There hasn't any terror attack in England land yet, and the greatest concentration of fundamentalist muslims is found in London, because other european countries with less respect to freedom of speech regards violent incitations for any purpose as illegal. May be W. has had a word with the queen for that. "Bring them on" probably. Why not bombing London so. Your argument about bombing the country without any attack on their ground seems fair to the 68 milllion of people living there (and to all the suply of petrol). It's even better for all american soldier that are going to return home in a bodybag.
Just a last little practical detail. Which forces are you going to forward to these mission ? With which money ?

Thank you for your reply though some of your comments were a bit vague and unclear to me. I think I did understand the last part though and they seem to be the two general questions that are always asked. As for the forces... I am assuming it will be the USA, Great Brittin, and Australia since it seems that these three are the only ones who have the guts to enforce international law and stand up for what is right. As for the money... Seems I do recall something about a little package deal being passed about two or three weeks ago. The one worth 87 billion dollars? Does that sound familiar to you? The state of California alone has a gross national product as large as the nation of France. We are not exactly what you would say, in the poor house. If 87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq passed the senate and the house with at most a couple of raised eye brows from the Democrats, then there must be much more where that came from.
And YES there have been terrorist attacks in England.

No terrorist bombs going off in Syria, Jordan, Lybia, Tunisia, Morocco or Eqypt either. What about Monaco and the Vatican city? Also look very quiet!

Just because Iran has a history of terrorism support is not a good enough excuse to point the finger. Ever heard of 'presumed innoncence' or 'innoncent till proven guilty'? Is there some reason you feel they should not be applied?

If you have factual proof that Iran is responsible then please do post it, otherwise please stop spreading unfounded slanderous and potentially racial accusations. Some people will sadly automatically believe them!

Paul.

What about saudi ? They have created Ben Laden and pour great of money for spreading the Whallabit Islam (intolerant and violent). What about CIA that have been giving huge amount of money to the taliban ?

However, the bottom line is do you think that bombing a country breeding terrorism is the solution to fight it. I guess this approach in Afganistan and Irak haven't really proven its efficiency yet. Except if you consider every citizen of this country as a terrorist and decide to jail or bomb them.

Look northern Irland, each side commit its amount of atrocity, and they manage (almost) to get out of violent and back in the democratic process by stopping bombing and start to negociate.

The last thing is even for a the mighty USA the bill will not be easy to pay in term of life, cash and political credibility (if this concept really mean something).

Generaly, we wish to remove a problem by the simplest and the quickest way. Unfortunatly simple solution to complex problems are not that easy to find.


Sincerly yours

As has been proven time and time again, it is not easy nor always the best solution to try and bomb a country into submission. This is not new knowledge to us by any means. The terrorists are beginning to realise this as well. By bombing us it is only increasing our will to defeat them. It is only making us stronger, more determined, and united in our quest to overcome them. They will be defeated in the end by whatever means necessary.
Todays bombs and guided missiles are much more sophistocated than yesterdays were. We no longer have to destroy entire cities and and acres of lands by carpet bombing. This has saved many innocent lives and greatly reduced the cost of waging war. Still people cry out in protest whenever decisions are made to take decisive action such as hitting certain military targets with lazer guided missiles to oust evil regimes. Yet they will set quietly without saying a word while we sanction nations and cut them off from much needed trade, food and medicine and bankrupt their economies. The people of Iraq had to endure suffering beyond measure for years due to these circumstances. It was the citizens and the children who had to pay for the sins of Saddam. Many children were born into it and were forced to live in poverty and suffer indignation all their lives. It was more of a blessing for them to die young rather than to have to live through the hell in order to reach adulthood. But no one cared as long as we weren't at war. No one gave it a second thought as long as none of our people were dying. No one lost any sleep as long as our dollars weren't being spent.
We live in a world of opposites. The way up, is down. To be first, we need to put ourselves last. Sometimes what seems like a bad thing can in reality be a good thing. I do not for one believe that bombs are the answer to every problem. Nor guns either for that matter. They should be reserved as only a last resort. I do believe in patience and tolorence. As for Saddam, I do think we went far beyond that with him. The war we have waged has been good for many people. It has changed people's lives for the better. Yes, there are those thinking as they read, what about the lives of the ones who were killed and their families. How has it changed their lives for the better? It is very unfortunate that a thing such as freedom and liberation must bare such a high price. But we must realize that the ones who have lost their lives for the freedom of others were more than willing to pay that price. If they weren't, then they would have never went off to fight. Its very sad when we hear about our young men and women being wounded and killed daily. But we know that their reward will be great. For if we know nothing else, we do know this one thing, that greater love hath no man, than he lay down his life for his friends.
Even sadder, is the fact that more people are being killed, not in Iraq, but right here in our own cities in the United States. Homicide is on a rampage in this country. Many people protest the number being killed in Iraq everyday but have no idea how many are being killed in their own cities. They cry out for the United Nations to come and help us in Iraq. Shall we ask the United Nations to come and help us here in our cities as well?

Just a follow-up to the statement concerning homicides in American cities. These stats were found at the following website: www.ohionewsnetwork.com
The number of homicides for Ohio's three largest cities from 01/01/03 through 06/07/03
(about a 5 month 1 week period)
Cincinnati = 30 Cleveland = 35 Columbus = 47 Total for the 3 cities = 112
The total number of homicides for these three Ohio cities for the entire year of 2002 were:
Cincinnati = 66 Cleveland = 89 Columbus = 81
For a total of 236 murdered in 2002 in these three Ohio cities alone.
Indianapolis had 83 murdered in 2002 which when combined with the total in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus, would be a total of 319 people murdered in only 4 U.S. cities in the year 2002.

OK

I try to answer your different point one after the other.

It seems that the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism driven terrorists involved in the latest attack were using suicide attack. I'm wondering if bombing toward these kind of people constitute a deterrent or a stimulation.

You are totally right about the long suffering of people in Irak. There was definitevely a moral case for removing Sadam. There is also one for not doing it. Please have a look to this article at George Monbiot web site http://www.monbiot.com/ call "the moral myth" You might not lagree with his conclusion, but his argumentation is logical. And like him, I don't buy the reasons of this war. No WMD, no link to Al-queda, Sadam still on the run taping to any arabic media. I hope in 10 years Irak will be a peaceful, democratic and develloping country spreading democracy and free trade. But so far, it doesn't look that the Neo Con think tank were right about anything regarding this. If USA want to get rid of all despotic leader of the world, it's going quiet a long time.

I would also suggest if you're so keen on spending dollar in foreign policy to envisage giving food instead of bomb. Trying to help poor country getting developed and richer. USA would probably constitute a less likely target if it wasn't see as a bullying hyperpower using all means to keep its economical, military and political supremacy.

I am not sure how willing are soldier are to die, I suspect suicide bombers are very eager to do so, of course having nothing to lose is not helping. I don't know the homicide growth in USA. But it sems to me that USA is generally a violent society, that is really obvious in the way it deal with the poorest of this citizens. (ca. 40 milion). I think leaving a lot of people in poor condition (Money and moral) is hardly preventing violence to occur. Specialy in the richest nation the world have ever see.

Calling the UN in would probably constitute a better accepted solution for the arabic world. Another advantage would come to the experience of nation building experience of UN that USA is lacking. (See the result live on CNN). And the bill would be easier to fool with the help of other state.

As to the issue of Iran being the next target in the war on terror;
You think it might be more than a coincidence that Iraq and Afganistan border that country?
Not much of a problem getting fly-over and basing permission when you control the border countries.
I believe Iranian moderates are hard at work developing a plan to oust the fundamentalist clerics that have seized control of their country, and put them at risk of "Americanization".
Just as the house of Saud has slowly come around to the realization of the monster they have created.
Islams greatest historical fact is it use and abuse by ruling parties. When the clerics go to far, the rulers eventually squash the rebellion before it hits home.

You are absolutely right Dynosoar...well said!