> > Umm... Hello? A guy who sends men to BLOW PEOPLE UP is not likely to be swayed by diplomacy. One wonders if you've even read the rest of the posts on the subject.
>
> Are we talking Saddam, the Talibans, bin Laden, or just guys/despots in general? There are significant differences in the degree to which the above can be applied to these cases.
>
> A guy may be a maniac (or whatever the term is), but he bombs for a reason. Terrorists know exactly why and what they are bombing. If you take away his reason, he (1) won't do it, or (2) his support - which is a practical/logistic necessary - disappears. It is civilized practise to try to solve a conflict by diplomatic means, only using war as a last resort. If nothing else, any maniac who has sense enough to organize a terrorist attack can be bought, if you really want to. The question is whether you are willing to pay. If not, you go to war.
>
> I think diplomacy was doing just fine in the present case until the soldiers barged in. But what do I know...

Hmmm... So if we take ETA as an example (fighting to make the Basque region of Spain a separate country), taking away their reason to fight would mean what? Nuking the territory they're fighting for?

And, of course, we would only need to destroy America to take away bin Laden's reason.

These people are not interested in compromise, or settlement and (believe it or not) offering such a settlement is only taken as proof that terrorism works. Then they redouble their efforts.

I challenge you to name one terrorist organisation that has been successfully dealt with diplomatically, and has stopped committing acts of terrorism.

winter"I can't think of any"mute