>Just because there was no attacks since 9/11 doesn't mean that there would of been if we didn't kidnap, torture, detain without trial, and kill people we thought might be a terrorist. If anything, doing such things would just make the resolve of the real terrorist greater.
>
>This last sentence just doesn't hold water....and also represents a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument - we weren't engaged in a war on 9/10/2001, and yet we were attacked....and then a few days later, we fight back....and suddenly that angers terrorists more. So....we don't fight, and that makes them want to kill us....we fight back, and that makes them want to kill us more. Do you see a pattern emerging here????

Perhaps one should address the reason for the attacks in the first place then.

>
>It's an interesting statement you make - however there is no evidence to support that these are the things that have prevented attacks.
>
>I repeat....no attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 - in all likelihood, we prevented an attack in Los Angeles........the goal of fighting back is to protect U.S. soil.

I'm going to have to disagree with you as there is no way of knowing.

>As far as sending a nuke over to wipe out a whole nation of innocent people - I'm sure you're joking as that is simply absurd.
>
>Harry Truman faced that same argument in 1945. Our relations with Japan have been friendly for a long time now. Truman saved the lives of countless Americans, and to be honest, Japan probably turned out far better off.

You can't compare the WWII machine of Japan with a dozen rouge terrorists...