[rogers21774]

Buyer for President, 2008

[alpaca]

How about starting with Fuel to air and neutron boms then moving up to the small nukes?

[Kryptonite]

Steve Buyer is one of the greatest Americans to serve this country.

[Rustynailww]

"big man" talk from one of the running republicians.

[Anamensis]

Excellent. I'm glad to see someone is thinking. We start with very small nukes to get past that fear-of-nukes barrier in the public mind. Then, if we have to go a little bigger, well... it won't be such a shock. Not to US, anyway. (-:<

[motexva]

What possible reason would we have to use tactical nuclear weapons? We have far more powerful conventional weapons, some of which I believe have already been used there. A poster above mentioned Fuel Air Explosives, these can be more powerful and more effective than nuclear weapons, if Gulf War lore serves me correctly. I understand using nukes as a verb, as in "Let's nuke 'em!" being used to describe the unleashing of general mayhem and destruction. But there's really no need to actually use nukes in this theater.

[soxfan]

I'm confused. Ms. Rice states "there's no reason for the American people at this point to fear a specific threat of that kind. We have no credible evidence of a specific threat of that kind". Is it a prerequisite that our government will obtain in advance "credible evidence of a specific threat of that kind" before future terrorist action can occur? Did we have "credible evidence of a specific threat of any kind" prior to 9/11? Clearly, our enemies are performing test and evaluation of biological weapons of mass destruction on us RIGHT NOW. Our WMD deterrent is obviously in tatters. Are there some mysterious, nuclear "Marquis of Queensberry Rules" that state we must we wait until we are massively "nuked" (or gassed, or infected) ourselves before we can even CONSIDER a tactical nuclear option. Because, otherwise, rest unassured, if history is any judge, we WILL be attacked with WMD, and then we WILL use STRATEGIC, not limited tactical nuclear weapons, and it will be MASSIVE, REFLEXIVE, and without consideration for loss of innocent life. Seems perfectly reasonable to me to at least consider a tactical nuke option in order to prevent having to use inevitably massive ones later.

[KellyAdmirer]

Buyer's comments only continue the American mania of having bloodless victories. I know, I know, there are 6,000 or so victims already - but the notion that we can win each and every conflict by remote control is decadent. Sure, it would be easier to just nuke 'em and be done with it. But the unnecessary enmity engendered around the world by doing that would be catastrophic in the long run.

American casualties are a heavy price to pay for conventional operations. However, there will probably be fewer in the long run by NOT using nukes.

[daves_brother]

Buyer is a sleeper among the Republicans, I think. He will (or should) make a name for himself in national leadership soon. In addition to being a Gulf War vet, he was one of the managers in the impeachment trial. He is in a fairly safe Republican district that has has been carved out of Inidiana. So he should be able to serve in Congress just about as long as he wants to. He's MY representative, and am proud that he serves our interests in the House.

[kapn kuek]

Let's ROLL!

[lds23]

I'm with this guy.

[Rowdee]

These idiots are getting more and more brazen!

[The Great RJ]

I have long felt that the use of chemical or biological agents against the US should be met with a nuclear response.

[agenda_express]

Already Posted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/551193/posts

THE AGENDA EXPRESS

[Clemenza]

When will the good people of Indiana WAKE UP and elect this guy over Evan Gay.

[FresnoDA]

Volley Up!! Fire!!

[DWSUWF]

Man is a funny sort of creature...

Before he ever does something in the 'real world', he does it in his head.

The act of 'Speaking' about something, even as a remote possibility, automatically advances people more than halfway toward 'Doing' it.

One of the ways in which this reality is validated is demonstrated by the virtually universal use by governments of 'trial balloons'. Even repressive regimes often run ideas up the flagpole and take note of whether they draw any salutes.

An unwillingness to use trial balloons as one instrument of policy decision making, in fact, is a good indicator that the regime involved is not long for the world.

The murdering sand goblins simply went too far. And, like the doomed characters in a Greek tragedy, they are busily compounding their error in virtually every way that they are able to.

There's a symmetry, a predictable harmony to what is developing...

1) "Nuke Em?"

2) "We'll Nuke Em if..."

3) "Nuke Em!"

4) "We Nuked Em because..."

We're at step 2 now, just a few spores, a bit of soldier’s blood, an atrocity away from step 3. The question is no longer whether we will use nukes in this struggle, but whether any realistic possibility remains that we won’t.

[zog]

--someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always thought and been under the impression that part of our longstanding MAD doctrine was that ANY attack on the US using ANY WMD, would automatically result in an overwhelming counterattack using WMD. both "overwhelming" and WMD, and nukes would definetly fall-in there someplace, almost pun intended. So, now, this isn't true, it's all been a big wussy bluff or something? BAD PRECEDENT.

Speaking of nukes, has shrub yet counter manded klingons PDD changing our launch parameters from "attemtpt to launch after sufferring a devastating and confirmed first strike"? I wonder if he is even aware of it, really.

[jojo the boxing kangaroo]

There are very few of lifes problems that can not be solved with high explosives.

[vannrox]