Peg:

Are you saying we should attack all of these countries simultaneously?

"What about Zimbabwe? The Congo?"
I answered your question about African Nations once. Do you have something specific to ad execpt to say I am wrong?

"What about Chechnya?"
That is a case where Islamic extremists want to take over that country and Russia is fighting back. It is an internal affair. Do you think we should attack Russia or try to help them attack the extremists? Shouldn't the UN

"What about (as mentioned before) Cuba and Venezuela?"
As I mentioned before what was being done. I asked you if we should attack or what. All I get is the same question. I think we should use diplomacy in cases where human rights need to be restored and force (such as the force we used in the Cuban missle crisis) in cases where the security of the US and peace in the world is in danger.

"What about North Korea?"
Just as Afghanistan was our main center of focus before Iraq, the next will probably be NK. NK is like a snapshot of what Iraq could be in the future if no action was taken in Iraq. We are also finding out that they are supplying weapons to others that should not have them.
NK used the situation of The US being so heavily involved with what needs to be done in Iraq to start using nuclear blackmail on the US and SK. All of the people opposed to action in Iraq yelled "why is Bush ignoring NK" and "can we fight two wars at once?" (This, in itself, indicates somebody is in favor of a war with NK).
Then when he moved some more military hardware in that direction they yelled "Bush is playing his war games again". With Japan being in the nuclear club, they should be a strong deterrent for NK. I think the main objective there should be to keep them from developing more nuclear weapons than they already have. If that means an attack, so be it, at least an attack on their nuclear facilities.
In the meantime we should offer to continue aid only after they discontinue nuclear development and destruction of their existing weapons and verification that they have done so. This is something that the UN needs to get more active in and do its job. If this country does not comply with the UN it should be Isolated economically and aid should be gotten in somehow to keep the people from starving. Chins would be the last one to cease trade with them but they should be made to realize who their biggest trading partners are.


"What about the escalating situation between India and Pakistan? They DO have nuclear weapons."
I think you will find that we send diplomats to these countries when the threat of war escalates. It seems their hostilities arise from which one owns Kashmir. This is another case where the UN needs to get involved and do its job.

"What about Syria, Jordan, and Israel?"
I haven't heard a lot about Syria but again we are diplomatically involved in trying to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Clinton made great progress and a deal was worked out but Arafat walked away from it. Later he admitted that he regrets not having signed the deal.
My opinion of what to do about the Palestinian conflict is to force Israel to abandon the settlements in Palestinian territory by cutting off aid until they do so. I don't think they should have been started in the first place and I don't think there will ever be a lasting peace as long as they exist. They are an insult to the Palestinians that constantly reminds them that they are not really in their own country but just occupying part if Israel.
Should we attack the Palestinian regime? I don't think so.


Is that specific enough or do you want me to start writing battle plans and diplomatic proposals for each of these countries?


Old Guy

PS I have another question. How many anti-war demonstrators marched in Russia? They are free to do so now thanks to the efforts of "warmongers" like Ronald Regan