Originally Posted by RB
I never said there wasn't a traditional way to fight a war on terror, just not a traditional way to win, in the sense that terrorism can any everywhere or no where, all depending on who wants to be a terrorist. This isn't like a country vs. country war. Its idea vs. idea, which has no bounds in terms of land or countries. Got it?
Right, so if we can fight "traditionally" yet not win "traditionally" then the point of wasting those aforementioned resources is... what? If you accept that you're fighting a war "traditionally" without the possibility of achieving victory "traditionally" then there isn't any real payoff in the end now is there?
You can't have a "war of ideas". That's called a debate, if you really want to stretch things. They aren't having a debate in Iraq, last I checked.