Can we solve the Me problems?

[ilovelucy]

How are we going to solve any ME problems?

[Observer]

What problems?

[ilovelucy]

huh?


How are we going to continue to support Israel financially, give money to Egypt when the big E supports terrorists, and wage guerilla warfare in Iraq? For example? Among other issues....

[katsrdelicious]

First we'll relocate the Red Sox over there to demoralize them...................

[Observer]

Oh, THOSE problems...

I thought by ME problems, you meant YOU problems. ;)

[ilovelucy]

Hey, the Red Sox have a chance this year....If anything we send the METS....to train them. They are notorious.

[Satan]

Oh, THOSE problems...

I thought by ME problems, you meant YOU problems. ;)


;D

Hey, we could always send the Braves to show them how to almost establish democracy. ::)

[LanceALott]

Well, from where I see it, Iowa is the Middle East, South Dakota is the Near East, and Boston is the Far East.

[ModusPonens]

How are we going to solve any ME problems?


We're not. Try going to a "friendly" ME country like the United Arab Emirates and see how far you can get with them. The UAE is about as western-friendly as it gets in that part of the world.

[Whiskey4bfast]

First we'll relocate the Red Sox over there to demoralize them...................
Send the Raiders (and their fans) over there.

They'll drive everyone out.

[Sparky26]

Well, from where I see it, Iowa is the Middle East, South Dakota is the Near East, and Boston is the Far East.


No Lance, Iowa is the middle of nowhere, get it right.

[Annie04]

Iowa is in the middle of corn...that's it....corn, corn and more corn.

[I-RIGHT-I]

huh?


How are we going to continue to support Israel financially, give money to Egypt when the big E supports terrorists, and wage guerilla warfare in Iraq? For example? Among other issues....


We're not trying to solve all their problems, we're trying to help them be able to begin to solve their own and it's working. The Taliban could not disrupt elections in Afghanistan and the people are happy. The Muslim extremists are not going to disrupt elections in Iraq and the people will vote and be happy.

We're not trying to solve their problems, we're trying to save their lives. If they don't begin to fight the Muslim extremist enemy among them by themselves we WILL do it for them but it will mean massive destruction and loss of life. The ME will fall in line and begin to build a civilized culture or they will be destroyed. It's as simple as that. The same thing goes for France.

[Larry_Oldtimer]

The fact is, that Israel had not so many problems before the idiot president, Jimmy Carter. One close call, but Israel had a reasonable policy regarding the Muslims back before Carter. When Israel was attacked, they beat the shit out of the Muslims. Every time. Then came Carter, who got the real mess started by promising Israel peace if Israel would negotiate with the Muslims. Carter lied, and Israel would have no peace from that time on. There is no earthly reason, other than that we need oil, for the mideast to be a problem to us.

Our concern is that countries in the mideast, Muslim run ones, bankroll terrorist activities in a big way, and that those Muslim run countries have essentially declared war on the US. They all refer to the US as the "Great Satan". It is pretty damn obvious that we have no alternative but to protect ourselves against such terrorists.

Kerry thinks that the UN is the answer, when in history the UN has not been effective in any way. Summit meetings won't get the job done. The basic problem remains . . . Muslim governments in the mideast are funding terrorists who are trying their best to attack us on our own soil. Hence the Bush foreign policy . . . remove those governments (and replace them with democratically elected governments) who fund terrorists unless they mend their ways. Simple as that. So far, it is working in Afghanistan, and Libya has decided to mend its ways. Iraq was one of those which funded terrorists, and will before all that long have a democratically elected government too.

No one ever said the road would be an easy one, and anyone with any brains at all could have predicted that it would indeed be difficult. But by any measure, US efforts to date are successful. Liberals keep saying that if it is difficult, or costs money or can't be absolutely sure of the outcome before anything is tried, we shouldn't get involved. I don't think there is any point in arguing whether Iraq was the "worst" of them. Iraq was certainly one of them, and that is enough for me. Orgainzed crime in the US wasn't shut down in the least for a long time, but in recent times great success has been made. So should we restrict our efforts to catch criminals because these criminals we can catch aren't the worst of criminals? I don't think so.

One of the things about Iraq that the liberals bitch about is that since the US invasion, it has become a nexus for terrorists. They think that this is a bad thing, whereas I think it is wonderful . . . for the US. It is far easier and cheaper to attack and kill them when they congregate in Iraq. Much easier and cheaper than it would be otherwise. And we are attacking and killing them on a regular basis now. Damn right it is a difficult fight . . . but a needed one if we are to be secure here in the US within our own borders.

[truelies]

How are we going to solve any ME problems?


Ceasing to sell arms to every side in their endless wars and ending our dependence on ME oil might be a start.