Is Bombing the answer to Mideast violence and terror??

[BKKSTAN]

This one should stir up some controversy
----------------------------------------

Bombing is the answer to Mideast violence and terror

What if the US systematically bombed for a period of two weeks all 120 nuclear and nuclear-support facilities in Iran? It would postpone for 10 years or so Iran's "grand tour" of nuclear devastation against Israel, resistant Arab states, selected parts of Europe, and beyond.

What if the US also bombed all air force and ground force installations in Iran and Syria?

And for good measure, what if the US bombed the re-grouping Taleban forces in Waziristan in north Pakistan (just ceded to the Taleban), from which Islamists seek to launch attacks against Nato forces in Afghanistan?

And what if - and God knows it's about time - Israel was given the green light to launch a two-pronged attack against Hezbollah death squads and Hamas homicide bombers for the express purpose of destroying both groups, at whatever the cost?

What if all developed states agreed to an embargo on all oil imports from Saudi Arabia, until that state stops setting up schools of hate all over the world?

And finally, what if all democratic states agreed to suspend, for a period of five years, their participation in the United Nations (effectively an Islamised Mafia organisation), to protest that institution's top-down, all-pervasive corruption, and its pathological targeting of one state, week after week?

What if? As a consequence, the world's states would almost certainly see a new lease on life for the only political system, and the only economic system, that ever brought peace, prosperity and freedom: namely, democracy and free-market capitalism.

The alternative, frankly, is to suffer a tidal wave of evil. I believe there is no other way of interpreting what is happening in the world today.

Stephen Carter, PhD

[valentine]

How can anyone claiming a PhD write such clap trap?He forgot to mention, bomb Israel too, then we could have a vast nuclear contaminated desert with no one living there to harm anyone.

[cookie]

This bombing is no longer necessary:

International
U.S. military has successful missile defence test off Hawaiian

island

Honolulu, April. 7 (AP): The U.S. military shot down a Scud-type missile off a Hawaiian island in a missile defense test, the Missile Defense Agency said.

It was the second successful test this year of technology the Pentagon is developing to defend larger areas than ones that can be protected by Patriot missile defenses already deployed in South Korea, Japan and other places.

A ship fired the target missile on Thursday night. Three minutes later, soldiers with the U.S. Army's 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade launched an interceptor missile that destroyed the target over the Pacific Ocean.

Like the Patriot anti-missile defenses, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, system is designed to knock out ballistic missiles in their final minute of flight.

Unlike the Patriot system, however, it is designed to intercept targets at higher altitudes, allowing it to defend a larger area.

Pam Rogers, a Missile Defense Agency spokeswoman, said the new system is designed to complement Patriot defenses, not replace them.

The THAAD system had its first successful test last year at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. It had another successful test on Jan. 27 in Hawaii.

The Missile Defense Agency moved its THAAD testing to Hawaii because the New Mexico testing range was not large enough for the military to do the testing it wanted, Rogers said.

The U.S. Pacific Fleet already has installed some ballistic missile tracking technology on cruisers and destroyers in the Pacific. Some ships also have interceptor missiles on board.

[Aardvark]

I dont think bringing down Nuclear weapons in the Pacific does the world any good either.

[Roadman]

Conventional or nuclear? See your conventional and raise you to 100 nuclear warheads.
Using a what if basis, one could forgive perhaps the USA if they made the ultimate choice and solved the biggest problem to the harmony of the planet once and for all. There would however be some collateral damage being mainly Israel. And the Indians (the Bollywood ones) and the Chinese would be slightly pissed coping the wind drift.
Again using the what if theory .

[cookie]

Protection,
so no more preemptive strikes are necessary.
Bombing is NOT the answer to Mideast violence and terror.
We need protection against a crazy guy like the president of Iran (always problems with his name!!!). Guys like this are unpredictable so you need protection!!
And we have to combine this protection with REAL diplomatic negotiations.
Reagan always said: Be hard, protect yourself at the same time, but always keep the line open your enemy. This is how he defeated the old USSR without firing 1 shot, without preemptive strike!!!

[Doc]

Since it is being advocated to take out all nuclear facilities in the Mid East - then it would only stand to reason that Israel's nuclear facilities should also be taken out. And while we are at it - take out Pakistan's and India's facilities as well. After all - all three countries are loose cannons with all of their neighbors as well.

Allowing Israel to take any pre-emptive actions is only going to increase the well deserved hatred of Israel - which will only create more terrorist activites.

'Tis one of those rare times that I have to agree with Val - it is clap trap.

[dbriggins]

Let's see. If we started bombing Iran, then they would line up 2 million volunteers on the Iran-Iraq border, who would fix bayonets and start running. What few there were left would not stop until they hit Riyaad. In order to stop them, the US would have to resort to genocide. If the Western Nations embargoed Saudi oil, the combined economies of the Western world would grind to a halt within 2 weeks; far sooner than fat Saudi Sheiks would feel the pressure. Of course we all saw what happened when Israel tried to take out Hezbulah, and they've been pounding away at Hamas for decades without improvement.

As for the UN. It has shown itself to be useless to all parties involved, merely providing a convenient hole in which to flush several billion per annum. A 5 year boycott of the UN would be about as effective as voting Green in the next US election.

The issues in the Middle East, like communism, are economic in nature (not religious,as so many think). Unfortunately, because of Western dependence on oil, we prop up dictators who we deem the lesser of many evils in order to maintain some semblance of order. The only way out is to make sure there is balanced development, building up infrastructure and not merely lining the pockets of Western companies. But as long as we need our oil, our governments will pander to the elite, who make sure the poor are marginalized.

Israel? It's the only democracy in a region of dictatorships. George Bush has modeled many of his actions in regards to terrorism on the Israeli reactionary doctrine. The result has been exactly what has happened in Israel: More terrorism, not less. Israel faces a very real threat of annihilation on a daily basis, but most of that threat has been brought upon themselves by their own actions. We would do well to avoid their pitfalls and instead work towards economic development for the entire region, not merely themselves. This includes sharing water rights, opening borders, and building up the economic infrastructure of the occupied territories. Sure there will be bombings and shootings and rocket attacks for a while. But they will fade into the distance as the Palestinians get down to do what everyone wants to do: Make money. Communism was great until people realised there was no money in it. Terrorism is the same way. And just as an aside to France: Give people the opportunity to work, and you'll be surprised how quickly they stop rioting in the streets.

[Doc]

Israel? It's the only democracy in a region of dictatorships. George Bush has modeled many of his actions in regards to terrorism on the Israeli reactionary doctrine. The result has been exactly what has happened in Israel: More terrorism, not less. Israel faces a very real threat of annihilation on a daily basis, but most of that threat has been brought upon themselves by their own actions.

Agree 100%. Israel needs to pull back from the occupied territories without delay - and they will find that the Arab world will have a much more concilitory opinion toward them. Compounding the problem of illegal occupation of the territories is that many fundamental religious groups in the US are helping to fund these occupations.

If Israel wants to have a wall surrounding their State - fine. Let them have it. However, it should not be built upon Palestinian territory - it needs to be built soley upon Israeli land.

Sure there will be bombings and shootings and rocket attacks for a while. But they will fade into the distance as the Palestinians get down to do what everyone wants to do: Make money.

I believe that they would cease rather quickly as once the Arab world sees that Israel is not trying to rule the Middle East with an iron fist and a "we will do whatever we damned well please all in the name of safety and security for the Israeli people with the backing of the US" they will step down hard on that type of terroristic activities.

[cookie]

"many fundamental religious groups in the US are helping to fund these occupations. "

Big problem here,
lot of lobbying going on!!!!!

[tigerryan]

Dbriggins help me understand your positon. You argue against communism and I beleive rightfully demonstrate the connection of communism/poverty and terrorism then you end your argument with
"Give people the opportunity to work, and you'll be surprised how quickly they stop rioting in the streets." Give how? communism?
How do you explain the upperclass status of the 9/11 terrorist. How do you explain the decline in terror attacks on Israel after the push against Hezbolla as well as the decline of terror attacks in Iraq since the "surge".
Best, Ryan

[ttom]

Never ever is any form of violance a solution.

Violance is always caused by ..... violance !

[dbriggins]

Dbriggins help me understand your positon. You argue against communism and I beleive rightfully demonstrate the connection of communism/poverty and terrorism then you end your argument with
"Give people the opportunity to work, and you'll be surprised how quickly they stop rioting in the streets." Give how? communism?
How do you explain the upperclass status of the 9/11 terrorist. How do you explain the decline in terror attacks on Israel after the push against Hezbolla as well as the decline of terror attacks in Iraq since the "surge".
Best, Ryan

The core of any movement tends to be educated, idealistic people. The foot soldiers are those who are easily swayed by rhetoric and are dis-affected in some way. While the 9/11 terrorists were elite cadre, the resulting mashup has been one of the few leading the many, either in the US (Red "rural" vs. Blue "urban") or in Iraq (unemployed Baathists and Al-Sadr brigade youth) or in Palestine (Hamas) or in France (alienated arab youth). The elite create the splash that draws people to them, such as 9/11 which, after decades of being in the shadows of Islamic extremism, catapaulted Al-Quada to the limelight, or the Munich Massacre, which did the same for the Yassar Arafat and the PLO. These are, by necessity, carried out by educated, capable people. The actions are designed to be a rallying point for the disaffected. You can't say that highly educated, wealthy Arabs were blowing themselves up in Israeli cafes, or setting off IED's in Bagdhad.

As for providing opportunities: The major issue in France with the youth is that one cannot get a job if one lives in a certain area, has a certain type of surname, or has the wrong color skin. Much like the US up until recently, violence was created by exclusion. I'm not suggesting that communism is the answer, but bigotry in it's many forms is definately the cause. While Americans assume bigotry is white looking down on black, it is any group of people who look down on another, for whatever reason. In Thailand it's Thais looking down on Lao, Chinese looking down on Thai, everyone looking down on the Burmese and Cambodian. Men looking down on women, Farangs looking down on the locals. In France (and much of Europe), it's the "locals" looking down on "immigrants"

The Cambodian genocide was started by the wealthy taking advantage of the poor. Pol-Pot didn't create the situation, he merely took advantage of an existing issue. The result was an incredible amount of death. What is happening in the Middle East is a similar situation, egged on and exacerbated by a few wealthy, connected, and mentally unstable individuals.

As to the decline in terror attacks in Israel and Iraq. How long does it take for counterfiet DVDs to show up on the street after a police "surge" to clean up the problem? It does not solve the issue, it merely sweeps it under the rug. Watch, and wait. Until the underlying issues are solved, the symptoms will pop up again. Policing does not stop crime. Higher penalties don't stop crime. Removing the reasons to commit crime stops crime. And those are poverty, lack of purpose, and social instability, to name a few. In the 70's an individual of Thailand correctly saw community development as the best method to fight communism in Issan. The same is true for the current situation in the South. Opportunity is something that can be easily extended, and just as easily removed. Take it away, and people are bound to be upset. And those people are just begging for a leader.

[Doc]

How do you explain the decline in terror attacks on Israel after the push against Hezbolla as well as the decline of terror attacks in Iraq since the "surge".

It is a phenomonen called "re-grouping."

Hezbolla is re-stocking weapons (recently reported) so that they can do another surge. The combatants do not just give up after a "surge" or a major battle. They just find ways to become more sophisticated in order to claim victories in the future.

In Iraq - the terror attacks have not been in a decline. Last month seemed to be quite devastating for both Iraqis and Americans.

In short - shows of force in that region do little good in the end. It just serves to incite more counter attackes.

[Ricohoc]

Never ever is any form of violance a solution.

Violance is always caused by ..... violance !

Yes, Hitler proved that violence is never the answer.

[BKKSTAN]

What is the answer to someone or a nation that refuses to be nonviolent with you?

With an individual,maybe you can get law enforcement to take care of the situation,maybe!!

With a nation,whats the bottomline?The UN,Ghostbusters,etc. etc.???

Just imagine what the world woud be like now if Mao,Stalin or Hitler had developed and controlled the Nuclear weapons first

[Ricohoc]

Just imagine what the world woud be like now if Mao,Stalin or Hitler had developed and controlled the Nuclear weapons first

1. We wouldn't be communicating in English.

2. Some of us would have been eliminated a long time ago or would have never had a chance to begin with.

3. Message boards, with the freedoms afforded to us as are available on this one, would never exist.

And that's just a quick list.

[BKKSTAN]

So far,I think the consensus is to be nonviolent.To negotiate until ''they'' get what they want!Give ''them'' what they want and they will be happy and nonviolent also!
I don't want to see violence!I just don't understand the positions that one side has to make all the concessions!
Someone mentioned that Israel should make land concessions and stop confronting violence with violence.Do they really believe that will end the violence from the Palestinians?
With that type of logic being applied,when do they stop making concessions to violence?Because I think that the Palestinians want Israel to be nonexistent!
Have not most all the borders of countries in the world been defined by violence?If that is true,why does anyone think that the borders don't have to be defended and why does one country that prevails in war have to rollback to previous borders while other countries maintain the territory they ''won'' by violence?

[Ricohoc]

Excellent points, Stan.

Definitely worth thinking about ...

[Doc]

To negotiate until ''they'' get what they want!Give ''them'' what they want and they will be happy and nonviolent also!

No one is advocating "give them what they want." Negotiation mean that both sides give and take. In order to effectively negotiate, one must understand why the hatred exists. The hatred that exists towards the US is not that the Muslims hate our freedoms. That is utter bull hockey. They hate us trying to impose our concept of democracy upon them. If we stop trying to impose our sense of democracy upon the Muslim world, many problems could be easily resolved.

Someone mentioned that Israel should make land concessions and stop confronting violence with violence.

ere it was posited that the Israelis should stop confronting violence with violence. However, yes, Israel should return the lands that they seized illegally. Might does not make right.

Do they really believe that will end the violence from the Palestinians?

It would go a long way towards bringing it to an end.

Because I think that the Palestinians want Israel to be nonexistent!

The same argument could be easily be made about Israel wanting the Palestinians to be non-existent.

Have not most all the borders of countries in the world been defined by violence?If that is true,why does anyone think that the borders don't have to be defended and why does one country that prevails in war have to rollback to previous borders while other countries maintain the territory they ''won'' by violence?

You have just effectively condoned violence as long as you approve of the winner.

Assume for a moment if this were a a valid argument and Palestine declared war on Israel and somehow were able to go in and seize 80% of Israel. Of course you would think that would be terrible because after all, you criticize the Palestinians and other Middle East countries because they do not want Israel to exist and they are prepared to wage war and battles to bring that about.

Effectively, what I hear you saying is it is OK for Israel to declare war, seize land and expand their boarders - but you condemn anyone else that would want to do the same to Israel.