Replies

yes...there are several "factions" on that thread.

I tended to give the ones that want more force used a read...but I didn't post to them...I myself wonder about the use of more force but NOT flattening Iraq.

I DO get into a scrum with one freeper over his idea of flattening "the enemy" ...when I asked him how many Muslim countries he was willing to "flatten"....he started getting personally insulting...I don't respond to that.

I DO get into a scrum with one freeper over his idea of flattening "the enemy" ...when I asked him how many Muslim countries he was willing to "flatten"...

This will, if it has not already, become the central question with regard to the WOT and the Middle East in general. The Islamo-fanatics have been increasingly violent and more sophisticated in their activities. The logical extension of the situation, if things remain on their present course, is a devastating attack on an American city. And so, this sort of questioning must, IMHO, be factored into the planning.

A nuclear detonation etc. by terrorists coming through our porous borders would necessitate a response that would decimate the "usual suspects" and large portions of the swamp of humanity in which the terrorist scum comfortably and invisibly reside.

Since I see little or no progress on securing our borders and absolutely no progress in deterring the Iranian madness, I find myself thinking about the unthinkable more and more these perilous days.

I DO get into a scrum with one freeper over his idea of flattening "the enemy" ...when I asked him how many Muslim countries he was willing to "flatten"....he started getting personally insulting...I don't respond to that.

Well, I will never get insulting with you (hit me if I do), but at this simplistic level, he's right, or at least in so far as you've represented his position. I know that your position has to be much more complex than this, but for me it's not a complex question. Are we at war? If we are then the answer to the question of how many Muslim countries I'm willing to flatten is simple: as many as it takes.

We were at war with fascism and flattened, quite literally, Germany, Italy and much of the rest of Europe to defeat them. We were at war with Imperial Japan and flattened about 80% of their empire, to the point of dropping nuclear devices on two of their major cities.

I think that, thanks to our "allies" in Europe and the "loyal opposition" here that we have passed the tipping point on this question. George W. Bush's policies have been directed at avoiding all out war and he has been undermined to the point that he has failed. We are at war with Islam. Or, more accurately, they have declared war on us and are intent on wiping out or enslaving all of the non-Muslim world. All of it. And they now think they have a chance to pull it off.

Remember, "as many as it takes."

The concept of limited warfare is stupid when you are dealing with someone who is intent on Armageddon. The real answer is not pleasant, nor is it to be courted, but it looks like it is necessary if human civilization is to survive. Either they die or we do. I choose them. Now, that clearly does not mean genocide against Arabs or other Muslims. Japanese and Germans are now some of our closest allies and we have provided for them for 60 years, including absolute freedom, even to the point of betraying us if they wish. But we don't tolerate Nazi's anymore, even here, even if the ACLU defends their rights. Nor can someone carry the banner of the rising sun down the streets of Nanjing and live to tell about it.