Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I have never understood the logic of a "proportionate" response. It seems to me that a proportionate response just encourages whomever you are responding to, to transgress again. If your goal is to stop them from seizing soldiers, or if you are trying to get your soliders back, isn't the disproportionate response what you want?
After the Japanese attacked us, was it a "proportionate response" to ask for the total and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, and completely refusing all their attempts at a negotiated peace.
Why would anyone ever want to use a "proportionate response"? What possible use could that serve?
|
A big fat 2.
Was our response in Aphganisan to 9/11 proportionate? AQ killed 3000. Does that mean we are only permitted to kill 3000 AQ? Fucking moronic.
The other thing that bugs me is why no one on the world stage goes after Hezbolla for targeting civilians, but when Israel has collateral damage (due to the fact that Hezbolla purposes integrates among civilians for protection) the world (read: EU) goes apeshit.
I swear to god I feel like I'm living in bizarro universe or Alice in Wonderland.
