Posted on 11/05/2001 6:53:06 AM PST by finnman69
"If terrorists use weapons of mass destruction, such as radioactivity or nuclear weapons, would you favor or oppose the U.S. using nuclear weapons in response?"
Favor 59%
Oppose 25%
Not sure 16%
"How effective do you think each of the following steps would be against the war on terrorism ?- Use of strategic nuclear weapons "
Very Effective 33%
Somewhat Effective 21%
Not at all effective 39 %
Not Sure 7%
A READER WRITES:
My 100% American, dyed red white & blue patriot supervisor, who happens to be Syrian-born&raised, recently flew to Syria for visit. You would think this might be risky, particularly with all the flack about "profiling", "flying while Arab" and all that, but this guy is pretty hard-headed and he would not let minor details keep him from leading his life as he wishes (his motto: "I can't sleep well at night if I haven't taken a risk during the day"). In fact, I'll bet (I'll ask him on Monday) he'd be the first to say middle eastern visit/visitors bear closer scrutiny.
Anyway, after he came back from Syria, with Assad Junior blathering about civilian casualties in afghanistan, I asked him what the Syrians were thinking about us. Now read this closely: He said, "Everyone asked me why we hadn't used nuclear weapons yet."
There is no substitute for victory, swift and ferocious. If we do NOT send in ground troops to Afghanistan, we will find that public opinion in the Middle East will move even moreso to support the terrorists. If, to the contrary, we go in, kick a** and take names, we can then ask "Who's Next?" with impunity.
As a corrollary, if we DO find a weight of evidence implicating the Iraqis, we must go to war with them, and it must be a war for the "unconditional surrender" of Iraq. We must then use nuclear weapons. What we call "tactical" nukes are still truly awesome weapons. If the sniveling appeasers in the State Dept want to 'send a message' to the Arab world, you can be certain that dropping nukes on Saddam's palaces would send two unmistakable messages: 1)if you provoke us, we will kill you and destroy all that you hold dear, and 2) we are willing to go to any lengths to get the job done.
[Excerpt] At nearly 25 years old, the camps in Pakistan are young compared to those set up for Palestinians who fled the 1948 Israeli-Arab war. Generations have grown up in these camps that have produced many of the suicide bombers and other militant, radical opponents of Israeli rule. …….. In Africa, it was the second generation of displaced Rwandan Tutsis who led a successful invasion of that country from neighboring Uganda in 1994. Two years later - perhaps remembering how their own resolve grew in exile - Rwanda's Tutsi-led government cleared out camps in Zaire that were filled with 1 million Rwandan Hutus led by military rulers hoping to regain power in Rwanda. "These people really have no sense of self and no prospects," says UM's Marshall. "So anyone who comes in and offers them some status, a sense of dignity, is likely to be successful in recruiting them. They really see no other way out."…… The solution, all seem to agree, is not just to pay short-term attention to the inevitable refugee images - funding the aid agencies to feed the hungry - but to work on a long-term basis to help create viable, peaceful states with functioning economies that will make those in the camps want to return home. [End Excerpt] Reap the whirlwind
Same with IQ test, only few percent answers correctly for the more difficult questions. Overwhelming majority usually is wrong when the problem is hard.
A president could not have asked for a more enraged and supportive U.S. public. The number of opponents to U.S. action is gradually creeping up, no doubt as the media revert to their normal behavior. Ruthlessness is supported by the public, and the world is watching to see if ANYTHING is capable of stirring the soft Americans to fierce battle anymore.
Your post about Syria is well taken. Unless people like Assad say to themselves, whoa! when this is done, we will continue to be picked at by the world's scavengers.
The Middle East is the powderkeg.
Afghanistan is the fuse.
Nukes are the matches.
This should be no surprise, nor are Americans ashamed of it: Americans profoundly dislike war. War costs us the lives of our noblest citizens, and exacts a price of blood and treasure that we honestly don't want to pay.
The historical mistake of America's adversaries has been to equate "dislike" of war with lack of martial will. We understand that we are fighting for our lives and liberties, and the lives and liberties of our children and grandchildren. With thousands of our countrymen slain, Americans will not be reluctant to incur more deaths. I'd sooner see us spend 1,000,000 lives lost in battle than see another American city attacked.
However, world opinion would not accept the use of nukes and killing of millions of innocents just so that pracious lives of few off-shore american soldiers can be saved
Another great mistake. America will use her power the way she sees fit, and the American public, based on the very polls cited above, will support such use. It is our penultimate national interest to defend our cities and civilians against attack. Given that our enemy in this conflict has already demonstrated a clear willingness to kill Americans en masse, be assured that we will do whatever we see fit to defend our national interests. We're not going to war to save the "pracious [sic] lives of [a] few off-shore american soldiers. We are going to war to prevent future slaughter of our countrymen, our loved ones, our friends, and possibly our own children. If our Commander in Chief decides that using nuclear weapons will save American lives, then we will damn well use them.
We've done it before.
It seemed to work pretty well agianst the Japanese. We've been safe from the for about 60 years now.
Using whatever power it takes to stop the terrorists and their supporters is not a form of tyranny. These people will not be oppressed, but they must be stopped. Use your dictionary and look up the definitions of oppressed and tyranny. You have used them in a very liberal context.
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.