I've not been following this post so apologies if I repeat something already said.
When the Twin Towers and the center of London were attacked then we had to retaliate, the Japanese did the same some 70 years ago, there is a saying, leave sleeping dogs lie, some cultures obviously don't quite grasp this....
If we are attacked we WILL retaliate..
Glad you joined the party.
Retaliate - like for like, counter-attack, respond.
Which came first: the chicken or the egg?
Is an armed attempt at regime change a reasonable response? Or continued civilian injuries and deaths a reasonable response. Especially from nations that claim to be acting "morally".
If it's all-out-war including women and children, then lets admit to that. Not continue to claim that we are acting responsibly and only in retaliation! Or is it really all-out-war and truth has become the real casualty?
If so, let's wake up and smell the coffee instead of being blindly led by deceitful politicians.
I don't belive that this is the case.
I believe our politicians are attempting to respond, in a limited way, to a situation. I don't think they're doing a particularly good job and I don't agree with their response, in this war-on-terror, war-on-drugs, regime-change, introduction-of-democracy, educating-women, or whatever other lable is used. Killing of innocent women and children is not a limited, reasonable, sensible or civilised response that will reduce the circle of violence.
It's simply a method of killing without endangering the lives of our military. Thus avoiding the possibility of the conflict becoming unpopular due to our own casualties.
I'm not sure if it was Nelson Mandela, it was a SA in the context of Apartheid, who said that: "for the people without a voice, violence is the only response", something like that.
It seems to me that we are killing those without a voice, or at least those with a very quiet voice on the world stage, who are not being heard, thus ensuring the perpetuality of violence.
An argument taken up by Greg Barns in discussing various minorities, such as aborigines, prisoners, asylum-seekers, political prisoners, etc.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/167404.html
Noam Chomsky discusses it also (just found it, gonna have a read).
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm
Interesting observation by Noam Chomsky:
"There's also a third argument in favor of violence which on the surface sounds pretty abhorrent, but I'm afraid it has a point, from the point of view of the revolutionary guerrilla groups. That is the idea that violence, say by the Viet Cong, will lead to reprisal, often overreprisal, and reprisal will win adherents to the Viet Cong. Of course, that's what happens, in fact. The first year of the massive American bombardment of South Vietnam, the number of recruits for the Viet Cong increased enormously, tripled at least. "
Perhaps this most accrurately describes our (western democracies) response to acts of terror. We are acting in the interests of the so-called "terrorists" by indiscriminately killing innocent civilians, thereby increasing the recruitment of their adherents. Moreover, we are placing our off-duty military personnel in the line of fire whilst they are off-duty.
