In their minds, God is commanding them to subdue us to the will of God

You say that as though it isn't George Bush's mindframe.

This middle east mess can't go on much longer, maybe another decade at the most before the sheer huge numbers of Muslims overwhelm Israel. There must be a bullion angry Muslims and in the middle is maybe 5 million Jews? I think I am not too far off base in assuming that out of 1.3 Muslims, about 1 bullion want Israel eliminated. Any, do the math. Israel's days are numbered. That's my opinion but I hope I am so wrong.

So, Mark, you would have a more powerful nation completely wipe out antire group of people? You prefer total destruction, war, death and sufferring to "peace" or at least an attempt at a peaceful solution?

You are a follower of Jesus, right?

Well your Jesus said, "But bring those enemies of mine who didn't want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me." (Luke 19:27)

But then Jesus said, "Love your enemies," in an earlier passage so it must be a bit confusing.

Let me give you some "human" wisdom:

War rarely solves anything and is more often a failure of politics and policy. Borders may move a bit and the powerful are sometimes displaced, but the root of war remians and in most cases grows stronger.

Religious fanaticism, oppression, dwindling resources and bigotry cause wars and will continue to do so until humans overcome or control these bad habits.

War will go on and on and on for the remainder of human history if humanity seeks violence to address problems.

Wade

Here is what Cheney said today regarding the Israel/Lebanon war:

"This conflict is a long way from over," Cheney said at a fundraising appearance for a GOP congressional candidate. "It's going to be a battle that will last for a very long time. It is absolutely essential that we stay the course."

And here is what he said about Iraq:

“Our troops would be greeted as liberators" and “The Iraqi insurgency is in it’s last throes,".

This guy has zero credibility or perspective when it comes to foreign conflicts.

Canuck - use this formula E+MCsquared

The Arab psyche is most often formed by the idea that "if I say it often enough, and forcefully enough, it will be so" according to "The Arab Mind". The Isreali psyche is more often based on "if I do it, and keep doing it, it will be so" per "The Jewish Mind". I will give you three guesses on which psyche is more likely to prevail in a physical fight.

To the issue of Gaza and Israel giving it back to the Palestinians. Have you ever heard the phrase;"Set up for failure"? With no negotiation, the Israeli's decided to give Gaza back. The Israeli's would not allow Gaza's only international airport to re-open as well as contorlling Gaza airspace. The Israeli's would not allow Gaza's seaports to re-open and set up patrols in Gaza's waters. The gate that allows access to Egypt was not allowed to be opened, except at Israel's pleasure. Israel cut off all funds to the Palestinian coalition government. Israel arrested,at will,elected representives of the PA. Israel forced elected Hamas officials, with homes and families in Jerusalem to leave. From these actions it is clear that Israel wanted Gaza to sink into civil war, not to suceed in helping form the basis of a stable two state solution. Ditto to the West Bank and southern Lebanon. Peace

Kahn, you mean E=MCsquared? Very true.

Canuck - use this formula E=MCsquared
(fat fingers!)

And Barney - yes we have human leaders. Your never-ending whining is getting old. How about proposing a solution? Join the Marines. Figure out a way to spot IED's. Help us in OUR fight instead of constsntly bitching and crying and name-calling. You turds are sickening.

This middle east mess can't go on much longer, maybe another decade at the most before the sheer huge numbers of Muslims overwhelm Israel.

There are already many more "angry Muslims" as you call them than there are Jews, but yet Israel deflects their hatred, kills them when it has to and thrives when most others in the region don't.

There must be a bullion angry Muslims and in the middle is maybe 5 million Jews? I think I am not too far off base in assuming that out of 1.3 Muslims, about 1 bullion want Israel eliminated.

Its "billion," not bullion. And this is not a numbers game. I would say your estimate on the number who want Israel eliminated are low. You'd be hard put to find a Muslim who doesn't. But again, they are already outnumbered and they're doing just fine. Ask Hamas. Ask Hezbollah.

Any, do the math. Israel's days are numbered. That's my opinion but I hope I am so wrong.

You should give up on the "math." Israel has no intention of going anywhere. If the Muslims try to invade Israel, their numbers will start to approach the number of Israelis and the Muslims will be spending all their time going to funerals and burying their hate-filled compadres. Even if they could seriously threaten Israel, the Israelis have nukes. Talk about a playing field leveler. Also, do you think the US would stand by and let anything happen to Israel even remotely like that? I don't think so, millions of Americans just happen to be Jews and influential ones, too. And Israel could also occupy some of the nearby countries like Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan and claim them as "buffers." After a few years under Jewish rule, the new thriving economies in those areas would think little of returning to Muslim radical rule and Sharia law.

Were I you, I would not worry about Israel, I'd worry about the Muslim world.

Rev,

I see how prosperous the Palestinians are under Jewish rule, I think you are forgetting about the innevitable backlash, and guerilla war from foreign fighters (remember Afghanistan in the 80's), Israel would bankrupt themselves trying to stop all the violence erupting, not to mention the short leash we would be on from Saudi Arabia when the Wahabbi sect threw a tizzy-fit, and the Kingdom cuts off the oil spiggot.

If I were you, I would worry about our own ass, and leave the IDF to their own business.

“Even if they could seriously threaten Israel, the Israelis have nukes.”

Rev, you would like that. Then you could go to heaven in the rapture, and Jesus will descend from the heavens to kill all the non believers, and then you could live in the holy land for 1,000 years.

Where are they going to drop that bomb? How about Jerusalem? Maybe Gaza? That would do a lot for the tourism industry.

I think you are forgetting about the innevitable backlash, and guerilla war from foreign fighters

Inevitable. Hopeless. Israel should surrender immediately. Sounds about like something else you said the other day about the US.

Israel would bankrupt themselves trying to stop all the violence erupting, not to mention the short leash we would be on from Saudi Arabia when the Wahabbi sect threw a tizzy-fit, and the Kingdom cuts off the oil spiggot.

Israel has been fighting since the UN voted to create a homeland for them in 1947. not bankrupt yet. Not even close. And if the ragheads didn't have the good fortune of sitting on vast oil supply, they would have been broke decades ago. One thing that you fail to understand is that if the Saudis were that stupid (they're not) Israel would likely attack them and topple the regime and take the oil they need. Likely, close on their heels would by the US and its allies, driven by the desire to support Israel and tempted by the chance at controlling one of the world's largest oil reserves. So much for the Saudis.

If I were you, I would worry about our own ass, and leave the IDF to their own business.

I'm not worried at all. Fortunately, as things continue to transpire, the pantywaist peacenik view will fall into the dust bin of history. Sure there will still be a few old salts around who will gather in some mountain camp in Colorado and get high on dope and play zithers and sing Kumbaya, but their only news coverage will be under the heading, "Strange but true" column. Enjoy barking at the moon while you can, soon you and your ilk will not be able to get anyone to pay attention to you at all.

Rev,

C'mon, man, don't be obtuse.

Do you remember '73, oil crisis, Yom Kippur War?

Saudis ain't gonna let the over-run of neighbor nations by Israel, they snubbed their collective noses at us in '73, and i'm sure Chavez would love to replay that.

If israel had to hold off thousands of guerilla fighters, in multiple nations they occupied for "buffer zones", they would find themselves stretched a bit too far for their own good, look at how bad they wanted out of South lebabnon after 18 years.

Some day human kind and especially the left (are they humans?) will learn that appeasement has NEVER worked in human history at any level. Sure, it buys time. Sometimes days, sometimes months, sometimes years or even decades. But at some point the belly craves more for these crazy dictators and they want more.

Leaves you two choices. Let them get stronger and stronger until they overrun you when they're ready. See Chamberlain and Europe.

Or you can take them out...see George Bush and Saddam Hussein. See Israel and Hezbollah.

The choice is war now or war later.

The bigger goal is that if we are successful in blasting these a-holes back to the 15th century then it is more likely that other despots will think again about going the same course.

In the meantime, we have generation after generation of peacenik that just believes rewarding terrorists and dictators is the way to go. They never fight the bully, they hand over their ice cream money so he comes back and pounds on them time after time.

They never learn.

Warrior,

Has the 'blasting of previous a-holes' into the 15th century stopped the current wars?

We wiped out Germany and Japan, by your logic, that would be all the evidence any tin-pot dictator needed to wet himself at the very idea of attacking us or our friends, but, as you can see, that hasn't happened.

So what is your plan, keep killing the bullies, and creating more of them in their place? Kill every Muslim on the planet?

Reverend Rambo;
The 'billion / bullion' thing, the figging 'u' is next to the 'i' on the keyboard, I can spell, just need to proof read.

Now, regarding the unrelenting violence. You put to much weight on the IDF being superhero rambos, capable of wiping out the enemy completely. The foe is well organized, travels light, have many portable deadly weapons, are hard to pinpoint and do not collapse as the Arab armies did in front of the IDF in years gone past. The US military is mired down after easily defeating the Iraqi army. Expect the same thing to happen to the IDF if they seize terrority in Lebanon or anywhere else with a hostile population. I despair that there is no workable solution, the violence will continue unrelentingly.

Blarney...can you give us some people on your side that "have credibility"...thanks. We can all play games of parsing words so I look forward to your names you provide and we'll see how much credibility they have using the same standard you just used on Cheney.

TEO...great examples...we did blast Japan and Germany....and how are those two nations doing now? Are they attacking anyone? No.

People forget and quickly. Thanks for proving my point. It's time to blast some radical Islams back to the 15th century to give them the same learnings as Japan and Germany.

I thank you for proving my point.

This middle east mess can't go on much longer, maybe another decade at the most before the sheer huge numbers of Muslims overwhelm Israel.

Well using that same logic, I would hope you are for VERY strong border enforcement here in the states. Here in California we are about to be over-run as well, but all I see is you guys providing more and more carrots from the left.

COME HERE ILLEGALS. We'll give you free education, free health care, free this, free that...just keep on coming. The Republicans are no better.

When are we going to actually elect CONSERVATIVES in this country!!

,i>Join the Marines. Figure out a way to spot IED's. Help us in OUR fight instead of constsntly bitching and crying and name-calling. You turds are sickening.

Barney can't join the Marines, Kahn; he's a 13-year-old window-licker who, like Canuck Guy, thinks "bullion" is a real big number...

Israel reportedly has 200 nukes. I think Tehran would be a field of glass rather quickly if a serious threat to Israel came to be, just for starters. Syria 2nd, France 3rd?

Or just a serious ultimatum given to Tehran would likely lead to an internal overthrow of the Fascist regime. Israel will not go down alone. But the jihadists have about as much brainpower as the left in this country, those that worry about our world image and their opera outings while nukes are being built by madmen.

Peace. Through superior firepower if necessary.

Most Liberals (and the odd conservative) don't want to fight --- BUSH DOES

-------

On Tuesday, July 18, in Tehran, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to his countrymen. He reminded them of the connection between Israel and the liberal West: "The final point of liberal civilization is the false and corrupt state that has occupied Jerusalem. That is the bottom line. That is what all those who talk about liberalism and support it have in common." He went on to explain that when the Muslim world erupts, "its waves will not be limited to this region." That same day, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, issued a warning to the Zionists who had intruded into the Muslim Middle East: "Today, the land of Palestine is painted red with your contemptible blood. . . . No place in Israel will be safe."

Meanwhile, on that same summer day, the Washington Post appeared as usual on the doorsteps of most residents of Washington, D.C., the capital of the liberal civilization Ahmadinejad so dislikes. Its editorial page featured three of its distinguished columnists.

Two were liberals. One, E.J. Dionne, was worried--very, very worried. He saw only "disaster" and "calamity" ahead in the Middle East, no silver lining to the "frightening" developments taking place. He judged that "alarmism is the highest form of realism in this case"--and called for "at least a brief cease-fire." The other, Richard Cohen, was less alarmed, more philosophical. Cohen concurred in part with Ahmadinejad, judging that "Israel itself is a mistake." He dissented in part from Ahmadinejad because Cohen allowed that Israel is, after all, "an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable." So Israel should not be destroyed. But neither should Israel, when it is attacked, go on the offensive. It should "hunker down."

The other regular columnist was a conservative, George F. Will. Will felt it important to remind his readers of the conservative truth of "the limits of power to subdue an unruly world." He mocked the possibility of military action against Syria or Iran. In passing, he cast an ironic eye--perhaps a disapproving one--on the fact that, while Israel has patiently borne the "torment" of terrorism "for decades," the United States "responded to two hours of terrorism one September morning by toppling two regimes halfway around the world with wars that show no signs of ending." (If the 9/11 attacks had lasted a little longer, would one's fine sense of proportion be less disturbed by the vigor of the American response?) In any case, Will concluded, things could get worse.

That's a lot of "weak horses," to borrow an Osama bin Laden formulation, for one op-ed page. Fortunately, there are at least a few strong horses in the nation's capital as well. One was to be found on the Post's own editorial page, right across from Dionne and Cohen and Will. The clear-eyed liberalism of the Post's own editorial, "A War With Extremists," was bracing, as the editors argued that "this Middle East conflict should end with the defeat of its instigators," Hamas and Hezbollah, and warned against accepting a premature cease-fire or any result other than a "decisive defeat" for the terrorists and their state backers in Damascus and Tehran.

And on the news pages were reports of a couple more strong horses--George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Bush and Blair were, famously, caught on an open mike at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg. Blair demonstrated a shrewd understanding of what was at stake for Syria's dictator, Bashar Assad: "He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way . . . he's done." And Bush explained, simply and correctly, that the first step was "to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s---."

Israel is fighting to stop, and defeat, Hezbollah. Bush, Blair, and the Post editors understand that the right policy is to stand behind Israel, and to support that nation in defeating terror--for its own sake, and on behalf of liberal civilization. They understand that we are at war with an axis of jihadist-terrorist organizations and the states that sponsor them. They understand that we need to win the war. With Bush's leadership, we have a good chance to do so.

we did blast Japan and Germany....and how are those two nations doing now? Are they attacking anyone? No.

I would hope you are for VERY strong border enforcement here in the states. Here in California we are about to be over-run as well

Well, I cannot believe it - but I agree with War Boy on both points here. Israel has every right to defend itself --- and I think Mark is right, in that wars fought with a half-hearted effort don't really accomplish much --- I am glad they have ground troops entering Lebanon and hope they demolish Hezbollah.

And I live in California. These borders need to be sealed so tight and so quickly I cannot even begin to explain.

These borders need to be sealed so tight and so quickly I cannot even begin to explain.

For once, mf and I agree--California's borders need to be sealed so tight that noone can get in...or out!!!

Warriornation said: "appeasement has NEVER worked in human history at any level. Sure, it buys time."

Well there was that whole Cold War thing. That one was chock full of various sorts of "appeasements". But that one worked out okay. Similarly, in many cases the "war now" choice turns out to include a "war later" carrier as well. Mark seems to be ignoring the fact that the Congress of Berlin didn't do much to solve the underlying tensions in the region. And ultimately, those tensions sparked WWI. WWI, of course, was supposed to be the final solution -- the war to end all wars. And, according to the reasons he gave, he should certainly have included The Treaty of Versailles in his list. But that didn't solve anything either. Rather, it produced the conditions that sparked WWII. WWII helped to quell fascism as an influence in the world (okay, in Europe anyway -- South and Central America is different question), but it created the conditions that led to the Cold War. In fact, WWII also helped to set up the tensions we're still dealing with now in the ME.

In short I would say it is not a question of war vs. appeasement. If done wrong, either one will fail to solve simmering tensions and may very well create new ones.

Warriornation said: "appeasement has NEVER worked in human history at any level. Sure, it buys time."

Well there was that whole Cold War thing. That one was chock full of various sorts of "appeasements". But that one worked out okay. Similarly, in many cases the "war now" choice turns out to include a "war later" carrier as well. Mark seems to be ignoring the fact that the Congress of Berlin didn't do much to solve the underlying tensions in the region. And ultimately, those tensions sparked WWI. WWI, of course, was supposed to be the final solution -- the war to end all wars. And, according to the reasons he gave, he should certainly have included The Treaty of Versailles in his list. But that didn't solve anything either. Rather, it produced the conditions that sparked WWII. WWII helped to quell fascism as an influence in the world (okay, in Europe anyway -- South and Central America is different question), but it created the conditions that led to the Cold War. In fact, WWII also helped to set up the tensions we're still dealing with now in the ME.

In short I would say it is not a question of war vs. appeasement. If done wrong, either one will fail to solve simmering tensions and may very well create new ones.

You know, when I get that "blue screen of death" I do one of two things: (1) I just exit the screen, or (2) I refresh it. If I do (1) my comment rarely gets posted. If I do (2) it usually gets posted twice. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Yeah, Ricorun, exit. Saves us the trouble of pointing out how wrong you are.

The Cold War was about mutually assured destruction and waiting for a fatally flawed system to collapse on itself. You notice that Reagan made sure it worked.

When the blue screen comes up, stay on that page, and just click on the "Blogs for Bush" icon with the flag next to it, which will take you back to the main screen. My comments shows up like 95% of the time.

Well there was that whole Cold War thing. That one was chock full of various sorts of "appeasements".

All sorts of chess moves and wars by proxy maybe, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any appeasing done between the US and USSR during the Cold War. And ultimately, as KJS points out, it was won by a military solution (thank you Ronaldus Magnus) in that we outspent them on military hardware and didn't have to fire a shot.

Yeah, Ricorun, exit. Saves us the trouble of pointing out how wrong you are.

Ouch!, Sorry Rico, buddy, that's gotta leave a mark.

A few nights ago, on a similar thread, I did a Goodgle search on "historic + negotiated + peace" and the only match was a negotiated peace from a Star Trek movie. That's gotta tell you something.

Total jerks get head of the line privilege:

Rev, you would like that. Then you could go to heaven in the rapture, and Jesus will descend from the heavens to kill all the non believers, and then you could live in the holy land for 1,000 years.

I have made no secret here or anywhere else that I am an atheist. So where is that crap coming from? I think I know, you're trying to stereotype anyone who opposes kissing terrorists' asses as religious fanatics. Funny this is, while you're down there slurping up radical Muslim ass, you're actually the one who's supporting religious fanatics. Get a life.

Do you remember '73, oil crisis, Yom Kippur War?

I do. So what? Did the Israelis lose that? I don't seem to recall that. Short description:

The Egyptians and Syrians advanced during the first 24–48 hours, after which momentum began to swing in Israel's favor. By the second week of the war, the Syrians had been pushed entirely out of the Golan Heights. In the Sinai to the south, the Israelis had struck at the "seam" between two invading Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal (where the old ceasefire line had been), and cut off an entire Egyptian army just as a United Nations cease-fire came into effect.

Looks like a typical Israeli ass-kicking of the Arabs to me. It even precipitated Egypt (whose army was trapped in a brilliant miliary move) to go to Camp David and to become the first Arab nation to recognize Israel. Shortly thereafter, Egypt permanently left the Soviets' "sphere of influence" and never looked back. As a result, Egypt has had peace and prosperity ever since. And the Soviets are no more.

Saudis ain't gonna let the over-run of neighbor nations by Israel, they snubbed their collective noses at us

Naivete on your part again. The Saudis know that their regime is in danger from Al Qaeda and Muslim extremists. They know that if things get too bad, the US will bail them out. And guess what the price of that assurance is? Oil ring a bell? Threatening the Saudi royal family is likely the dumbest thing that bin Laden ever did. And like I said before, if the Saudis decided to cut off oil to the Israelis, we would likely make up the difference. If the Saudis then decided to cut off oil to the US, I can see that being the trigger for the overthrow of the royal family which serves only one purpose now, assuring the unfettered flow of oil to the US. To get some sense of how much in our back pocket the Saudis are, ask yourself why else would they make statements condemning Hezbollah? The Saudis still hate the Jews, just like most leftists do. And that will go on for another generation or two. But the Saudis will never openly do anything to support those who attack them again. It would mean the end of Mercedes and Palaces and Yachts and Colorado vacation homes that put Bill Gates' house to shame.

If israel had to hold off thousands of guerilla fighters, in multiple nations they occupied for "buffer zones", they would find themselves stretched a bit too far for their own good, look at how bad they wanted out of South lebabnon after 18 years.

Different situations. If they had to occupy other countries as buffers, they would have a different set of rules about putting down resistance to their presence. The UN and much of the terrorist sympathizing world would scream bloody murder, but just like now, they'd be powerless to do anything except pontificate and talk.

"This country owes Ronald Reagan a debt we can never repay." Rush. What was it? About 4 trillion?

Ricorun....the Cold War was about APPEASEMENT?

Oh please. This I have to hear.

Well there was that whole Cold War thing.

Uh, Rich...er, I mean, Rico, the Soviets never strapped bombs to their bodies, or chopped off the heads of Americans.

You can't equate the Cold War to the war on terror.

Scar, Spook, Laura Ingraham just kicked Juan William's arse on O'Reilly. He, just like all the other lefties, wants cease-fire and appeasement. Williams also contended that Condi going over there now is too little, too late.

Personally, I think Israel is doing just fine...

Has it ever occured to you lefties that Israel gets along fine with both Egypt and Jordan, both of whom were defeated militarily by Israel, and both of whom signed peace accords which recognize Israel's right to exist.

Why can't the Hamas or Hizbullah do the same? Why is negotiating with them pointless.
Why is land concession for peace pointless?

Because the stated objective of both of these terrorist groups is the DESTRUCTION and ANHILATION of Israel. Unless and until they agree to the right of Israel to exist, there is no point in negotiating with them.

BTW: Saudi Arabia (sunni) fears Iran (shia'a) more than they fear Israel. They see Hizbullah (Shia'a), the surrogate of Iran, as the biggest threat to their long term existance. Condi is meeting with the Ambassador of Saudi before she goes to the middle east to enlist his support to pressure Syria (sunni) to stop supporting Hizbullah. Syria is in a very difficult position, they have no oil or natural resourses to speak of. They are already on our sh*t list, and they are dependent upon support from other arab states for their existance. Iran is not arab its Persian...historic enemies of the arabs, and on top of that they are shia'a historic enemies of the sunni. I'm sure that any pressure from Saudi on Syria will involve a carrot and stick approach involving the promise oil, lifting of sanctions, relations with the US, in return for their rolling over on Hizbullah. The stick will be non support and the threat of US attack.

You know, it would be interesting if we actually acted the way liberals say we do. Wack Saudi and Iran and take their damn oil. Venezuala also. Actually have the war for oil liberals accuse us of.

What the heck libbies - you say we are power hungry christian-fascist war mongers. So, do you REALLY think so? What if we REALLY act that way? I mean, you hate us already so what the hell.

Won't matter if the Muslims hate us - if we nuke all their major population centers. "Death to America!!!" WAM! Problem solved. According to you guys, thats how we act. So? Is it really?

So, maybe we aren't the hate filled jerks you accuse us of being?

Thanks Spook. I just love reading some of the silliness from the left. The idea that the Cold War was appeasement, is about like the idea that the Treaty of Versailles was a good idea.

Now, guys, there is just no way Barney can be 13...I don't know any 13 yr. old that dopey!!!

Is there any way to convince fundamentalist islamists and christians to go to the moon with either machine guns or a rope for tug of war, and just settle this out? Look both of you guys are convinced you are the center of the universe and have divine authority (ironic coming from the mouth of a man, but anyway) so can't you just have one big rumble since you think people don't really die anyway? I'd rather not have you destroy my planet because you are convinced it will get you to paradise/eternal reward, or any other cult inspired get rich quick scheme.

kjstrouble,

If it was about appeasement, what did MAD stand for again? What was the purpose of the DEW Line? And NORAD? And SAC? And over 400 nuclear powered ballistic missile subs with up to 160 independently targeted warheads that could strike the Soviets without warning? (spent some time as a sub sailor in the '60s).

There was no appeasement. The Russians knew one thing for sure. Attack us, and everyone in the Soviet Union - everyone - would be dead. I don't call that appeasement. But it did have an official name: Cold War. Funny that.

kjstrouble,

If it was about appeasement, what did MAD stand for again? What was the purpose of the DEW Line? And NORAD? And SAC? And over 400 nuclear powered ballistic missile subs with up to 160 independently targeted warheads that could strike the Soviets without warning? (spent some time as a sub sailor in the '60s).

There was no appeasement. The Russians knew one thing for sure. Attack us, and everyone in the Soviet Union - everyone - would be dead. I don't call that appeasement. But it did have an official name: Cold War. Funny that.

When are they gonna fix that posting problem? How hard can it be?

If anyone in the US leadership were to act to try and compromise Israel's national security because of oil needs or other economic concerns, such an action would be unethical. The IDF can and will handle the Hezbollah problem. The Bush Administration need to stay out of their way and let them take them take care of busines. If need be, the Bush administration can run diplomatic interference for the Israelis.

BP, been saying that for days. Except I'd also give them ammo and supplies if they ask.

Kahn

I'd give them ammo and supplies too. I think we did this during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. This was Operation Nickel Grass.

Kahn

I agree with you. I would give them ammo and supplies, if they asked. I think we did this during Yom Kippur War during 1973. This was Operation Nickel Grass.

From The New York Times (Middle East) -

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis...

"WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday."

"The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike."

Too bad Israel can't give us the coordinates where they would like the bombs delivered. That would avoid double handling and expedite the delivery!!!

AAR

Rev, I was saying that the Cold War was not about appeasement. Please, I grew up in Omaha, and now live in Bellevue NE. I knew about MAD from the time I was a child, I always knew nuclear war started I would not be there to see the end. But check out the Treaty of Versailles following the end of WWI, it was a nasty piece of business that helped lead to Hitler and WWII.

(taps on blus screen)... Hullo??!!

Spook said: "All sorts of chess moves and wars by proxy maybe, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any appeasing done between the US and USSR during the Cold War."

In that case I ask you to explain your distinction between "appeasement" and "war". If you (or anyone) could define them for me, and explain to me how "appeasement" differs from "chess move", I'd be much obliged -- especially in light of the following examples: (1) the USSR isolating Berlin, prompting the Berlin airlift; (2) the USSR invading Hungary in 1956 prompting, well, no direct response; (3) the USSR invading Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague Spring in 1968 prompting, well, no direct response. I would say those are the most obvious examples. They certainly didn't result in anything I would define as "war".

And by the way, my definition of appeasement is straight out of Webster's: "to yeild or concede to the beligerent demands of a nation, group, person, etc., in a conciliatory effort." If the examples I provided don't apply, I don't know what does.

Is that a sufficient explanation for you, Warrior?

And don't worry, Spook, I have thicker skin than kstrouble can penetrate. But thanks for caring.

By the way, no one has addressed my contention that "war now" often results in "war later" -- just as "appeasement now" often results in "war later". Lefties stress the fact that "violence propagates violence". That is true. Likewise, righties sress the fact that permissiveness propagates violence. That is also true. Unfortunately, it appears that both sides ignore one or the other truth. My opinion is that BOTH are true.

That polarity may explain why everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that I said NEITHER war OR appeasement are in and of themselves an adequate answer. As I indicated, if done wrong, either one will fail to solve simmering tensions and may very well create new ones. That's where the chess game comes in. And I am not saying the Versailles Treaty was a good one. Similarly, I would argue that the Congress of Berlin wasn't either. The point I was trying to make was this: Mark claimed that the treaties he mentioned "were possible because everyone, even the parties defeated in war, had a general community of interest - that being the restoration of peace without anyone being utterly crushed." Under those conditions, the Treaty of Versailles should have been included, because the conditions he stipulated not only applied to the Treaty of Versailles, it applied to them better than all the others he mentioned -- it was, after all, the treaty that ended the war that was supposed to end all wars. But in addition to that point, I tried to make another somewhat more subtlely (my bad: I should have known better than to introduce subtlety on this site). The second point is this: even if the conditions Mark mentioned apply, a treaty -- any treaty -- isn't enough. You have to do it right.

For the record, I think Israel will prove to be quite competent at "reducing" Hizbollah in south Lebanon. They have great HUMINT in that area. But the talk about them marching on Damascus, Beirut, and/or Amman that's, well, nonsense. Moreover, the Israelis have demonstrated themselves to be equally bad, and perhaps even worse than us at occupation. The occupation part is the real key to making things work.

Scaramonga said: "The Russians knew one thing for sure. Attack us, and everyone in the Soviet Union - everyone - would be dead."

I ask you... what has changed? In other words, isn't it still true that if anyone attacks us, they're toast? But somehow that's not good enough anymore. Now we're being asked to attack anyone that may conceivably threaten us (even by proxy, I might add) at some point in the future -- like Iraq, for example. The problem is, depending upon how broadly the concept is applied, that conception could include just about everybody. After all, we're not just talking about the entities that may attack us (e.g., al Qaeda and their direct affiliates), we're now talking about pre-emptive war on any entity who may potentially support them. And apparently (again I have Iraq prominently in mind), that "potential" is very loosely interpreted. Not only that, but many here want us to declare pre-emptive war even on entities that pose a threat (as opposed to those that have actually attacked) not only to ourselves, but to our allies as well, by virtue of either their actual or alleged support of entities that pose the most direct threat to said entities. Ultimately, that could include just about everybody. So I ask you... where does the necessity of war end and the chess match begin? I ask that in all honesty, because it is not at all clear to me.

Or do you think that war is ALWAYS necessary no matter what? I mean come on, do you or anyone else really think that if Israel and/or us occupies Jordan, Syria, and/or Lebanon, it won't provoke repercussions? Realistically, the only way that could work (okay, maybe not the only way, but no identifiable alternative is obvious) is if we engage in genocide. But if we do, that will also provoke repercussions. Then we'll have to kill all Arabs. But if we do that will provoke further repercussions. Then we'll have to kill all Muslims. But if we do...

Scaramonga said: "The Russians knew one thing for sure. Attack us, and everyone in the Soviet Union - everyone - would be dead."

I ask you... what has changed? In other words, isn't it still true that if anyone attacks us, they're toast?

Didn't see a lot of toast after the first WTC bombing, did you? How about after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? Or after 9/11 - no toast. My definition of toast is whoever did it - and those who support and/or harbor them have a severely decreased life-span, live in a realm of fire and rubble, and those that survive decide that the kind of behavior that led to that retaliation is impossible to sustain. Examples: Japan --> Pearl Harbor --> war in Pacific --> Hiroshima/Nagasaki -->60 years of peace, staunch allies, and a Constitution in Japan that will never let them try that aggressive crap again. Germany followed a similar track.

So what I am saying is that had we considered that Afghanistan were behind 9/11 (and they were), our full military might should have been unleashed, laying most of that country to waste. Those that survived, would get out of the terrorist business the next day. And a strong message would have been sent throughout the Middle East that if you attack America, that is what you can expect in return.

I am not talking about nuclear explosions, although I would not rule them out. Just enough power applied to devastate the host country. And I am not saying we don't also pursue the terrorists to the ends of the world and kill them where they're hiding. The entire motivation behind the attacks on America by the Islamofacists is predicated on their perception that we are weak and lack the will to fight back. Because of that, they can take home-made weapons, IEDs, and rifles from just after WWII (AK-47), and establish a psuedo-parity with US military forces. The terrorists kill innocent civilians including women and children whenever it suits them and they rejoice in it. They know we refuse to create "collateral damage" in pursuit of them. Had we done that in WWII, we would have lost the war in the first year.

I could go on and on about how they manage to survive and fight when all reasonable analyses say they should not be able to. Our own anti-war left is part of the problem as well as our Bush-hating MSM that continually distorts the war news and levels charges - that are more often than not - lies.

The problem is, depending upon how broadly the concept is applied, that conception could include just about everybody.

You can't really believe that, can you? Really?

After all, we're not just talking about the entities that may attack us (e.g., al Qaeda and their direct affiliates), we're now talking about pre-emptive war on any entity who may potentially support them.

Starting to sound like histrionic exaggeration to me. No one proposes that. But when we find a country IS providing support to terrorists, they should be made to pay a severe price for it.

And apparently (again I have Iraq prominently in mind), that "potential" is very loosely interpreted.

Then you misunderstand why Iraq was attacked. I wonder why.

So I ask you... where does the necessity of war end and the chess match begin? I ask that in all honesty, because it is not at all clear to me.

It is simple. When people attack you, you fight back. When countries give support and safe haven to those that attack you, you fight back. Does that clear it up?

I mean come on, do you or anyone else really think...

We have little to say about what Israel does or doesn't do. Of course they will listen to us, being allies, and they will try to accommodate our concerns, but if they decide to move on Lebanon, they will have considered all the repercussions in depth. They are not terrorists and all they really want is to live in peace in their country. But, due to the nature of where it is their country exists, they are constantly under attack. They must be able to defend themselves. Over the years, they've proved over and over again their military superiority and their ability to destroy their enemies. But they have always stopped short. Normally that is because of the US's lack of support for what they are doing or the UN or both. I do not subscribe to your slippery slope argument because it is based on guesses, not facts in evidence. Over the years, we've opposed evil regimes, e.g., the Soviet Union. We could not go into armed conflict with them because of the nuclear issues, but we held the line and eventually the bogus system collapsed. Very few in the former Soviet Union are yearning for the "good old days" of communism and Stalags. To get to that point, the US had to counter every aggressive move the Soviets tried to make. We had to oppose them everywhere but on the battlefield. And finally, they lost the battle. And they have, for the most part, changed their ways. So I do not think you are right. All these people in the Middle East have to do is realize that their way forward is too painful. We can help them to realize that, but not with PC "skirmishes" and so much caution to avoid civilian casualties and destruction of the infrastructure that we let them escape, regroup, and attack again.

where oh where did my comment go? you know, this would be a good place to start a blog, with comments and stuff...

Attn: Reverend Rambo
Calm down. I realize that you are a hairy back extreme right wing knuckledragger but how about a little balanced thought on the big question of who is right or wrong in the Middle East. I offer you this to chew on(and spit out no doubt)

I saw this item in a paper about David Ben-Gurion. He, one of Israel’s revered founders and first prime minister, made this statement to Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress:

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: We have taken their country...We come from Israel, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them? There was anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz but was that their fault? They only see one thing: We have stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”

So you and the other hairy back knuckledraggers should open your minds a bit and see that there are really two legitimate sides to this sad story.

Well personally I don’t agree that Israel be destroyed, it's current exisitance is water under the bridge. They exist now and there is no choice for them other than they keep fighting to survive because nothing but their destruction would bring peace to the Middle East. As you can see, I have no solution to offer, just something to mull over. Your stated solution would be "nuke the raghead camel-humpers". Reverend, Revered, please change your handle to 'Raging Rambo'

Attn: Reverend Rambo

I quit reading right there.

"I have no solution to offer" Canuckguy

Leftists rarely do.

What your comments fail to realize is that Palestine as an arab state has NEVER existed. Someone else has always been in control of that land.

Israel now, Britain before that, the Ottoman Empire before that and so on and so on.

Seems to me there is no historical or archeological doubt that Israel is the ancestral home of the Jews.

By your reasoning, you have no right to claim Canada as your homeland, but you do. So before you ask the Jews to go home, recognize that they are home. Someone else has been occupying it for Centuries after they were displaced. Some have never left, others have returned to claim what was theirs.

So Israel has a better claim to modern day Israel than you have to Canada.

You also may not be aware of the fact that there are Arabs and Palestinians members of the Israeli Parliment. So while Israel is trying to accomodate all parties within their borders, Hamas and Hizbullah do not want to negotiate, they want to kill ALL JEWS.

The best description of the situation in the middle east and the prospects for peace:

"We will have peace with the Arabs when they will love their children more than they hate us."

former Israel Prime Minister Golda Meir (1972)

Attn: Reverend;
--I should have known you are not open to discusion with reason. Go back to your cave and chew on a bone.
--However I am sure you must have read it all and your neanderthal brain went into a coma from the sheer reasonableness of a balanced viewpoint. They are only thoughts and facts, Reverend, nothing to fear.

Scaramonga said: "My definition of toast is whoever did it - and those who support and/or harbor them have a severely decreased life-span, live in a realm of fire and rubble, and those that survive decide that the kind of behavior that led to that retaliation is impossible to sustain. Examples: Japan --> Pearl Harbor --> war in Pacific --> Hiroshima/Nagasaki -->60 years of peace, staunch allies, and a Constitution in Japan that will never let them try that aggressive crap again. Germany followed a similar track.”

But the USSR didn’t follow the same track. In fact, I would argue that the results of WWII made it possible for them to ascend to the status of a super power. Without WWII their situation would have been very different. Likewise, WWII set up the conditions that allowed communism to take hold in China as well. So solving the Germany and Japan problems generated others. That is my point. I’m not arguing that we should not have done what we did in WWII. That worked out very well. But not perfectly. And I suppose you could argue that we should have invaded the USSR after Germany and Japan capitulated. And then China. Then, supposedly, all our problems would have been solved. Then again, maybe not. I’m not at all sure there is such a thing as a “final solution” of the type you propose through the application of military force. In almost all cases there will always be a chess match involved in one form or another at one point or another. See the last paragraph for my hypothesis on when chess matches are necessary.

S: So what I am saying is that had we considered that Afghanistan were behind 9/11 (and they were), our full military might should have been unleashed, laying most of that country to waste. Those that survived, would get out of the terrorist business the next day. And a strong message would have been sent throughout the Middle East that if you attack America, that is what you can expect in return.

First of all, I’m inclined to agree that we didn’t do things right in Afghanistan. I think we should have been more aggressive in Tora Bora. But that’s a “what if” scenario, and I don’t share your (apparent) absolute certainty that it would have solved everything. In fact, I’m inclined to think that even “laying waste” to the entire country would not have had the effect you desire. It didn’t work for the USSR in Afghanistan back in the 80’s, that’s for sure. Perhaps you think they lacked the will or the ability to lay waste to the country with sufficient thoroughness. At any rate, it’s pretty clear that for your hypothesis to be correct, the destruction would have to be very thorough to achieve the desired effect. You also assume that doing that would have an overall calming effect on the rest of the region. I doubt it. In fact, it very well might have the opposite effect. In which case, we’d have to do it all over again someplace else. Then maybe someplace else, and so on. After a while it would get pretty darned expensive and exhausting. And I think it’s worth pointing out that the USSR’s adventure in Afghanistan had such deleterious effects on their economy and society that it hastened their collapse. So in that instance at least, pursuing the military option didn’t work out. And because it didn’t it serves as a very good object lesson (see the last paragraph).

S: I am not talking about nuclear explosions, although I would not rule them out. Just enough power applied to devastate the host country. And I am not saying we don't also pursue the terrorists to the ends of the world and kill them where they're hiding. The entire motivation behind the attacks on America by the Islamofacists is predicated on their perception that we are weak and lack the will to fight back. Because of that, they can take home-made weapons, IEDs, and rifles from just after WWII (AK-47), and establish a psuedo-parity with US military forces. The terrorists kill innocent civilians including women and children whenever it suits them and they rejoice in it. They know we refuse to create "collateral damage" in pursuit of them. Had we done that in WWII, we would have lost the war in the first year.

You are claiming certainty on the basis of hypothetical examples. Can you point to one real world example? Clearly, Israel DOES exhibit the will to fight back. And yet they, more than any other country in the world, have been plagued with terrorism. So I guess the argument there is that they haven’t been sufficiently devastating either. Which is again an object lesson indicating that in order for your hypothesis to have any chance of being right, the devastation would have to be very severe. Obviously at some point your conclusion will be justified – it goes without saying that when everyone is dead no one can fight back. But short of that it is unclear what it would take. The only thing that IS clear is that it would take a lot. But again, see the last paragraph.

R: The problem is, depending upon how broadly the concept is applied, that conception could include just about everybody. After all, we're not just talking about the entities that may attack us (e.g., al Qaeda and their direct affiliates), we're now talking about pre-emptive war on any entity who may potentially support them.
S: Starting to sound like histrionic exaggeration to me. No one proposes that. But when we find a country IS providing support to terrorists, they should be made to pay a severe price for it.

Okay, let’s begin by examining what is meant by “a country that is supporting terrorists.” Obviously the Taliban regime was. How about Iran? How about North Korea? How about Syria? Yep, I’d say they should be included. How about Saudi Arabia? How about Pakistan? Those two (and a few others) are a bit more fuzzy because the support they provide is not officially condoned, but they aren't exactly discouraged either. How about Saddam’s Iraq? Sure, he supported terrorism in the form of paying the families of suicide bombers attacking Israel. Beyond that evidence for his support of terrorism was far more iffy. Clearly it wasn’t as strong as the ties Syria and Iran had at the time (and do now). How about China? If it wasn’t for their support of North Korea, the North Korea problem would have gone away a long time ago. So does China apply? What about Russia? If they refused to supply Iran and Syria with weapons, those countries wouldn’t be such a threat. So does Russia apply? Of course, Russia and China have big stockpiles of nuclear weapons, so we have to be nice nice to them to one degree or another. But if they didn’t, would they apply?

R: And apparently (again I have Iraq prominently in mind), that "potential" is very loosely interpreted.
S: Then you misunderstand why Iraq was attacked. I wonder why.

Please, dear sir, enlighten me. In the mean time, I believe this to be the official synopsis. Of course, that was presented in October, 2002. And many people seem to think time stopped from then until March 2003 in the sense that no new evidence was gathered that called the older evidence into question. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq eventually. My contention is that although Saddam posed a threat that had to be eliminated eventually, he did not pose an immediate threat. We had time – time to lean on the UN and NATO, time to root out al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, time to draw up more thorough plans for the eventual occupation of Iraq.

R: So I ask you... where does the necessity of war end and the chess match begin? I ask that in all honesty, because it is not at all clear to me.
S: It is simple. When people attack you, you fight back. When countries give support and safe haven to those that attack you, you fight back. Does that clear it up?

Nope. Rather, I hope I made it clear through my argument above that your conception is far too simple. Merely “fighting back” isn’t going to do it if it isn’t done right.

R: I mean come on, do you or anyone else really think...
S: We have little to say about what Israel does or doesn't do. Of course they will listen to us, being allies, and they will try to accommodate our concerns, but if they decide to move on Lebanon, they will have considered all the repercussions in depth. They are not terrorists and all they really want is to live in peace in their country. But, due to the nature of where it is their country exists, they are constantly under attack. They must be able to defend themselves. Over the years, they've proved over and over again their military superiority and their ability to destroy their enemies. But they have always stopped short. Normally that is because of the US's lack of support for what they are doing or the UN or both. I do not subscribe to your slippery slope argument because it is based on guesses, not facts in evidence. Over the years, we've opposed evil regimes, e.g., the Soviet Union. We could not go into armed conflict with them because of the nuclear issues, but we held the line and eventually the bogus system collapsed.

Gosh, and you just got done saying that I didn’t provide any evidence for my position that all-out war isn’t always the only effective course of action. Okay, so we didn’t go to war with the USSR because of the nuclear issue. The fact is, we found other ways to defeat them short of war. THAT is my point. And there’s your evidence. Where’s yours?

Let me help you out here: Granada and Nicaragua are good examples of where military force produced desired results. And we hardly had to kill anybody to effect the desired change. Why do you suppose that is? I would say that it’s because the regimes in those countries lacked popular support to a significant degree. Under those conditions, military force can work exceedingly well. On the other hand, when the regime in question does have popular support, even to a moderate extent, then you are going to have your hands full. Iraq is a perfect example of that. Likewise, as the recent elections in the Palistine Territories and Lebanon demonstrated, Hamas and Hizbollah have quite a bit of popular support. So I would say you have two options available: (1) attempt to erode that popular support with some kind of effective “carrot and stick” approach (that is, by combining “appeasement” with “force”), or; (2) kill just about everybody.

Obviously, if you're looking for speed and efficiency, the second option is the way to go. But if you go there, chances are you'll get a bunch of new shorts in a bunch around the world. And that could very well cause you other problems down the road. In which case you're confronted with a similar choice again... and again... potentially ad infinitum.

Attn: Reverend;

Save your stupid Canadian "thoughts." They mean nothing and you mean less. I didn't read your post this time either nor will I be reading any more of them.

But the USSR didn’t follow the same track.

I disagree to some extent. The Soviet Union had their Communist revolution and the Communists seized power in 1917, long before WWII. They entered the war due to a colossal error on the part of the Germans - the same mistake Napolean made - invading Russia. But the main way the Soviets beat the Germans on the Eastern Front was by out-producing them in their factories which were very powerful by that time. As far as their rise to power is concerned, the espionage and American traitors the Rosenbergs who gave the Soviets the technology to built the atomic bomb advanced them rapidly from third-rate power to a serious threat very qauickly. Had that treason not happened, they probably still would have been able to develop the bomb, but it would have taken decades longer. Who knows what the political landscape would have looked like by then? Already they had to build a wall to keep citizens from fleeing their "peoples' republic." They used the nuclear theat of the Americans, and their "wars by proxy" to effectively reflect blame from their failed system onto the outside world such as the US and its allies. Lacking that excuse, made possible by the possession of nuclear weapons and the attendant arms race, the system may have failed much sooner than it did. But to ever consider it a success is a joke. All that system ever brought to the average citizen in the Soviet Union was misery. No one there shed a single tear when it collapsed.

But not perfectly.

You must not ever allow perfect to be the enemy of good. No solution in the real world is ever perfect. Each has its up sides and down sides. The decision-making process is focused on finding the best choice since there never will be a perfect choice.

And I suppose you could argue...

You could, and in fact General Patton did, to no avail. But I say no to the idea and always have, although having to deal with nuclear bombs hanging over my head from junior high onward was one of the prices we paid for not acting. But the Soviets never attacked us. And China was our ally (as were the Soviets) in WWII. We would NEVER have attacked them without serious provocation, nor should we have.

I’m not at all sure there is such a thing as a “final solution” of the type you propose through the application of military force.

I don't remember using the words "final soltion" except in the context of the Nazis thinking the the exterminaton of the Jews in the concentration camps was a "final solution." You see how well that worked for them. And there is not nor could there ever be a "final solution" to wars and conflicts. To think there could be is to live in a fantasy world. What I proposed and what I support is that if a country or group (like the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11) attack you, you track them down and kill them. And if a country is found to be involved you lay it to waste. The solution works every time its tried. Again I point to Japan and Germany in WWII. No mollycoddling the terrorists or the countries which fund them or provide them havens. For example, if we'd have done that in Afghanistan after 9/11, these terrorists would be personna non grata in every Middle Eastern country that wanted to survive.

In almost all cases there will always be a chess match involved in one form or another at one point or another. See the last paragraph for my hypothesis on when chess matches are necessary.

...and I don’t share your (apparent) absolute certainty that it would have solved everything.

Tall order, solving everything. I don't care to solve everything. I just want to convince those that wish to attack us that the price is too steep and to either go attack somebody else or stop attacking anybody.

It didn’t work for the USSR in Afghanistan back in the 80’s, that’s for sure.

I've not read too much about the level of force that the Soviets used in Afghanistan, but I seriously doubt that they "laid to waste" the major population centers or carpet bombed known hideouts. From what I have read, they tried to fight a Viet Nam style counter-insurgency war and were defeated by the guerillas, thanks in large part to US Stinger missiles.

...the destruction would have to be very thorough to achieve the desired effect.

What made Germany surrender? Japan? Was it talk? Was it idle threats? Was it "sophisticated diplomacy?" Nope. It was massive military force they could not withstand nor could they stop. At some point, they finally said, "I quit." Here's part of the Japanese surrender document:

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated.

We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilites forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property and to comply with all requirements which my be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Headquarters to issue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender un- conditionally themselves and all forces under their control.

We hereby command all civil, military and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, and orders and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to ef- fectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.

We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever actions may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Poers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all allied prisoners of war and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance and immediate transportation to places as directed.

The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to ef- fectuate these terms of surrender.

That is what I seek. Now I know that terrorist organizations, not being official countries (except for a few) are not likely to sign such a document. But it is the idea they need to adopt. Notice the "we quit" implications in that document. They were brought to the point to sign this by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is the normal way that wars are ended and peace is re-established.

You also assume that doing that would have an overall calming effect on the rest of the region. I doubt it. In fact, it very well might have the opposite effect.

I don't assume that and I care very little if they are "calm." The emotion I am looking for is abject fear. So much fear that they refuse to act against us again. I have never subscribed to the leftist line that by defending ourselves and fighting against terrorism (same thing) the we are somehow manufacturing terrorists or ill will. Are some, even many, in the ME angry at us right now? Sure they are. They see their glorious martyrs being slaughtered in great numbers by superior fighting forces. Will more join up to strap on a suicide bomb? Maybe, for a while. But soon they will be enjoying 72 virgins as well. Sooner or later, even the rabid minds of the fanatics will come to the realization that they are destroying their own countries, cultures, and families. At some point, they will turn on those who encouraged them to volunteer for the slaughter and these "leaders" will suffer unmentionable fates at the hands of those who once worshipped them. How do you make that happen faster - more force - more destruction - more dead enemies - more cities destroyed.

And I think it’s worth pointing out that the USSR’s adventure in Afghanistan had such deleterious effects on their economy and society that it hastened their collapse.

It had an effect, to be sure. There were other, much larger factors that led to their demise but that war didn't help them. I happen to belive that Star Wars is what the final straw was. In their shaky economy they could not afford to match the proposed system the US was committed to build and at the same time, they could not afford to NOT compete. That system, without an answer from them, would totally negate their weapon systems and ours would be a million times more effective. That is what destroyed their economy - trying to keep up with the US's spending on the missile defense system.

You are claiming certainty on the basis of hypothetical examples.

Try history. That is how we won World War II.

So I guess the argument there is that they haven’t been sufficiently devastating either.

Israel has never undertaken the miliary action of the scope and breadth of which I speak. They may not even be able to pull that off. Most of their major efforts have been in response to being attacked, not by terrorists, but by countries. Their two biggest conflicts to date are the 1967 war, also known as the "Six Day War" where Israel was simultaneously and without warning attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria and the Yom Kippur War in 1973 where Israel was attacked by a coalition of Arab nations led by Egypt and Syria. It lasted 20 days. In both those cases, Israel defeated the attackers and ended up occupying some of their territories. In both cases, Israel did not pursue the war once the attackers and the UN demanded a cease-fire. And we know now that they will and have been attacked again. Many think that the "terrorists" who are attacking Israel now, Hamas, Hezbollah and others, are really proxies for the countries who have been so soundly defeated by Israel that they dare not attack under their own flags.

the devastation would have to be very severe.

That's a subjective word, severe. It has to be enough force to convince the enemy to surrender. Depending on the circumstances, the severity can go up or down. For instance, Japan had to be nuked because even with their armies in shambles, their Navy at the bottom of the Pacific and all its captured lands libera