Posted on 09/12/2001 6:15:00 AM PDT by ppaul
About 5:50 am Pacific, ABC's Ted Koppel was being interviewed. He was in London. It was mentioned that before Koppel became famous for Nightline, he served as a correspondent covering the U.S. State Department. Koppel said he had been watching the ABC coverage this morning for a "couple of hours" and that he was "stunned" when he saw the interview early this morning of former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, and Cohen mentioned the use of nuclear weapons among the list of possible responses to yesterday's terrorist attack. Koppel said it was the first time he ever recalls any high level person mentioning nuclear weapons as even a possibility.
I agree that talk of nuclear weapons is unwarranted. But just to let you know, we do have smaller tactical nuclear weapons, meaning, weapons that can be used in a battle-field environment.
I would certainly consider the use of fuel-air bombs.
It is the .44 that any evildoer who breaks into my home will face.
There is no way to shoot a person, or a country, "just a little bit".
The use of nuclear weapons is quite appropriate in this case.
ochoin s' ocholu ("sorrow,so sorrowful" in gaelic)
CC
Day after day we saw the Long John artillery piece (possibly the only one we had) running up and down the roads of South Korea.
It worked.
I'm glad we had people like President Eisenhower and not people like President Koppel or President Jennings or President Rather or President Brokejaw.
So do I, the people who did this, and those who knowingly aided them.
A better way to explain it, is to find a village full of innocent people in Afghanistan, approximately 5000 people, and drop one big bomb on them.
Kinda funny that in one sentence you agree with me that we want to make the guilty people pay, then you suggest killing innocent people.
That should make things equal.
It makes you equal in evil to those who killed our innocent citizens.
Of course with the way things are escalating, and the more pieces of the puzzle we see, it becomes more complex, and therefore we have to shift gameplans.
Sounds like you are a little more confused with each new piece of information, maybe you should have thought of that before you advocated killing millions of innocents. ( before you scaled your death wish list to a mere 5000 innocents in a small villiage)
We don't know who to put blame on at this point, so all of this is nothing more than heresay and conjecture until we have hard answers and proof.
Thats what I have been advocating all along, but you and your ilk have demonized me and told me I was being morally superior for not stooping to your baser instincts.
I'm not in charge, and never would want to be in a time like this.
Thank God for that.
I do feel the same way as a lot of people do here in middle America, that our country has been attacked, and retribution is called for.
So do I, but I don't think a lot of people in middle America want to drop nuclear bombs on innocent people so they will feel better about the situation.
I think it would have been best to hand over Clinton, as he was the main person who ordered those attacks.
Thats funny, you don't advocate that for the perpetrators of this horrific act, you advocate killing innocents. You like the idea of handing over the guilty parties to save your own skin, but screw people in other counties who are saddled with leaders who they have had no say in selecting. The people in this country actually elected the likes of Clinton.
No, your thinking is evil, through and through. I can only hope that you aren't evil, just your ill thought out rage, which, if acted upon, would be unable to be rectified.
Slainte,
CC
The tactical weapons we have today can be dialed down or up in from a fractions of kilotons to the Mega-weapons you are concerned with. Unless we wanted to be involved in the full scale invasion of several sponser states, its very easy to draw the conclusion that nuclear weapons make the loudest and clearest message that we will not tolerate terrorism. Since most of the terrorist are in the Afgan country side (nothing but mountains, rocks, and mountains of rocks), tactical nukes offer te advantage of clearing large hiding areas without risk to our troops and aviators. I would not recommend nukes for Kabul (only for the humane issues, hard bombs are fine there), but for the terrorist hiding in the country side, nuke it until it glows.
True.
Check out the Long John in action:
See reply #176 above.
I won't even try for my usual sarcasm here- your comment is just too stupid to bother.
What is your game, anyway? I expected to be called names- after all, I did that to you- but three death threats in one short reply seems excessive!
I can only conclude that you were under the influence of drugs. That's what you Libertarians are really all about, isn't it?
These RAGHEADS have had there fun with SYMBOLISM in these heinous acts in America.
Are you listening Joint Chiefs and President Bush?
Send a little SYBOLISM their way!!!!
NUKE MECCA!!
And let MUSLIMS world-wide have a WAIL!!!
Tell them in "NO UNCERTAIN TERMS", any, I repeat ANY TERRORIST ACT EVER COMMITTED AGAINT THE FREE PEOPLES OF THIS EARTH WILL BE MET WITH SIMULTANEOUS NUCLEAR ATTACKS ON EVERY COUNTRY KNOWN TO HARBOR THESE ISLAMIC BASTARDS THAT INCLUDES
FRANCE!!!The Black Douglas (Borders Defender)
Let their wimmin call, "Leah, Leah, Leah", as they choke on nuclear dust!!!
To borrow a phrase from the egg-sucking liberals who got us to this point in our history "if it saves just one american life."
To gain some understanding, here is a place to start: Al-Imam al-Mahdi, The Just Leader of Humanity</font size></font color>
</font size>
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.