Bush. No Uhs.

[Neb]

Originally posted by J.J.: as opposed to taking over passenger jets and flying them into office buildings full of innocent civilians? let them take up arms, please, i encourage them to do so. I always feel better about killing someone if i know they are shooting at me.

Let me rephrase what I said then, "I couldn't care less about whether they're pissed off, but the problem is that pissed of extremists might perform acts of terrorism or take up arms and start shooting."


[This message has been edited by Neb (edited 10-14-2001).]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: [B] I'll repeat an idea that I've used in several different threads on this message board, "If you find someone who does a better job....LET ME KNOW." B]

Let me get back to you in a couple years, when that statement is relevant.

Yes, alternate policy ideas are welcome.

What about diplomacy- loud, clear, firm, agressive, equatible.
It has worked before. Diplomacy has ended most every conflict, where as surrender is a diplomatic act. Force mutual sacrifice for both sides, and draw definite border lines, ect. You dont back down in defeat, and you dont compromise your values for victory. It is more challenging, may take a while, and lives maybe lost. The agressive violent path always leads to more violence, more death, creating more problems but ends the same way, with diplomacy.

What about a sense of the Judicial. Imagine if police in America used a gunship helicopter to take out violent criminals without a trial. It is a horrible response that goes against conscience. Fair judicial process at least safegaurds from exessive force, and has protecting the innocent at the core if its ideals. The idea "colateral damage" is a convienence that real justice shouldn't tolerate.

Which method creates more "colateral damage": diplomatic, judicial, or militaristic?

Which one(s) should be the LAST resort and which one(s) should come first?

If there is no other choice, why are there other choices?

[Silverquick]

And as I said before too,

What then is the solution?

The Israelis pulled out of occupied territories during the cease fire. Hammas ignored the cease fire and refused to listen to Arafat.

Arafat did nothing to stop it other than arrest him then let him go. The Hammas Leader continued to ignore the cease fire and Hammas continued making attacks which eventually drew the Israelis back in.

Israelis killed the Hammas leader.

This has been an ongoing cycle throughout the peace process and has not stopped since it was put forward.

Please tell me what the real solution to this is?

Bush saying ... Bad bad Israel?

Yeah right.

If you cannot present an Alternate solution that makes sense then why are you complaining about Israeli action. How can you expect them to comply with a cease fire when the other side refuses to as well?

Thats assanine.

Until you can answer this question then there is no way in hell anyone can do a better job.

If we are talking about Israelis killing Palestinian protesters, THEN Bush should speak up. That is where the Israelis step over the line. Using bullets against Rocks is a terrible move, I understand that any one of them may be a Suicide Bomber.

This is an area the Israelis dont need to use lethal force for the most part. The Alternative is provided for the Use of non-violent means like tear gas, pepper spray, riot shields, and rubber bullets.

[Silverquick]

Hammas Ignored Arafat.

Arafat did nothing to curtail them. Israel waited for Arafat to act. They tried Diplomacy. They made clear and concise identification of the problem and of the people involved.

In short, Israel waited for one month for Arafat to do something... ANYTHING.

He did not, Hammas attacks continued, the Hammas leader continued to call for and take credit for terrorist attacks against Israeli Civilians Ignoring Arafats demands that they stop.

[J.J.]

Originally posted by Neb: Let me rephrase what I said then, "I couldn't care less about whether they're pissed off, but the problem is that pissed of extremists might perform acts of terrorism or take up arms and start shooting." [This message has been edited by Neb (edited 10-14-2001).]

Yes, Neb, that is exactly right. The people who would be inclined to do those things, should act now. If they wish to attack us for defending ourselves and ending the existence of threats foreign and domestic, then by definition, the ones who would take up arms are the ones we want to do so, because they are the ones we want to kill. Not being facetious, but if someone takes up arms and terror against you while you are in the middle of getting rid of other people who have just done the same thing, they are not very bright, or think that the last 20 years of doing nothing back did not change sept 11 they are dead wrong - and before long, they will just be dead.

------------------
Amanda's Dad-Best Damn Job, Period.

Official Pin-Up Girl Massager of the O.L.D. C.O.O.T.S. Clan
To Err is Human To Forgive Divine, However Neither is U.S. Marine Corps Policy.

[This message has been edited by J.J. (edited 10-14-2001).]