Should We Bomb Syria and Iran?

On 13 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0700, Kenneth Williams wrote:
President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.

I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.

Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in
pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the
war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be
forced to do something drastic?

What is the general concensus here at RAM?

I think we should bomb your house, and then nuke you until you are
radioactive cinders.

I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
allowing democracy in that region.

Ha ha ha. And if the majority of the people in rebuilt Iraq wanted
to have nuclear weapons, would the USA let them? No of course not,
the only people in the middle east to be allowed nukes are Israel
and not the racially inferior (according to the USA) Arabs. And if
you support that policy, then you are a filthy contemptable racist
too.

On the subject of democracy, Iran's president is the guy who got the
most votes, something that can't be said for the USA. But I suppose
thatc doesn't fit in with Bush's idea of democracy, which seems more
about subservience to US corporate interests.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).