View Single Post
  #6  
Old October 14th 03, 09:42 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 13 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0700, (Kenneth
Williams) wrote:

President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.

I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.

Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in
pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the
war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be
forced to do something drastic?

What is the general concensus here at RAM?

I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
allowing democracy in that region.

In addition, now we know how Israel feels daily with the US casualties
in Iraq mounting. It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.

I think Israel is justified with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
The US seems destined to follow under the circumstances.

Kenneth Williams


Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to the
causes of terrorism. When will they learn that killing teenage girls
and bulldozing homes is not conducive to peace?

Al Minyard