arranged in cells so that you can't wipe out the entire group at once, so your suggestion is not practically effective. Secondly, America's information gathering sources are not proving particularly effective at breaching a fanatic, tightly bound network of terrorists, even with the modern information interception that is possible - I find it extremely unlikely that you would be able to locate these 'terrorist cities'.
Thirdly, there is the issue of morality. As I said earlier, there is not point in becoming what you are fighting against - in betraying human rights to protect them. It's the old adage about become a barbarian in fighting the barbarians. What you propose is nothing more than terrorism on a huge scale. Essentially, the United States would become the largest terrorist organisation on earth, with access to the most funding, the most advanced weapons, and the world's largest nuclear stockpile! By saying that you'll stop them attacking you by making them afraid you'll annihilate a city is like September 11th with nukes - and that's undeniable.
Oh - and on Christine's point about not letting the oil barons charge you high prices - what you want to do is the equivalent of someone going into a supermarket and saying,"Give me a 50% discount on these beans, or I'll knife a teller". Really. Just think about it - you're saying that you will intimidate them into giving you better prices! From a country which claims to be a democracy, which claims to uphold human rights, that's pretty low...
On a serious note, the thing I had a problem with was the assumption that America was going to handle all of this on its own. The problem with the policy you suggest is simply that it isn't practical for America to cut off a country, to completely isolate it. There are two ways to cut off a country.
The first, and theoretically simplest, is to establish a military blockade. Now, clearly the US is unable to do that, as it's forces are already stretched beyond their means.
The second is by the neighbouring countries closing their borders to the targets - while this is (barely) workable from a practical point of view, it's just not going to happen diplomatically. The US has far too much ill will held against it to be able to establish a coalition to close these borders.
And in any case, even if the borders were closed, and the isolation supported by a majority of the world's countries, supplies and goos would still get through. I mean, just look at South Africa during apartheid. It was under international isolation, it was geographically isolated, and yet nonetheless not only did goods and technology get through, but it was selling arms to other countries!
Essentially, I'm saying that while an isolationist policy would probably work if it could be successfully instituted, the current situation (and the spirit of international politics in general) preclude such a policy ever being successfully instituted.
Mkay look GReaToaK - I agree that the earlier posts were uninformed and suchlike. What I take issue with in your post is the assumption that solitary American sanctions are going to crush the countries involved. Let's be hnest here - the US might have the largest economy in the world but it isn't the only economy in the world. There are other sources for the good that the sanctioned countries will need, and while the prices may rise, a move like this would most likely hurt the US economy far more than it hurts the target countries.
Oh - and synthesised fuel? Those technologies have been around since World War II - Germany developed a huge amount of technology bypassing the requirements of many raw materials or substances. The technology is there, it just needs to be implemented. Which could be well done with the price of Iraqi occupation, but that's a different topic altogether (and a withdrawl now would be catastophic)...
Slashdot Mirror
"cheeky"? Damn straight! For your info, my default post setting is HTML formatted, not plain text, so I have to remember to change it each time I post, and I forgot that time - so shoot me. It was all nice and paragrahped when I did it...
It's difficult to believe that someone would even think of suggesting this. How can you have such a callous disregard for human life? And don't go and say 'neither do the terrorists' - what is the point of ignoring human rights to fight a war to pretect human rights? Your proposition of bombing the terrorist citeis into dust is severely flawed, for numerous reasons, some of which I will deal with... First of all, it's already been said, but I think it's important to emphasise - bombing the terrorists cities (assuming you can find them, but that's another of my points) would only make more terrorists. Look at Israel - they tried the hardline retaliation methods, and look where it got them - more people who hate them because their families were killed for being in the wrong apartment building next door to a HAMAS operations center! Look at Afghanistan, how the USSR lost the war - not because they were weak, but because the way they fought gave their enemies the opportunity to recruit even more troops for their armies (informal as they may have been). A retribution of blind force will only hurt more civilians, generate more hatred and give the terrorists greater numbers of recruits. Secondly, the issue of location. Firstly, terrorist groups are decentralised for this very reason - like the hydra, you cut off a head and another will emerge. They are arranged in cells so that you can't wipe out the entire group at once, so your suggestion is not practically effective. Secondly, America's information gathering sources are not proving particularly effective at breaching a fanatic, tightly bound network of terrorists, even with the modern information interception that is possible - I find it extremely unlikely that you would be able to locate these 'terrorist cities'. Thirdly, there is the issue of morality. As I said earlier, there is not point in becoming what you are fighting against - in betraying human rights to protect them. It's the old adage about become a barbarian in fighting the barbarians. What you propose is nothing more than terrorism on a huge scale. Essentially, the United States would become the largest terrorist organisation on earth, with access to the most funding, the most advanced weapons, and the world's largest nuclear stockpile! By saying that you'll stop them attacking you by making them afraid you'll annihilate a city is like September 11th with nukes - and that's undeniable. Oh - and on Christine's point about not letting the oil barons charge you high prices - what you want to do is the equivalent of someone going into a supermarket and saying,"Give me a 50% discount on these beans, or I'll knife a teller". Really. Just think about it - you're saying that you will intimidate them into giving you better prices! From a country which claims to be a democracy, which claims to uphold human rights, that's pretty low...
Sleep, what is this 'sleep' thing?
On a serious note, the thing I had a problem with was the assumption that America was going to handle all of this on its own. The problem with the policy you suggest is simply that it isn't practical for America to cut off a country, to completely isolate it. There are two ways to cut off a country.
The first, and theoretically simplest, is to establish a military blockade. Now, clearly the US is unable to do that, as it's forces are already stretched beyond their means.
The second is by the neighbouring countries closing their borders to the targets - while this is (barely) workable from a practical point of view, it's just not going to happen diplomatically. The US has far too much ill will held against it to be able to establish a coalition to close these borders.
And in any case, even if the borders were closed, and the isolation supported by a majority of the world's countries, supplies and goos would still get through. I mean, just look at South Africa during apartheid. It was under international isolation, it was geographically isolated, and yet nonetheless not only did goods and technology get through, but it was selling arms to other countries!
Essentially, I'm saying that while an isolationist policy would probably work if it could be successfully instituted, the current situation (and the spirit of international politics in general) preclude such a policy ever being successfully instituted.
Mkay look GReaToaK - I agree that the earlier posts were uninformed and suchlike. What I take issue with in your post is the assumption that solitary American sanctions are going to crush the countries involved. Let's be hnest here - the US might have the largest economy in the world but it isn't the only economy in the world. There are other sources for the good that the sanctioned countries will need, and while the prices may rise, a move like this would most likely hurt the US economy far more than it hurts the target countries. Oh - and synthesised fuel? Those technologies have been around since World War II - Germany developed a huge amount of technology bypassing the requirements of many raw materials or substances. The technology is there, it just needs to be implemented. Which could be well done with the price of Iraqi occupation, but that's a different topic altogether (and a withdrawl now would be catastophic)...