Real concrete achievement in the War on Terror!

[Sir_Brass]

if the israelies were really trying to keep arabs from being angry, then maybe they wouldn't have helicopters launch rockets at a suspected palestinian terrorist's car in the middle of a busy street. I support the hunting down of palestinian terrorists, but I think Israel goes overboard with their helicopter strikes, when a specially trained ground assault group would be better, more precise and cause far less collateral damage. B/c you know, a .50 BMG round from a sniper rifle will turn an engine block into a non working hunk of metal. thus allowing the ground team to move in. Much less 'area effect' than a rocket strike, IMO. And those who complain about how that would put israeli soldiers at risk, I say "well, they know the risks, and they're trained well. better them than innocent civiians."

[Trigger_Happy]

I dodn't mean to imply that it is a clean cut issue. There is much to be said for both sides' causes. I only meant to say I didn't think Israel deserved a spot next to NK and China on the naughty list.

[Sir_Brass]

I only meant to say I didn't think Israel deserved a spot next to NK and China on the naughty list.

I agree with you there, but they OUGHT to be on the list of "countries we have influence over, but who are getting out of control and need a good smack to tell them to shape up or lose support".

[Collegeboy]

Shall the US now open up its boarders to weapon inspectors, who shall we play the we have a bigger army, come and make us card again.

We have a chemical warfare program that is coming up with new and newer chemicals every month. Though we claim it is only to be used to prevent our soldiers from being hit by them, so we can create an anti-body. Couldn't other countries say the same.

Now, knowing you all, you will take this the wrong way, call me a racist for no reason what so ever, and refuse to apologies when confronted with the fact that you have no proof for your name calling. So I will interpret this now, instead of hoping you all can understand English, and analogies.

It is good that these countries are opening up their boarders and facilities to inspections of their ex chemical facilities. But how can the US justify invading another country from seeking programs, or having programs, when it itself has them, and is seeking them. [The previous statement is not talking about the above mentioned countries, for those who wish to stir the conversation in that way.] How can the US accept to the inspection of these countries, (now talking about Libya etc..), when it itself will not allow itself to be searched. Shouldn't you first prove you yourself do not have these programs that you are condemning other of having before invading and/or condemning others for it. Seems to work a lot better then using force to stir up hatred and fear that can only back fire in years to come.

Now waiting for the customary trolling accusation, from someone who fail to realize that they themselves are trolling.

If the State Department would have handled this, they would have done it without killing innocents, endangering American lives, and sending a country into a civil war that will kill thousands upon thousands of their own people, and leave the country with a dictator fundamentalist government.

[Miscue]

Closed.