That's a plan I could support.
Unfortunately it makes way too much sense and has a high probability of success so it will never be implemented. Politicians don't want solutions that lead to success - enough of those types of plans and the politicians would work themselves right out of a job.
I wonder what 3 or 4 million dead Jews and 50 to 100 million dead Arabs and a couple of million (non-Jewish) dead Americans would do for world peace, and the peace of America at large? I'm guessing that at the least, Pakistan would have a go at seeing if their nukes were actually capable of hitting the U.S.
It ain't our fight. Not sure how you came up with those numbers, or how the dead Americans are involved.
I made them up. Does it really matter if it's 3 or 4 million dead Jews and 50 to 100 million dead Arabs, 1 million dead Jews and 53 to 103 million dead Arabs or 5 million dead Jews and 47 to 102 million dead Arabs? Any thinking person knows that if you turn a pack of pit bulls on a tiger with no place for the tiger to retreat and no one calling off the pit bulls, you're going to have a bunch of dead pit bulls and a badly injured tiger. Sure, back Israel into a corner and give the radical islamists no incentive to back off. That's going to help things.
Why do you think Pakistan would nuke us if we went neutral? First off, Pakistan has only a handful of nukes. Second off, they'd be ten times more likely to use them on India than US under any circumstances humanly imaginable. Thirdly, thus far, no country has never nuked another country with nuclear weapons, for seemingly obvious reasons.
Maybe because a substantial % of their population would blame us if they saw a few million islamo-facists and a few million of the people around them dead. After all we
all know that there isn't a significant portion of Pakistan that are islamo-facists don't we? We all know how stable a country it is and how difficult it would be for their current, less radical administration to be deposed in a military coup don't we? The evidence is there in the fact that they currently
don't have a Taliban problem in Pakistan, no Osama Bin Laden types could
possibly be running around in Pakistan and
certainly couldn't have any access to political or military power in Pakistan, Musharef doesn't have to worry about assasination or military coup, and he's able to just kick ass and take names with no fear of losing power.
After all just a "handful" of nukes. Heck, how much damage could they possibly do with that? And they'd "probably" use them on the Indians. Sure. The Indians are inorexably tied to the Israeli's in the Muslim world. After all the "great Satan" in the islamist world is India, and "humanly imaginable" doesn't include them being pissed off at us at all. After all that's a far fetched possibility we all know, there aren't any current "death to America" types of islamists in the world, they're all too busy calling for death to India.
How do you "nuke" a country with non-nuclear weapons? I suppose you could split hairs and say we did it with uranium fission bombs to Japan, but after all,
"it's never been done before", therefore nobody could possibly hate us that much.
The US is pretending to be neutral, which we ain't. When you sell arms to specific factions and hand aide out to one side but not the other, you're not neutral. We're picking sides in a fight that ain't our's. My point is that the peace process has never worked, and likely never will. We can pretend that it works, and dump tons of money into the process. It'll never cause any real peace. Only a long chain of very short cease fires.We can pick a side and get fully involved in the mess, which is a very bad idea in my opinion. Or we can stay the hell out of the entire mess and let the folks decide for themselves. This fantasy neutrality is absurd.
Oh really? Could you specifically quote W where he claims the Israeli actions are the same as Hezbollah's and that the US supports Hezbollah equally to support of Israel?
Europe pretends to be neutral. America supports Israel.