Why you should vote for Bush...

[Solid Fro]

Preimption.

Nazi Germany was waging a war of concouring. The US is waging a war of preimption.

Preimption is something anti-war pundits will never understand.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I laugh at K_Speed's sources. Anti Bush dot com? Oh yeah, such a reliable and accurate source!

...its 6:04 am here...its been a long night ...so I don't know if its the best time to post a political comment ( thanx Kirsty )...but...I too noticed, that K_Speed's source was anti bush dot com, but...his facts check out...Clinton 22 mil new jobs, and over the four years, Bush has lost 3 million. You can look at this from different angles...

were the Clinton jobs superficial?, was it inevitable that they would collapse...is the economic world directly influenced by the political world...are there new jobs created under Bush that are "invisible" to the tax roll.

Viper Zero your stats only make sense if the US has dropped in population, I know its only a 0.2% rise but it doesn't make sense if the 22mil vs the 3mil drop is true...see, now I'm losing my chain of thought...dammiit u Smirnoff Ice...I'm sure I had something to say

yes, I 've got it now

..its the undecided voter! From recent polls, they are favouring Bush as he is a known quantity, they want to vote against him, but have no option, Kerry is a mystery and Joe Public doesn't want to take the risk..better the devil you know etc

 

[Danoff]

K_Speed,

You do understand that there was a massive labor force population change that pads your statistics along with a major economic bubble burst and a major terrorist attack don't you? And don't you find it odd how the peak happens right when Bush takes office? do you think economic policy works that fast? Maybe it takes 5 years...

Anyway, here's more of the story.

...Images don't seem to be loading.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/images/49894636.gif

 

[K_Speed]

Its nonsense to vote for Bush. How does attacking another country bring peace to earth? I mean didnt we learn from that nazi germany, didnt we learn from the WWII? No, we fight wars, call other countries Evil. How does killing innocent people stop terror and how will it bring peace? It wont, the children that saw their families die will carry the same hatred through their lives and it will build a chain and never end. And thats what you "Go War Pundits" dont understand.

War is hatred not peace.

 

[Solid Fro]

Oh, is it nonsense to vote for Kerry? I like that one.

No one said attacking another country will bring peace on Earth. What kind of ridiculous question is that?

Learn what from WWII? That liberating people from an evil tyranny and bringing the enemy to justice is the right thing to do?

Who's intently killing innocent people? I know terrorist groups are. I know Saddam Hussein did.

I know no amount of sanity or sense will ever make you understand that war is a necessary chore. You would rather sit back and watch while a dictator kill his own people with weapons of mass destruction while he laughs at the United Nations for ten years. You would rather sit back and watch another dictator gather supplies and enrich uranium to make nuclear weapons while he holds South East Asia hostage. You would rather sit back and watch a terrorist leader run rampant through Fallujah and hold back a country on the brink of freedom. You would rather sit back and watch a 767 fly through one of the tallest buildings in the world and laugh as it falls back to the Earth.

I cringe at the thought of what might have happened to the world if we had not gone to war.

 

[RacyBacy]

Invading Iraq isn't going to stop 767s flying in to your buildings.

 

[Solid Fro]

Yeah, you're right. Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, but has plenty to do with the war on terror. Something Liberals cannot understand.

 

[ledhed]

killing every terrorist on the planet and wiping out any government that supports , aids or gives refuge to them , will absoluty stop them from attacking us.
In fact no other method is so certain.

 

[K_Speed]

I agree with you Viper. But War wont stop the terrorism, itll just make it worse.

I know Saddam is ****ed up, and all other terrorists. But attacking their country wont stop the damn terror, it just makes it worse.

God knows if theres another solution to stop the Terrorism, but war aint one of em.

Its like a long chain, it wont stop. People get attacked by terrorists, the people fight back and the whole thing starts over again. You cant stop it. Defenetly not with war.


I dont know what to say anymore. For me its just, you cant fight terror with war.

Kerry is one of those "oh i went to the vietnam war and risked my life for the US", but I would still rather vote him than for Bush.

 

[Danoff]

But War wont stop the terrorism, itll just make it worse.

Wrong again. Sitting back and whining about our losses will only make terrorism worse. These people do not attack us because out of revenge. They attack us because their religion tells them to. What do you think would happen if we did nothing after 9/11? Maybe Bin Laden would just say:

"You know what, we got them pretty good. Now I think we're even."

No he would say:

"They are weak! We must strike now while the opportunity is at hand and bring the enemy to its knees. The infidels will learn of our power and know that they cannot defy our message!!!"

You don't defeat that mentality by holding sit-ins and putting flowers in your hair or saying "peace" alot. You don't even defeat that mentality by launching a few cruise missiles in their general direction and considering it even (ehem Clinton). You defeat that mentality by eroding its base. A people who are free are much less likely to support terrorism than those that see it as an escape from their oppressed lives. A free people don't fear the freedom in America, because they enjoy that freedom in their own country.

Certainly freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan won't eliminate terror altogether but it will greatly reduce its support in the region. That and destroying the exsiting terrorist cells we know of will go far in preventing another 9/11.

The only other way to eliminate terrorism is to impose a tyranny here at home - and I would rather see another 9/11 than take away our freedom.

 

[king jame II]

You don't defeat that mentality by holding sit-ins and putting flowers in your hair or saying "peace" alot.

You got that right! God i hate Hippies.
James-

 

[discopotato]

Wrong again. Sitting back and whining about our losses will only make terrorism worse. These people do not attack us because out of revenge. They attack us because their religion tells them to. What do you think would happen if we did nothing after 9/11? Maybe Bin Laden would just say:

"You know what, we got them pretty good. Now I think we're even."

No he would say:

"They are weak! We must strike now while the opportunity is at hand and bring the enemy to its knees. The infidels will learn of our power and know that they cannot defy our message!!!"

You don't defeat that mentality by holding sit-ins and putting flowers in your hair or saying "peace" alot. You don't even defeat that mentality by launching a few cruise missiles in their general direction and considering it even (ehem Clinton). You defeat that mentality by eroding its base. A people who are free are much less likely to support terrorism than those that see it as an escape from their oppressed lives. A free people don't fear the freedom in America, because they enjoy that freedom in their own country.

Certainly freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan won't eliminate terror altogether but it will greatly reduce its support in the region. That and destroying the exsiting terrorist cells we know of will go far in preventing another 9/11.

The only other way to eliminate terrorism is to impose a tyranny here at home - and I would rather see another 9/11 than take away our freedom.

Im hoping you mean religion as in somebody telling them to attack the united states and not meaning that by them being islamic

 

[Arwin]

killing every terrorist on the planet and wiping out any government that supports , aids or gives refuge to them , will absoluty stop them from attacking us.
In fact no other method is so certain.

You and danoff are really amazingly stupid sometimes.

 

[Solid Fro]

You and danoff are really amazingly stupid sometimes.

That's a bad call, Arwin. Just because you have a different opinion from them doesn't mean they're stupid.

Any respect that I had for you, arwin, just went down the drain.

👎

 

[Arwin]

Well, I understand that Viper, and you are right, but I'm only human and please allow me to lose my patience every once in a while. When they say things like that, doesn't that come down to exactly the same? And still I say 'they can be so incredibly stupid sometimes'. Which also still says that they aren't always. I respect both of them. But these comments really unnerve me.

I suggest that Danoff and Ledhed ask their representatives to reinstate the wanted dead or alive concept in the US while they're at it. Hurray to the lynch mob mentality. Booh to whiners about those killed innocently, bunch of commie wussies. Murder is good as long as it is part of the system, right?

And of course, Danoff, any resentment against the US comes from religion, the Islam has a specific law written in the Koran that says "Kill all Americans, any way you can, whenever you can. In fact if you happen to kill some other people in the process, that's just fine." All of this of course has nothing to do at all with tens of thousands of soldiers in Saudi Arabia (right or wrong). Nothing to do with U.S. support for Israel (right or wrong, though I have a clear opinion on that one). Nothing to do with the fact that justice is allowed to be sidestepped as soon as 'military action' comes into play.

I'm still secretly hoping one day China will have taken over world leadership and declare the State of New York as the new Israel - not that Israel was the idea of the U.S. in the first place, but from a 'land of the free' I would have expected a lot more respect for the issues in the Middle-East and the position of the Palestines who were simply robbed of their land.

 

[ledhed]

Arwin its a simple statement. The only CERTAIN method to prevent terrorist attacks is to be sure to kill the terrorist before they attack. A dead terrorist cant harm you. Is any civilized country willing to do what it will take to ensure this will happen ? I tend to think not. But fly another plane into a building or something similar and I think the American people will DEMAND to become less "civilized" thats just the way things are. The US has never taken being attacked very well. We tend to take it very bad in fact. Ask the Japanese.
The rest of your post seems to be typical shortsited unrealistic liberal thinking. Its thinking like that that has made the world safe for Dictators and other despots for centuries. bad things do happen to good people.
His comment on religion telling them to kill etc. , is very simple. They use religion to recruit followers to kill Americans and whomever else they feel is worthy at the time. Would you like a few thousand examples of this ? Whats your problem ?

 

[Arwin]

Arwin its a simple statement. The only CERTAIN method to prevent terrorist attacks is to be sure to kill the terrorist before they attack. A dead terrorist cant harm you. Is any civilized country willing to do what it will take to ensure this will happen ? I tend to think not. But fly another plane into a building or something similar and I think the American people will DEMAND to become less "civilized" thats just the way things are. The US has never taken being attacked very well. We tend to take it very bad in fact. Ask the Japanese.
The rest of your post seems to be typical shortsited unrealistic liberal thinking. Its thinking like that that has made the world safe for Dictators and other despots for centuries. bad things do happen to good people.
His comment on religion telling them to kill etc. , is very simple. They use religion to recruit followers to kill Americans and whomever else they feel is worthy at the time. Would you like a few thousand examples of this ? Whats your problem ?

My problem is, is that it's nonsense. First of all, for every terrorist you kill, you create a bunch of new ones (friends, brothers, etc). Secondly, for every innocent you kill, you create hundreds of new ones. In fact, the only way it will ever stop is the hard way - look at Northern-Ireland for instance. Or Israel - Sharon's aggression hasn't stopped anything, just put fuel on the fire. If you think a new Berlin wall in the world is a good idea, well the only good that will come of it is the party after it's torn down, after who knows how many years of oppression.

Even for the worst case scenario, if a terrorist has unrealistic aims that make him like some sort of mass-serial killer, it's a PR war that needs to be fought to deprive him from any support that allows him to continue his work, as only a few are crazy enough to join in on such an event.

I appreciate the world's problems are easier to cope with mentally if you reduce them to simple black-white, good-evil, kill or be killed, but it won't actually change anything except your own perception of it.

Oh, and a final question. Was it the US who didn't take being attacked very well, or did the war go back a bit further on that? Read up a bit on Japanese history, if you like. I bolded some interesting things for those who are daunted by the long text.

source: http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2128.html

In the end of the 18th century, external pressure started to be an increasingly important issue, when the Russians first tried to establish trade contacts with Japan without success. They were followed by other European nations and the Americans in the 19th century. It was eventually Commodore Perry in 1853 and again in 1854 who forced the Tokugawa government to open a limited number of ports for international trade. However, the trade remained very limited until the Meiji restoration in 1868.

All factors combined, the anti-government feelings were growing and caused other movements such as the demand for the restoration of imperial power and anti western feelings, especially among ultra-conservative samurai in increasingly independently acting domains such as Choshu and Satsuma. Many people, however, soon recognized the big advantages of the Western nations in science and military, and favoured a complete opening to the world. Finally, also the conservatives recognized this fact after being confronted with Western warships in several incidents.

In 1867-68, the Tokugawa government fell because of heavy political pressure, and the power of Emperor Meiji was restored.

In 1867/68, the Tokugawa era found an end in the Meiji Restoration. The emperor Meiji was moved from Kyoto to Tokyo which became the new capital; his imperial power was restored. The actual political power was transferred from the Tokugawa Bakufu into the hands of a small group of nobles and former samurai.

Like other subjugated Asian nations, the Japanese were forced to sign unequal treaties with Western powers. These treaties granted the Westerners one-sided economical and legal advantages in Japan. In order to regain independence from the Europeans and Americans and establish herself as a respected nation in the world, Meiji Japan was determined to close the gap to the Western powers economically and militarily. Drastic reforms were carried out in practically all areas.

The new government aimed to make Japan a democratic state with equality among all its people. The boundaries between the social classes of Tokugawa Japan were gradually broken down. Consequently, the samurai were the big losers of those social reforms since they lost all their privileges. The reforms also included the establishment of human rights such as religious freedom in 1873.

In order to stabilize the new government, the former feudal lords (daimyo) had to return all their lands to the emperor. This was achieved already in 1870 and followed by the restructuring of the country in prefectures.

The education system was reformed after the French and later after the German system. Among those reforms was the introduction of compulsory education.

After about one to two decades of intensive westernization, a revival of conservative and nationalistic feelings took place: principles of Confucianism and Shinto including the worship of the emperor were increasingly emphasized and taught at educational institutions.

Catching up on the military sector was, of course, a high priority for Japan in an era of European and American imperialism. Universal conscription was introduced, and a new army modelled after the Prussian force, and a navy after the British one were established.

In order to transform the agrarian economy of Tokugawa Japan into a developed industrial one, many Japanese scholars were sent abroad to study Western science and languages, while foreign experts taught in Japan. The transportation and communication networks were improved by means of large governmental investments. The government also directly supported the prospering of businesses and industries, especially the large and powerful family businesses called zaibatsu.

The large expenditures led to a financial crisis in the middle of the 1880's which was followed by a reform of the currency system and the establishment of the Bank of Japan. The textile industry grew fastest and remained the largest Japanese industry until WW2. Work conditions in the early factories were very bad, but developing socialist and liberal movements were soon suppressed by the ruling clique.

On the political sector, Japan received its first European style constitution in 1889. A parliament, the Diet was established while the emperor kept sovereignty: he stood at the top of the army, navy, executive and legislative power. The ruling clique, however, kept on holding the actual power, and the able and intelligent emperor Meiji agreed with most of their actions. Political parties did not yet gain real power due to the lack of unity among their members.

Conflicts of interests in Korea between China and Japan led to the Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95. Japan defeated China, received Taiwan, but was forced by Russia, France and Germany to return other territories. The so called Triple Intervention caused the Japanese army and navy to intensify their rearmament.

New conflicts of interests in Korea and Manchuria, this time between Russia and Japan, led to the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05. The Japanese army also won this war gaining territory and finally some international respect. Japan further increased her influence on Korea and annexed her completely in 1910. In Japan, the war successes caused nationalism to increase even more, and other Asian nations also started to develop national self confidence.

In 1912 emperor Meiji died, and the era of the ruling clique of elder statesmen (genro) was about to end.

During the era of the weak emperor Taisho (1912-26), the political power shifted from the oligarchic clique (genro) to the parliament and the democratic parties.

In the First World War, Japan joined the Allied powers, but played only a minor role in fighting German colonial forces in East Asia. At the following Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Japan's proposal of amending a "racial equality clause" to the covenant of the League of Nations was rejected by the United States, Britain and Australia. Arrogance and racial discrimination towards the Japanese had plagued Japanese-Western relations since the forced opening of the country in the 1800s, and were again a major factor for the deterioration of relations in the decades preceeding World War 2. In 1924, for example, the US Congress passed the Exclusion Act that prohibited further immigration from Japan.

After WW1, Japan's economical situation worsened. The Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 and the world wide depression of 1929 intensified the crisis.

During the 1930s, the military established almost complete control over the government. Many political enemies were assassinated, and communists persecuted. Indoctrination and censorship in education and media were further intensified. Navy and army officers soon occupied most of the important offices, including the one of the prime minister.

Already earlier, Japan followed the example of Western nations and forced China into unequal economical and political treaties. Furthermore, Japan's influence over Manchuria had been steadily growing since the end of the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05. When the Chinese Nationalists began to seriously challenge Japan's position in Manchuria in 1931, the Kwantung Army (Japanese armed forces in Manchuria) occupied Manchuria. In the following year, "Manchukuo" was declared an independent state, controlled by the Kwantung Army through a puppet government. In the same year, the Japanese air force bombarded Shanghai in order to protect Japanese residents from anti Japanese movements.

In 1933, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations since she was heavily criticized for her actions in China.

In July 1937, the second Sino-Japanese War broke out. A small incident was soon made into a full scale war by the Kwantung army which acted rather independently from a more moderate government. The Japanese forces succeeded in occupying almost the whole coast of China and committed severe war atrocities on the Chinese population, especially during the fall of the capital Nanking. However, the Chinese government never surrendered completely, and the war continued on a lower scale until 1945.

In 1940, Japan occupied French Indochina (Vietnam) upon agreement with the French Vichy government, and joined the Axis powers Germany and Italy. These actions intensified Japan's conflict with the United States and Great Britain which reacted with an oil boycott. The resulting oil shortage and failures to solve the conflict diplomatically made Japan decide to capture the oil rich Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and to start a war with the US and Great Britain.

In December 1941, Japan attacked the Allied powers at Pearl Harbour and several other points throughout the Pacific. Japan was able to expand her control over a large territory that expanded to the border of India in the West and New Guinea in the South within the following six months.

The turning point in the Pacific War was the battle of Midway in June 1942. From then on, the Allied forces slowly won back the territories occupied by Japan. In 1944, intensive air raids started over Japan. In spring 1945, US forces invaded Okinawa in one of the war's bloodiest battles.

On July 27, 1945, the Allied powers requested Japan in the Potsdam Declaration to surrender unconditionally, or destruction would continue. However, the military did not consider surrendering under such terms, partially even after US military forces dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, and the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan on August 8.

On August 14, however, Emperor Showa finally decided to surrender unconditionally.

 

[ledhed]

Arwin I'm very well versed on Japenese history. I'm pointing out that the response to a surprise attack on the US was a war against the country that initiated it , that almost reached the level of the war in Russia between the Germans and the Soviets. a war that at times went beyond the level of so called "civilized" warfare and ended with the first ever use of nucular weapons. Please do not even try to attempt to justify Japans attack. There can be no EXCUSE for planes flying into the world trade center nor can there be an EXCUSE for a suprise attack on a country short of a declaration of WAR on the people of that country and all that that entails. If you are going to declare war on a country you will reap the results of your actions. The terrorist have marked themselves and there adherants for death by thier actions. The only thing that remains to be seen is how many and how will they be killed or captured and imprisoned. This is not a game of patty kake or a debate. Its a war. People will be killed and things will be broken.

My problem is, is that it's nonsense. First of all, for every terrorist you kill, you create a bunch of new ones

And I am saying that by flying the planes into the world trade center and by other actions we have the right to track them down and kill or capture them and any like them. And that you are wrong for thinking this. They will run out of recruits before we run out of bullets /bombs or resolve.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Please do not even try to attempt to justify Japans attack. There can be no EXCUSE for planes flying into the world trade center nor can there be an EXCUSE for a suprise attack on a country short of a declaration of WAR on the people of that country and all that that entails.

Excuse me? Of all the militaries of all the countries in the whole world, there is but one that is absolutely guilty of more "surprise attacks" on more unsuspecting and unprepared targets - military and otherwise - than any other, and that is YOURS, ledhed. So if Japan was not "justified" then why is America ever justified? Who gets to make up the rules as to what constitutes a justified attack? I assume you'll answer that the country with the most "bullets/bombs or resolve." Tsk tsk.

 

[Arwin]

Arwin I'm very well versed on Japenese history. I'm pointing out that the response to a surprise attack on the US was a war against the country that initiated it

Well versed? You attack Japan, showing you're ten times more powerful, and then force them into unfair trade agreements. They help the 'good guys' in WWI, and suggest at the major post WWI peace conference to include a clause stating racial equality, but you vote it out, because, well, you think they're yellow trash.

So they continue and learn your ways of empirialism and technological advance, but now that they apply them to their old enemies, China and Korea, you all of a sudden get upset and place an oil-embargo on them together with Great Britain. By this time they have lost all respect for their teachers (how could they not) and so they attack you and try to get that oil ban lifted, so that they can continue to follow the ways you've showed them to be superior.

All in all, all they have done is acknowledge that you were superior, learnt your ways, culture and science, and applied them pretty much exactly as you did.

I say they had EVERY EXCUSE. On the contrary, you had none, when you first 'visited' Japan.

How on Earth can you call yourself well-versed in Japanese history, but not learn a single thing from it? :

And I am saying that by flying the planes into the world trade center and by other actions we have the right to track them down and kill or capture them and any like them. And that you are wrong for thinking this. They will run out of recruits before we run out of bullets /bombs or resolve.

Continue to show the world that this is the only way to deal with your enemies and you will JUSTLY reap the results, whatever they are. NO EXCUSE POSSIBLE, imho, I'm sorry.

 

[ledhed]

Arwin what does a declaration of war by the empire of Japan imply ? What do YOU think a country should do when war is declared and they are attacked ? Do you think the Saxons should give Britain back to the origional opwners because after all they did invade. Your argument reguarding Japan is a non starter.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Preimption.

Nazi Germany was waging a war of concouring. The US is waging a war of preimption.

Preimption is something anti-war pundits will never understand.

Please learn to spell BEFORE entering a political debate. Sort of helps your points if you do...

 

[milefile]

Anderton, you are the peanut gallery, nothing more. Try contributing something besides petty criticism.

 

[milefile]

Give a single example of anything besides war ending war.

Give a single example of passivity overcoming violence.

 

[Danoff]

By this time they have lost all respect for their teachers (how could they not) and so they attack you and try to get that oil ban lifted, so that they can continue to follow the ways you've showed them to be superior.

I see, so oil is a legitimate reason to invade a soverign country? Without so much as a second chance at diplomacy?


Christ that's really hypocritical. You accuse the US of doing that (which we didn't) and tell us we're awful for it. Then you excuse the Japanese mass murder of American civilians and military for the very reasons you condemn us for invading Iraq. I almost can't believe it's you posting this...

 

[Carl.]

Give a single example of anything besides war ending war.

Give a single example of passivity overcoming violence.

Of all the posts I've read here, I don't recall one that advocates passivity.

But, if you want an example of something else than war ending a conflict, the Cuban missile crisis is a good one.

Or the cold war as a whole. (a direct)War could have solved it rather quickly.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Anderton, you are the peanut gallery, nothing more. Try contributing something besides petty criticism.

No, actually I offered a criticism of what ledhed posted, and no one repsonded.

And what's wrong with peanuts anyway?

if you want an example of something else than war ending a conflict, the Cuban missile crisis is a good one.

Or the cold war as a whole. War could have solve it rather quickly.

Uh oh, milefile. Looks like you got some 'splainin to do!!

 

[Danoff]

But, if you want an example of something else than war ending a conflict, the Cuban missile crisis is a good one.

That didn't end a war, that overted one.

Or the cold war as a whole. War could have solve it rather quickly.

The cold war was a rather unique situation. One in which we had a chance to win economically. It's a good thing the Russians had an inherently flawed economic system or we'd have really been in a mess.

...and again, that wasn't really a war but the avoidance of one.

 

[Arwin]

I see, so oil is a legitimate reason to invade a soverign country? Without so much as a second chance at diplomacy?

Christ that's really hypocritical. You accuse the US of doing that (which we didn't) and tell us we're awful for it. Then you excuse the Japanese mass murder of American civilians and military for the very reasons you condemn us for invading Iraq. I almost can't believe it's you posting this...

If the Middle East would suddenly stop supplying the US with Oil, I suspect even now they'd invade within a month. Justified or not? I don't know, considering the importance of oil at this point you could argue (and I don't doubt many will soon after that happened) that chosing to withold oil from the U.S. should be seen as an act of War in itself. I would have to think before I say yes or no to it - you see I do realise things are very complicated. But in the meatime, you're missing the point completely - it's the complete series of events, from which you've lifted only the oil issue, at a time when Japan had already almost matured and became independent from its 'teachers'.

My point was that if Japan had been accepted into the world community after WWI and if peace, freedom and equality had been on the agenda properly, Japan may well not have gone there. It faced a superior nation (or nations), and decided to imitate its ways, all of them, that it determined were paramount to that nations success. One of the ways that the US had been 'negotiating' with Japan previously was by simply attacking here and there on a small scale, showing who's boss. I suspect Japan attempted to do the same, to 'negotiate' with the U.S. about the oil embargo, but they made a big mistake, obviously, as U.S. was strong enough to strike back.

You can focus all you like on small details and lift them out of context, but my point is that what some like to call evil and good is never that simple. Cause and effect are complex and go a long way. Terrorists don't come out of nowhere, and I'd like to see some examples instead of where Terrorism HAS in fact been stopped by war. Russia-Tsjetsjenie? Israel-Palestines? Spain/ETA? UK/Northern-Ireland?

Of all these, I can at least list the last, as I already did, where talking was the only solution. The others, well, they're still fighting ...

When the Middle-East declared war on Israel, were they much different from when the Western coalition (justly) declared war on Iraq when decided they would occupy their little neighbour? Not even discussing whether or not the same could have been achieved in peaceful ways, here it was a simple matter of one-sided agression that could be efficiently be answered by agression. Most of the Arab nations supported the coalition there. But the second war was a plain and simple mistake. It should not have happened.

But at the same time, Israel is little different, living on what was stolen from the Palestines, as Iraq would Kuwait. We side with Israel out of guilt and sympathy for WW2, but do you think the people in the Middle-East care? Yet we and especially the U.S. continues to support Israel, and under Bush pretty much unconditionally. Many years of work of building trust and working towards peace down the drain.

 

[ledhed]

Arwin isreal is a country. its recognized by the UN and almost all the countrys on EARTH. What do propose, that they just pack up and move ? And I guess the US should give back the country to the Indians and the People of Europe should all go back to where ever they origionaly came from. the jews have a claim to the land they occupy so do the Palestinians. unfortunately they also seem to be unable to live together and are unwilling to sit and negotiate a solution.
Again arwin I ask you, how do you respond to being attacked ?