Here are some starting points:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Criticisms_of_the_.22War_on_Terrorism.22
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/5865710/
I’ll leave it up to Max to redress any balance issue. I wasn’t aiming to push one way or the other, just start a discussion if anyone cares.
But there is no doubt a huge element of people around the world that, for whatever reason (and I assume there are many), want to attack other people’s basic way of life, their freedoms, destroy those ways and freedoms and change their enemy into beleiving in their own way.
I wasn’t trying to establish a balance either way, just ask some questions:
How do we fight the war?
How do we win? Is that possible, or (unlike an absolute victory) should winning be measured in degrees of effectiveness?
Do traditional military methods play a part and if so what? Do they further the cause “for victory” or possibly against it?
At what point can diplomacy come in? Or is there effectively no point where it can prove useful, due to fundamental differences between the parties?
