[TheRealLobo]

If I may for just a moment. The problem *I* (and probably many others) have at this moment, is that MANY Islamic nations have stated that "any American" is a target whether doemstic or overseas. As far as nuking some of the countries off the map, it depends on the country and whether that country is going to continue sponsoring terrorists. Should we nuke the entire middle east into glass? Nope. HOWEVER, we also need to make some serious retributive strikes against terrorist strongholds. The problem as I see it, is that "we" play by the rules, (most of the time) but no one else does. If there are civilian casualties, it isn't the fault of those that decide to take out Bin Laden, but those protecting him. Had we been concerned with the loss of "non-combatant" lives, there would have been no end to WWII in the Pacific, or in Europe. There comes a time when continue to fight "by the rules" becomes too costly in lives, funds, and patience. When that poit is reached, then you "take the will to fight" away from the enemy by going after population centers.

[sneakypete]

I agree with what you say,but these people I am complaining about want to go nuke right off the bat,and are talking about blanketing the whole country with nukes. I'm not for that and never will be for it.

[sneakypete]

BTW,I may not have been clear enough on my last post. I am STRONGLY oppossed to the first use of nukes,although I MIGHT be willing to make a exception in a case like bin Laden hiding in mountain caves in Afghanistan where there is no other practical way to get at him. In a case like that ONLY,I could go along with a tactical nuke of limited power. Even then,I would prefer to see a Ranger Battalion go in on the ground to bring his head out in a burlap sack for display on the WH fence.