Posted on 06/14/2002 10:53:20 PM PDT by Salvation
|
|
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
From dictionary.com:I'm using definition #1.
em·pire Pronunciation Key (mpr)
n.
- A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
- The territory included in such a unit.
- An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
- Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the... Asians (James Traub).
You're using a different dictionary. :-)
Even definition #2 doesn't apply; Afghanistan is certainly not being brought under our authority. It's being brought under their authority, in which case it's not our empire. It's their empire. Their own little Texas-sized empire. Any other "definition" is mere metaphor.
So can we dispense of this talk of empire? If not, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that point.
AW, I do like your plan to hit 'em hard and get out. But you never answered my question; namely, at what point would you have gotten out of Afghanistan? Or are you one of those nuke-'em-out-of-existence guys? Me, I would have nuked about six or seven countries on 9/11 that we know are involved in the terrorism aimed at us. That's the only thing that's going to dissuade the b****rds once and for all, IMO. But that's not going to happen any time soon. You and I both know it. So, given that we're not going to be able to really hit them hard enough to actually dissuade them, that is with nukes, what would you do? Tell me. Maybe I can go along with it. :-)
One more thing, regarding "defenseism," do you really think the just the threat of retaliation is sufficient to deter a muslim nation that acquires nukes from ever using them against us? Are you willing to rely on that threat alone to stop a lunatic like bin Laden? I'm not.
Colin Powell has more than likely had a great deal to do with the formation of that plan.
As to your question, let me first state that I can't promise utopia but neither can you. There will always be bad guys in the world and in Afghanistan. That is why we will always have to rely on lethal force for national defense.
To answer your question directly, I would have declared victory and left Afghanistan months ago albeit somewhat dissatisfied and frustrated (though not surprised) by the fact that not every single terrorist was killed or captured. If you think you can capture and kill ever terrorist by staying there for eternity, be prepared for a lot of disappointment. My choice is the realistic one.
As to nuking, I do not believe in the first use of nuclear weapons because I don't think that extermination of babies on a mass scale lies within the proper scope of national defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.