Posted on 09/20/2004 12:32:22 PM PDT by zencat
A video posted Monday on a Web site showed the beheading of a man identified as American construction contractor Eugene Armstrong, a killing purportedly carried out personally by key terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Oh, you talk to "soldiers"? That's unusual. What's your connection?
"The only solution to this problem is to secure our borders and expel all illegal aliens from Middle East. Then, we need to totally blast these people back to hell."
I have pretty much felt that way since I watched those planes hit the towers at 580 miles an hour.
Im with ya!
I'm still waiting for someone to give a tactical reason why a nuke makes more sense than conventional weapons, or to give a reason better than fury for switching our strategy in the middle of the war. Still waiting for the anger to be focused into a clear argument that can be joined, if it makes sense, or rebutted with reason.
"I don't trust the agendas of clinch-butted demagogic coots on FR."
So why are you here oh mighty one.
To call you a demagogic coot.
You've got a logic bomb in your hands. The purpose of a nuclear device is to create a "strategic" advantage, not tactical.
It's not about anger, it's about bringing the fanatics to their knees as quickly as possible. The only way to do that is to dispatch as many of them to Allah as possible, and convince the rest of the Arab-Muslim world that there is no limit to our willingness to continue the bombing.
As I say, Islam should be a "Religion of Peace" or a "Religion of Pieces".
"To call you a demagogic coot."
First of all shitmaker - stick it.
Second - Kiss your daddy Kerry good- night.
"Not going anywhere for a while? Have a Snickers Bar."
No, I'm quite sure I meant tactical. We have many choices for weapons. What we choose to deploy must fit the tactical necessity of the engagement, as well as the strategic objective. Arming a soldier with an M-16 is not a strategic decision unless something in the nature of the M-16 is unsuitable to the overall mission. It is a tactical decision, pertaining to the enemy he will face and the terrain he will encounter doing so. Using a Nuke is a tactical decision. When it escalates to "strategic" use, things are way ugly.
I have two objectives:
First, I'm committed to doing everything I can to forestall terrorists campaigns of terror. The ugly "flatten Iraq" emotions engendered by this ... and every other outrageous inhumane ... murder plays into the terrorists hands.
Second, I have this little thing about Conservatives not appearing like they just stumbled in from the Head Injury Clinic.
"Because once the Muslim terrorist get the nukes, we will be nuked."
That I fear will happen - Its almost guaranteed if they get there hands on them. And then what. After one of our major metro areas has 5-15 blocks vaporized or worse. Or a few cities at one time have there metro areas wiped out.
Not a good picture for America!
It as been proven time and time again they want to kill you, me, our kids, our families, everyone they could. Its a give in they will use them if they can get them.
I don't see how this is possible. All we have to do is make sure we KILL more of them than they "murder" of us.
I want Zarqawi's head. First time in my life I ever meant it literally.
"Head Injury Clinic."
Your pretty fancy with words Barlow. Are you on the top floor?
You use kill and murder as if there's some kind of difference. They kill our civilians in rage and you want to kill theirs in rage. For this to be the good side, we've got to be the good side. Which means we kill our enemy for a purpose, not his neighbor in anger.
The strategy would be to use nukes. The tactics would be to determine whether to use a B-52 or an F-16.
So (politely) the error in your question is that you are assuing that a Nuke would be a tactic, rather than a strategy.
But, isn't there a difference? They "murder" by kidnapping our people and standing behind them while the victim is bound... then they saw off his head, five against one helpless victim. Or, they attack a school full of young children or blow up unsuspecting victims or... crashing planes full of passengers into buildings full of working people. We respond by "killing" them, as one would exterminate cockroaches. You're supposing waaaay too much leeway for Islam.
It will be extremely difficult for these subhuman monsters to perpetrate anymore bestial acts if they are all dead.
It will be no loss to the human race and make the world a better place.
Eventuallty the ragheads will get what they have been asking for.
They will all be martyrs.
The only question is how many of us they will take with them before we do what needs to be done.
You wouldn't survive five minutes in fallujah.
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.