The problem is nuking a country that has not sponsored or turned a blind eye or abetted those that do the nukes from suit cases, or bombing them, just because they are from that country. That is immoral by any moral compass that I know of that has much traction in the this age, unless that country does not fully cooperate in an appropriate hunt down. The response requires very fact specific information. Just pounding one's keyboard, or mouthing off like Tancredo did, is peurile and dumb and wrong, and needs to be rejected, as just that.
No matter how many times you repeat it, Cong. Tancredo did not say nor suggest that Islamic holy sites be nuked. In fact, Cong. Tancredo never said that Islamic holy sites have to be bombed after Islamic terroists explode nuclear devices in six (6), seven (7) or eight (8) U.S. cities. Cong. Tancredo said the following: "What would be the response? You know, there are things that you could threaten to do before something like that happens and then you may have to do afterwards that are quite draconian." Cong. Tancredo used the "may" not "must" when he spoke. The above quoted language preceded his comments about bombing holy sites.
Islamic holy sites can be taken out with conventional weapons. It does not require nuclear weapons to take out Islamic holy sites.
If Cong. Tancredo were president, this nation's borders would be secured and vigorously enforced. Our borders are presently neither secrued nor vigorously enforced. This country's borders are porous. The fact that our country's borders are so easily crossed illegally has placed this country in danger of having terrorists illegally cross the border and has also placed this country in danger of having weapons of mass destruction smuggled across the borders.
If Cong. Tancredo were president, illegal aliens would be agressivley deported, including Middle Eastern visa overstayers.
The policies with regard to border security and enforcement, deportation of illegal aliens and stricter controls on legal immigration that Cong. Tancredo would enact as president would help prevent any weapon of mass destruction from being used by Islamic terrorists against Americans on American soil. If a weapon of mass destruction is used by Islamic terrorists against Americans in this country, blood will be on the hands of all the politicians in Washington D.C. that have failed to demand the securing and enforcement of our borders, the agressive deportation of illegal aliens and stricter controls on legal immigration.
From your comments, it appears you would support nuking a country that has "sponsored or turned a blind eye or abetted those that do the nukes from suit cases." Further, from your comments, it appears you would support nuking a country that "does not fully cooperate in an appropriate hunt down." If I have misunderstood your comments, what would you do if a country acted in any of the ways described above?
You've already made clear you would support a Democrat, presumably including an extremely left-wing Democrat against Cong. Tancredo in his next election. You stated: "If Tancredo really said what it is asserted he said, he is not only unfit to be president, he is unfit for any public office, and I would vote against him if I lived in his congressional district, both in a primary, and in the general election (I would vote for the Dem)." Because of the comments Cong. Tancredo made, you would be willing to support a Democrat that might, for example, support amnesty for illegal aliens, gay marriage, gun control, as well as all kinds of other wonderful things.
Cong. Tancredo's comments were right on target. I would love to see the results of a poll of a large number of Americans whereby they would be played the audio tape of Cong. Tancredo's interview and asked whether they support Cong. Tancredo's comments.
What should be rejected are the insults and attacks of Cong. Tancredo by you and others.
How many Americans would die if Islamic terrorists exploded nuclear devices in six (6), seven (7) or eight (8) U.S. cities?