The Washington Times, America's Newspaper: Israeli planes strike Beirut, by Sam F. Ghattas, July 16, 2006. "Israel intensified its air assault on Lebanon yesterday, bombing central Beirut for the first time and pounding seaports and a key bridge as it tightened a noose around this reeling nation."
The only thing that world leaders want at a time like this is "restraint." They wish things would "calm down." They hope the parties will "negotiate."
One of the indications of insanity is when a person continues to try the same ineffective solution for her problems, over, and over, and over. The world is behaving insanely.
Case in point—Israel gives back all territory in Lebanon, and now Gaza. It stops all hostilities. It tries to "negotiate" a peaceful solution. What did it get for this effort? World scorn, kidnappings of its soldiers, bombs in their open-air markets, and rockets in their bedrooms.
My modest proposal for world peace is this. The United States needs to do what it promised after 9/11—attack terrorists wherever they are, including those who harbor them, and those who support them financially.
This means we need to strike Iran, Syria, and anyone else who is behind this bloodshed in the world. This could even mean Saudia Arabia, which may be funding terrorism and radical Islamic schools. This does not mean we send troops. We can do it with air strikes. The object would not be to overthrow governments. Rather, we would want to cripple these countries economically. Practically, President Bush would announce to Iran and Syria et al, “Stop supporting terrorists in any way, or we will attack you.” He would give them 30 days to comply. Then, if they had not cooperated, we would strike.
Would this lead to an escalation of violence? Yes. Would it lead to recession and even economic depression? Yes, it could. I'm aware that we would face a wide war, with oil embargos and the whole works. We would also face worldwide condemnation. What else is new? Bush would lose even more in the polls. Hysterical Democrats would probably win in the next elections. All this is the price of war. War is ugly.
What I believe most people are missing is that we are already at war. This war will go on indefinitely the way we are waging it. We will pay for it one way or another. Look at gasoline prices.
It is insane to think that Islamo-fascists will give up their hatred for the West if we are nicer to them. It is delusional to think that Palestinians will accept Israel as a legitimate state if Israel tears down their wall and opens their checkpoints. We’ve tried these solutions over, and over, and over.
We need to fight this war the way we fought WWII, with enough breadth of force and staying power until the economic back of terrorism is broken.
Deal with it. As long as we are at war, we ought to win it, and we can. Anything less is insane.
This Post's Technorati Tags: editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, war, peace, Israel, Palestinian, Islamo-facism, truth
4 comments:
As your first and only detractor, I feel the need to respond and start intelligent discourse (of course). What makes you think that "attacking terrorists wherever they are" will eliminate terrorism? Israel is very precise (yet a bit harsh) in their targeted killings and retaliations, often killing more civilians than terrorists in the process- as we're seeing in Lebanon right now. They create more enemies (and future terrorists) than sympathizers when more innocent civilians are taken out than instigators, making their precarious situation worse, not better. As a friend of mine would say, "One dead Osama creates 10 angry Osamas"....
paz y amor, by the way, Israel has been dropping thousands of leaflets for civilians to leave the areas where they are going to be bombing. They need to do this because Hezbollah and Hamas embed their military centers in populated areas. The Israelis, you see, are making an attempt to avoid killing civilians.
Do you see Hezbollah aiming at military installations? Do you see them dropping leaflets before they bomb? No, they are targeting civilians. That is their intention, to kill women, babies, and children. The Israelis intention is to hit the military and the infrastructure, which is allowed in a war. It is not allowed to target civilians.
What kind of people use their own women and children as human shields? These people are monsters.
I'd never thought of Hiroshima as a terrorist act but you're absolutely right about that. One COULD argue that the only difference between the "illigitimate" use of terrorism and "legitmate" missile explosions in urban Gaza City or carpet bombing Berlin is an established, recognized government. Terrorists are "animals" when innocents are killed, governments are "protecting themselves" when innocents are killed. There's not much of a difference in my book (and you obviously see my logic based on your Hiroshima reference). It's all about perception- however, if Hamas, IJ, and Hezbolla only targeted the Israeli military, would they be considered something other than terrorists? I doubt it. Though I wouldn't consider myself a "liberal" (it's too banal to pigeonhole oneself with a political wing these days) I appreciate the compliment nonetheless. You can't learn when you only converse with people who agree with you so I defintely appreciate the open and honest conversation with a differing opinion. I look forward to reading more my man.
paz y amor, thanks for another thoughtful comment.
I agree that the world thinks an act of war is legitimate or not based somewhat on who is doing it, but that's not my opinion. I continue to believe that an act of terror is the targeting of innocent civilians. By this definition, whether the U.S. was justified or not, whether it was an established country or not, Hiroshima was an act of terror.
We did it as a show of force that was supposed to be so horrible that Japan would surrender. It worked.
The Palestinians use terror as asymmetrical warfare. They can't defeat the mighty American or Israeli armies directly, so they see terror as their only alternative for obtaining their objectives.
I understand their logic. Basically, they are correct. It's the only way they can win.
On the other hand, is their cause noble, as was ours in WWII? No. They want to annihilate a people, not free the world from a monster.
Does the end justify the means? Sometimes, but not in the case of the Palestinians.
Post a Comment