[truth_seeker]

So if we read all the signals, it appears Iraq will suffer a big attack, by the US. To avoid inflaming world opinion, we are trying to avoid civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

How will we mount an attack, to take down the Iraqi government, without massive civilian casualties? How can we be sure, to get Saddam once and for all?

What short of nuclear, can be devastating? Would we REALLY go nuclear?

[Clinton's a rapist]

To bust those bunkers, it will have to be nuclear. Nothing else will do it. And going nuclear will send the right message. Think how many millions of lives would have been saved in World War II if we had had the ability to respond to Pearl Harbor with A-bombs right away, instead of after four years of bloody conflict, death camps cranking away, etc. Nukes are the way to go.

[stryker]

We went nuclear when they went biological. The only question remaining is whether Bush has the courage that Truman had. Nuclear doesn't have to be vastly dirty and heavy megatonage anymore. There are smaller, cleaner nuclear weapons available. We must make clear the cost of biological, chemical or nuclear attacks on our soil and we must make it clear immediately.