On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:42:37 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:21:04 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
-snip-
If we had taken the money spent in Iraq and Afganistan, and used it
all to build houses, schools, and hospitals, and to make life better
for the general populations in any way we could thionk of, we would
have won in both the short term and the long term. There would have
been no new customers for what the terrorists are selling.

We would have put them out of business without firing a shot.

As I recall, some schools we built in Afghanistan were burnt to the ground
by the Taliban. With the female students inside.

I guess we could keep rebuilding them until the Taliban got tired of burning
them - or the community ran out of students.


While my heart wants to agree with Salty-- my head says Heybub is
right on this one. I saw first hand the futility of trying to
'buy' peace in Vietnam.

'Hearts and minds' is the best option-- but once the shooting starts
'superior firepower' is the only way to win.


I said to use the money we used for shooting. There would not have
been any shooting if thigs were done the way I suggested.

The way terrorists get a foothold and build their numbers is to
promise miserable people that THEY are the saviors who will make
things better.

The way to disarm their sales ability is to make sure the general
population has their basic needs met without the help of the
terrorists.

The masses will follow whom ever does the most to improve their lives.

I agree that you can't buy peace AFTER you have demolished a country.