[quote="Grant"]Tancredo is not talking about a preemptive strike. He is talking about a quid-pro-quo, a deterrent threat: if America is again attacked, America will do X. His conclusion is clearly simplistic and unacceptable, but he does raise a necessary question.
The conventional wisdom and the rules of war do not apply to non-state players, a fact that does not yet seem to have reached Tancredo. Bombing Mecca and Medina is indiscriminate and absurd, probably misdirected, and could well be the desired result of those making the attack on the States in the first place.
A good many of you are American citizens with good backgrounds. Give the Dude the benefit of your thinking, maybe in addition to a piece of your mind.
.Let us say that it is immediately after 9/11 and the Bush Administration has not yet muddied the waters. What would have been an appropriate American response?
Alternatively, let us say that another attack of similar source and magnitude occurs. Beyond holding those responsible criminally and civilly liable, what SHOULD the American response be?[/quote]
Grant, I think your contradicting yourself there, you think its absurd, but wouldn’t rule it out as an option?
Mecca and Media have nothing to do with this so called ‘war against terrorism’. Even suggesting something like this shows how moral sick America is.
How on earth can be this be a prevention?, its not even rational, and I know that’s not strong in America but com’on!
America started this, it has no legs to stand on and no right to threat anyone.
‘Let us say that it is immediately after 9/11 and the Bush Administration has not yet muddied the waters. What would have been an appropriate American response?’
The response should be anything but attacking the innocent, that’s plain enough answer.
Bush administration whatever name it takes has done far more than ‘muddied waters’ for centuries now, it should look closer home for once.
