On 8 Jul 2005 13:15:34 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that
they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive.

Which is more dangerous, spending billions of dollars to get us
to stop attacking us, or not spending the money to get them
to stop attacking us?

Because each approach that doesn't completely fix the problem is equal,
is that it?

Because honestly the two approaches seem to have about the
same effect. They're still attacking us. Our war has
failed.

Has it? Where is the followup attack to 9/11 in the US?

A pragmatist would say why spend the money?

It's impossible to prove either way if the money and efforts have
prevented the attacks that haven't happened. Logic indicates that if
they didn't like us before, and we made their life harder, they still
don't like us. Since they still don't like us, maybe more than before,
and they haven't attacked us again, maybe we've prevented incidents. I
don't believe that we've been told about all of the intelligence that
has been gathered, or the efforts being undertaken, nor do I think we
_should_ be informed of those things.