Well it hits on the dilemma
sure and what Kerry is saying is a different approach from head first Dubya's, especially when the brunt of the attack comes from us normal class folk who also pay the brunt of the cost with money and loss of social programs.
An all out war demands equal sacrifice from all quarters and I do not see that happening with the wealthy class either in human service or in taxes paid....in fact they are making profits off of the scenario. Paid for by US.
Now, Kerry wants to rebuild a genuine international coalition again. He calls it a multi-faceted approach, with cooperative police work, special forces, surgical strikes, money trail hunting, political repercussions ( like hey we are gonna develope ourselves away from co-dependence on Middle East Oil) so that we canj embargo those countries that are harboring terrorists, etc.
So the debate is about tactics and morality does play into it. The conflicting attitude found in the Iraq War is true: how do we avoid politically damaging civilian casualties (now reported to be over 10,000) while supporting the challenger at home?
Easy. JUST DO IT!
You want a bull-headed approach? I guarantee you that the cold war approach alone will not be effective here. And it's been said before. In opposition to the Iraq War it was stated that Saddamn weas a survivalist first and would listen to threat. So the false case was made that in fact he was in violation of those threat parameters and deserved an attack. But it is not working. The presenty terrorist threat is greater than ever and our LIMITED resources are swamped in the Mesopotamian heartland, a truly difficult situation.
Now a detante can be established with governments, but not with as was said spineless amoeba cre·tins
who slither about waiting to strike without regard for territory or persona. They are, in fact, anarchists, or nihilists, in the violent sense.