You don't actually smell a thing.
I will not lower myself to base name-calling, so if that is your preferred debating method, we are done.
I'll exchange ideas and opinions with anyone, but I will not waste my time typing sophomoric insults on an Internet bulletin board directed at a supposed adult.
Your choice.
Militarily, nuking Mecca would bring about disastrous consequences as it would increase the size of the enemy a million fold.
Historically, it would stain America's name forever, and realistically, it would do little to dissuade the enemy, as it is exactly what they want us to do; engage in some futile symbolic act that could be used to rally the remaining 99% of the Muslims world wide who are not now engaged in this fight.
There are seven State/Nations who have been on the State Department list as sponsoring terrorism since 1993: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
Serve them notice: either take Libya's example, or suffer Iraq's fate.
Bush started us down the right path, we need to elect a President in 2008 who will continue down the same road.
Beauseant!
"Militarily, nuking Mecca would bring about disastrous consequences as it would increase the size of the enemy a million fold."
Have you a reference for that stat?
Militarily, nuking Mecca would bring about disastrous consequences as it would increase the size of the enemy a million fold. Historically, it would stain America's name forever, and realistically, it would do little to dissuade the enemy, as it is exactly what they want us to do; engage in some futile symbolic act that could be used to rally the remaining 99% of the Muslims world wide who are not now engaged in this fight. Pure conjecture. No one knows what ultimate effect it would have. We can only offer conjectures.
Some things do seem self-evident. Would it anger the Muslim world? Of course it would. It might also break their spirit completely and utterly. And even if it angered them would that mean they would rise to crush the west? That's very doubtful. They don't have the means to pull off a vigorous response on a grand scale. They are not superhuman. They just believe Allah has given them world-conquering destiny. We ought to disabuse them of that vain notion, the sooner the better. If we can do it without detonating a single bomb, that would be the best result of all. We pulled if off with the Soviet Union in no small part because they knew we had the greatest and grandest of Russian history and culture on our target lists.
Any conflict that escalated to the point of our using nuclear weapons in response would be to-the-death; hurt feelings and our reputation with the French would be the last things we would be worrying about.
You and Dane are quite similar in that you unfairly minimize and cynically discount the extreme conditions that were propounded to Tancredo. He wasn't flippantly suggesting that we bomb Mecca just because we can. He was addressing the question in terms of a response for a grievously wounded America unsure if Islamists still had other nukes hidden away for followup.
If you want to appear balanced and fair, you owe it to Tancredo not to twist his words out of context.
That's an impossible task for Dane. It remains to be seen whether you are more capable.