Replies

OK, that might very well work to keep us defended and to get them to stop fighting and start building sane countries. You know more about this than I do.

My main concern is that I don't want my country to kill people, especially moderate people who could possibly live decently sane lives in a better political system, cheaply (not that anyone here really suggested that we should; I'm probably being oversensitive). Only in defense, and to prevent larger long-term death tolls, and to kill the perverse governments and systems that threaten us and their own people.

Your answer fits into this general outlook, as does Bush's answer. I don't know enough to judge which is technically better.

I want those murdering thugs in Damascus who are sending people across their border into Iraq to kill American GIs taken out in the most rapid and violent manner possible. STM took a bullet in the chest from a Syrian rifle.

Syria sponsored the bastards who murdered my brothers back in '83.

I find the prospect of killing large numbers of people distasteful just like you. Nobody who's actually had to take lives relishes the thought unless they're a criminal or a psycopath. But, I don't see any other way wrt Syria.

Iran presents a different problem. Most average Iranians (who aren't arabs btw) hate their government. They'd probably stand up and cheer if a few cluster bomb laden cruise missiles hit their 'parliament' building while that madman was speaking. I've advocated dropping small handguns and VOA radios by the thousands to the Iranian student movement. Once they've got handguns, pretty soon they'll have rifles..then machine guns...then by God you've got a revolution with some teeth.

So for Syria we send a couple of armored divisions rolling towards Damascus killing anything that resists.

For Iran we do everything we can to foment an internal rebellion and this time we see it through.