As Israel fights terrorist in Gaza the left takes a break for blaming Israel for everything to make another one of its favorite arguments the argument goes like this however, justifiable Israel’s or anyone else’s strong military action is against a terrorist group that a strong military action like an invasion only creates more terrorist then it stops and or kills.

Iraq is always held up as the best case for this argument but I do not really buy it

during the Clinton years the USA did exactly what the left and the non-interventionist right have bean asking us to do mainly using intelligence and light military action to stop terrorist. Are soft policies did not stop the growth of terrorist or their attacks on the USA so we need to drop this theory that the best way to stop terrorism is to stop fighting it

If the United States adopted the theory that the best way to stop Japan is to stop fighting with Japan in WWII, where would we be today?

__________________

Pushing back the frontiers of ignorance.

Keep killing innocent civilians, no matter how many people it pushes towrads radicalization. It's like drinking the water to keep from drowning.

__________________
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
(To such heights of evil are men driven by religion)

Clinton came closer to nailing UBL with that air strike than Bush ever did. Hardly soft. And to do it, he had to drag his Republican generals through it -- initially they refused even to draft an op plan for him.

Heavy military action doesn't work against terrorists. But nobody is advocating that we stop fighting, either. Those aren't the only two choices -- there's a cavernous gap between the two.

Why do terrorists practice terrorism?

How else can they get it right?

Seriously, these people generally are poor and have nothing to lose.
They have had hate poured into their heads for years.
They do not respect life as we do -- certainly non-Muslim life, which they consider expendable.

Man, some of the posts I've seen recently is that people are just giving up and would rather appease the enemy. Personally, I'd rather die on my feet fighting evil than live a shamed life licking a tyrants boot.

__________________
What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us. What we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal
- Albert Pike

Hogwash. Nobody is advocating appeasement. But there are a hundred other options between the two extremes of appeasement and war on a WWII scale. We need to stop fighting big and start fighting smart.

Non-interventionists do NOT support light military action. The only time they support any military action is in defense of this nation after we've been attacked.

They don't support preemptive strikes, covert action, foreign aid, military bases on foreign soil, meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, etc.

And who does this refer to?