On a separate note, I'm actually curious, Jeroen - in 1991 Israel was attacked by ballistic missiles and did not retaliate at all.
IIRC, it only refrained from retaliating because it was talked into not retaliating.
You have stated, for example, your surprise that Israel has not used nuclear weapons against Arafat. How does this restraint on its part square with your beliefs?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Please explain.
How do _you_ believe they should act this time if (when?) they are attacked with Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I don't think retaliation is much of an option for Israel. I'm not sure it can spare the necessary troops and equipment for a conventional attack, and a nuclear/chemical/biological response is not really an option because it would cause the deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and American troops. Now, Sharon may not care all that much about Iraqi civilians, but killing American troops would be... er... not exactly beneficial to Israel's relation with the US. And the international community wouldn't be to happy about Israel using WMD's either.
Also, I, at least, am still waiting. You have it on Damon's authority (as well as mine, but he's an actual expert, while I'm an amateur) that your proposed Special Ops solution to the Saddam problem is not, in fact, possible. So I'm still waiting to hear your answer - what should be done, since the three options you laid out have all been exhausted?
In the last century, the US has been involved in the toppling of several governments without launching a full-scale war for it. Don't tell me they suddenly forgot how to do that...
Given its history, the US should be able to topple Saddam Hussein without a full-scale war.
Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk
_________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
