Onaeger across the southern border.
Or maybe this other sort of onaeger.
Posted on 11/14/2004 5:56:00 PM PST by hope
And blindly striking out with nukes at population centers would accomplish what?
--Boot Hill
If it ever happens in US, Mecca should should swiftly receive the same.</p>
Bravo!!!
well, it wouldn't be blindly. we know who the "bad guys" are generally. and we wouldn't need to strike population targets as a primary goal- - but we would need to accomplish decapitation strikes of governments and military infrastructure in several countries, more quickly then conventional attacks could provide. some civilians are going to get hit in the process.
we would also need to seize the saudi and iranian oil fields to prevent economic collapse.
what would waiting buy us? are we going to come up with some new better "master plan" to deal with this post-facto? In the midst of domestic turmoil?
It is not a question of "who" the bad guys are, but rather of "where" they are. If you don't know where they are, all the nukes in the world won't help. If you do know where they are, you don't need nukes.
--Boot Hill
I think you got it! Whether at Goss'es behest, or just because Tenant is gone, I think we will soon see a lot of revelations about CIA shortcomings in the past 15 years.
So far it's a trickle - I think there is a flood coming.
Hummm, while I'm pondering your Kerry-like nuance, do you mind if I advocate killing them both.
Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans
>>>
They can argue, kick, scream, do what they're doing with bombs, guns, knives, their money, their lips, their hearts...but in the end, if we have to kill off 1B and one of these islamocockroaches to rid the planet of the Death Cult, then so be it...NUKE MECCA!
Ooo, that was a low blow ... kerryesque? Blech
How many Zarcs do you think are out there?
I bet it is higher than we think, lots of them sleepers with mosque-followings, all over the world (that tolerates the death cult and doesn't crush it into pebbles) looking "moderate" up until their mid-20s - like Zarc did...and many others.
Well, CBS is at 52nd and 6th, and most of CBS News is at 57th and 11th. But a real nuke set off in Times Square would probably get both of those as well.
Funny....we knew that all along...but I STILL don't see any "terror" in the United States of America.
Losers.
While I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that OBL died in Tora Bora, I think it serves both the Islamofacist's and the West's purposes to perpetuate the possibility that he is alive.
The fanatics don't want him dead because he is an irreplaceable figurehead for their cause simply because he killed 3000 of us in one shot. Name their next charismatic leader.....no one out there.
It serves the West to keep the possibility of his existence's alive because it delays the development of a potential successor and Osama is a reviled figurehead that can rally nations to fight terrorism. Without him, terrorism is an amorphous entity with nothing to aim at.
We needed Zarquawi to justify the action in Fallujah - Osama serves the same purpose in the larger war on terror.
The question you pose shows you have much more insight into our difficult position than the "nuke mecca" crowd. We are bound by our principles, and those principles do not condone reprisals against non-combatants.
Should your scenario take place, I think the only obvious change you will see is our transformation into a much more Israel-like society. I also think there will be a serious upswing in subversion activities around the world, something on par with the practices of the old USSR, but those will be invisible for the most part. The recent death of Arafat is probably a good model of what those activities would look like to the public.
I suppose that depends on what he means by that. I will try and give him the benefit of the doubt and say he means he is a very dangerous man and not someone to mess with, or underestimate.
Of course we have to mess with him,and OBL like Arafat or Hitler should never be referred to in anything but contemptuous terms.
I'm not so sure the argument Scheuer makes is so silly. His claim is that bin Laden has stated six reasons why he hates us, and that these are indeed what is motivating bin Laden: These reasons include our support for Israel and its oppression of the Palestinians, our military bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, our support of repressive oil states (whose corrupt rulers sell us the oil for less than its true value), and our oppression of Iraq (the sanctions and now the war). But of course, what bin Laden really wants is a new Muslim caliphate, a united Muslim empire encompassing all historic Muslim territories.
And bin Laden's strategy makes good sense analyzed with this in mind. He claims that his war on the US is essentially defensive, that we are the ones attacking Islam and that it is every Muslim's duty to fight us. By attacking Afghanistan and especially Iraq, we strengthen his argument to the Muslim world that it is the US that are the agressors. Bin Laden's strategy is to wear us down with insurgencies in these countries and elsewhere, until our economy collapses and we are forced to withdraw from the Middle East. His strategy might not be a winning strategy, but it is not a foolish strategy. Scheuer is warning that we are in for a long, hard war.
Onaeger across the southern border.
Or maybe this other sort of onaeger.
I fully expected a typical 60 Min. hit piece on conservatives, and especially the Bush Admin.
The only thing I disagree with him about, is his view of Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.