[Luis Gonzalez]

I stated that the people in this thread still supported the nuking of Mecca, you said that I put up a straw man.

You refused to simply acknowledge their posts.

Now, whether the administration would have carried out the threat of a nuclear attack on a city of 5 million human beings or not, is a matter of opinion, as the events never came to be.

I offered a verifiable argument, and you are attempting to assert something which since it never came to be, can't be proven.

As I said, obfuscating.

[EternalVigilance]

Well, I'll restate my position, then I'll leave it at that:

Anyone who seriously advocates nuking innocents without cause is insane, and can't possibly be an obedient Christian. I seriously doubt there are more more than a bare handful on FR who would advocate such an action, except as a bit of pressure-releasing hyperbole.

I agree with the policy of the United States and of this President, i.e. that the use of WMD against our country will be considered identical to the use of atomic arms, and will be retaliated against in kind. In other words, I approve of the policy of deterrence.

This President has also come to another conclusion that I agree with; that the radical elements of Islam are in all likelihood not susceptible to the threat of retalitation, since they have as much regard for their own people as they have for ours--none. Therefore we have determined to pursue a policy of preemption against these animals--in other words, we are going to get them before they have the power or the ability to get us.