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

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?

Confusion. You're suggesting that the US should bomb these two
countries.....

It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.

In the name of helping the US promote peace? You didn't used to be SAC
did you?

Personally, I believe pressure should be brought to bear on both Syria
and Iran for their support of terrorists, not their WMD - IIRC Syria
hasn't even signed the CWC and yet is being lambasted for having
chemical weapons.

Use the processes in place - including sanctions, and don't do an
IRAQ2 and go off in a storm of outrage (and cruise missiles) if the
UNSC doesn't immediately fall into line.

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

I disagree. Israel is a poor example to follow. For example at one
point they were blowing the hell out of every Palestinian Authority
facility, including police stations, while complaining the police and
PA were ineffective!

Personally I'd find it a little difficult to do any work with
Hellfires coming in the window.

One other thing to remember is that Syria allegedly has large numbers
of chemical tipped SCUDs. Push them too far or attack them, and they
could be heading both towards Israel, and towards US bases in Iraq.
Israel would then retaliate and things would go to hell in a hand
basket.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster