gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
When any of these failures allowed a 'regime change', then we will explore those options. You cannot avoid the reality that contestants to governmental powers and authority can end in either a 'regime change' or dissolution of a country. With the latter, there is no need for US to 'nuke' anyone.Translation: when moderate Muslims fail to control the militants, we will nuke Mecca.
Analogy: when moderate black Africans fail to control Somali piracy, we will nuke Kinshasa.
Analogy: when moderate latinos fail to control drug trafficking, we will nuke Sao Paolo.
You are correct, there is no difference in that there would be a 'regime change'. For the worse.A distinction without difference: in the end, it's all about power. What matters is that, in all these cases, criminal gangs operate with impunity by taking advantage of weak governments' lawlessness.
The goal of Al-Qaeda is not merely to control but to CHANGE the Islamic world into the image of what Al-Qaeda believe that world should be.Exactly which government does AQ control? Any more so that the drug cartels? As mentioned above, AQ operate in lawless regions of various countries; exactly as drug dealers and pirates do. Drug cartels control large parts of Mexico and Colombia which are no-go zones for regular law enforcement and military. Many elements of these governments are believed to be working for the drug lords. Somali pirates wield similar power in Somalia.
By Dooley's (and your) analogy, this ongoing situation (several decades in the case of drugs) should justify drawing up scenarios to nuke major metropolitan areas in South America.
Your arguments regarding the drug cartels and the pirates continues to fail and reveals your intellectual dishonesty.