> > > 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.

Either that, or turn against Israel. I'd rather have bin Laden on my case than God, though...

> 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.

With more funds, yet.

> 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

Nyper"*KA-BOOM* 'Duuuh, let's talk dis obeh."old