the outcome of the election

[Minionman]

In a war, there is no "we're better" attitude, unless this means we're better at killing. You try taking the high road, and that road will lead to the cemetery. No, there's no need for unnecessary violence, like killing their kids (although frankly, I think that this actually might get the message across... umm, maybe). However, Muslim militants are like rabid dogs. Rabid dogs bite anyone they can sink their teeth into. So, what's the usual procedure in dealing with rabid dogs? What's the usual procedure with even normal seeming dogs that attacked humans violently? No, definately no need for extra violence. Just the right amount will do.

In WW2, we were not as violent overall as the Germans and the Japanese were against us (if anyone wants to start a nuke discussion, just zip it. Same goes for Drezden). Even the russians who were significantly less "civilized" than the western forces were, did not on the whole approach the levels of violence exhibited by the germans. However, and this is important.... we were violent *enough*.
-A
[right][snapback]59843[/snapback][/right]

You just love to talk tough, and seem to be assuming that if there are enough bombings, all the problems will go away from that region. That viewpoint is totally wrong.

You do say that terrorists will go after anyone and anything. That doesn't change whether there are a ton of revenge bombings or not. There are a lot of people who simply have a lot of hate floating in them. Some revenge bombings won't change that, so doing them just to show how tough you are is a waste of people's lives and money. In your rabid dog example, you shoot the rabid dog, you don't shoot another dog to try and scare the rabid one off. Maybe you shoot another animal by accident if it's near the dog and the dog is running to attack someone, but that's it.

Do I suggest taking the "high road"? Sort of, because in this case I think the "high road" can be more effective a lot of the time. Hopefully people have added extra security, and the intelligence and military people can find some of these terrorists and either kill or capture them. But revenge bombings don't help with that, and over the long term, hurt, killing people for esentially nothing. And of course the U.S. still will be around for a long time in the future, so revenge bombings now mean people are more willing to do them in the future, instead of finding other ways to deal with problems.

I'm not going to talk about world war 2, but the firebombings and atom bomb are part of it so you will have to talk about it, and not tell people to "zip it", if you bring up cruelty in the war.