Posted on 09/12/2001 10:33:54 PM PDT by jporcus
I've heard a number of people (including Senators) use the words: Let's bomb the hell out of them. In our eventual and inevitable military response, should we use nukes to not only wipe out the enemy but also to "make a statement," or will this turn world opinion against us? What do you think?
Makes ya think, don't it?
Well, only if you want to:
1. ensure stage 2 of Bin Laden's plan succeeds
2. unite the Muslim world against the West
3. ensure friendly Middle East governments are overthrown
4. flood Hamas recruiters with thousands of volunteer suicide bombers.
I think we need to send such a strong message that no such horror against the US should ever be contemplated again.
People do not have the right to put other people in fear.
Whenever some group spews "Bomb the USA" or similar, we need to go get them then, not later, wherever they are.
And if some country is shielding them, then, that's what war is for. And if we do go to war, we should strike as hard as we need to, even if it means nuclear weapons. Some of those mountain hideouts in Afganistan will need an atom bomb to crack them.
Usually, we will find that the group is harmless, just as is the case with common place nut cases.
It's like a threat to the President, or to you, or to anyone else, for that matter, but the President gets a little special treatment. If man-A threatens the President the FBI or Secret Service or someone calls on man-A. Somethimes they send the local police. The point being someone sees to it tha man-A is harmless or is rendered harmless.
It's similar for terrorists. We need to go get them as soon as we get hints that they might pose a threat.
It's the same basic principle, whether it is a president, any individual, or any group.
People do not have the right to put other people in fear.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
No way. With their white blood cell counts approaching zero,
if they aren't having convulsions, then they will soon be the useless
festering decomposing slime they deserve to be.
I think the United States will benefit more and heal faster if we leave it to our military. If a nuclear weapon is sucessful in its job, it will not be welcomed home with ticker tape parades.
But if we need them, well, that's what they're there for.
I don't think it works that way. You will increase the resentment and resolve of the survivors and their allies.
I could care less what his stage 2 is. If we take the initiative they will have to dance to our tune. Its the only way to win.
2. "unite the Muslim world against the West"
If you haven't noticed they seem to dislike us no matter what we do unless it is exactly what they want. I'm sure that a nuclear strike will increase both their hatred as well as their fear of us. That is an equation I can live with, especially the latter.
3. "ensure friendly Middle East governments are overthrown"
I will shed no tears for the Saudi royal family or the pampered princes of Kuwait. We've shed enough blood for their control of their people. Maybe we'll get to see the true colors of all the good Muslims everyone keeps telling me about.
4. flood Hamas recruiters with thousands of volunteer suicide bombers.
Doing nothing will certainly increase their enthusiasm as well. My recipe is simple. Nuke once or twice, repeat as necessary.
It may get ugly, but I'll bet that one nuke will do more to stop terrorism then any of the pansy solutions being thrown around. And zero Americans will put at risk employing it. Like I said on another thread, what are they going to do? Hijack planes and fly them into a huge pair of buildings and kill thousands of Americans? We just took their best shot, lets show them ours.
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.