Is this an accurate picture of settlement in the West Bank?

[Malintent]

I agree that is a possibility.. and with the US having no allegiance to (anyone) the Middle East... we hold a hair trigger on our arsenal over them.
Terrorist attack kills 5 people in NYC - nuke kills 100,000 in Pakastan... how long can they keep that up?

No. Washington D.C. is blown up with a nuke. Who do we shoot back at? There's no target short of glassing the Muslim lands, something the liberals will never agree with.

It is my understanding (which can be totally wrong - tell me) is that Terrorists have a problem with the US because of our actions, not our beliefs. If the US takes NO actions in the ME, I am of the opinion we will be left alone, and potentially have a new trade route with a now-turned-peaceful nation (once they are done killing EACH OTHER).

In the short term you're right. We get attacked because we are trying to prevent an Islamist takeover of the area.

In the long term, though, it make no difference. We keep tempting their people away from the true path, we must be stopped. Also, there are Muslims living in our lands, they must be brought to the true path.

It's fight now or fight a much worse war later. Peaceful coexistence isn't an option.

If peaceful coexistence is not an option, then it sounds like you support either a preemptive nuclear attack on the region, destroying everyone... or surrender. which is your preference, or do you have a third option?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If peaceful coexistence is not an option, then it sounds like you support either a preemptive nuclear attack on the region, destroying everyone... or surrender. which is your preference, or do you have a third option?

If there was no possibility of change on their part then the bombs would be the right answer.

It's possible they will moderate, though, especially as they run out of oil.