[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I guess I wouldn't be overly surprised to see some US leaders hauled before the International Criminal Court for engaging in a pre-emptive war of aggression against Iraq.

How would they be brought before a court in a city that the US would have nuked?

[agincourt1415]

Why all the hand ringing about Iraq. It's going to happen soon. It won't take 250,000 troops, probably not 20,000. Consider that his military is not stupid and they are certainly not going to go through a Gulf War II. They know for sure that they will get their butts kicked. My guess we will strike at the WMD that we know about, cut the communications, and negotiate a deal with the Generals that will cooperate - 90 % of them want Saddam out. Then someone we tell us where we can find Saddam - we only need one sellout - so payem a few million for the information.

[rightwing2]

A city that we would have nuked

I assume that you are talking about the Hague since that's where the ICC is based. I'm sorry but I never heard the news that we were at war with the Netherlands.

[rightwing2]

Your idea of nuking the cities of our enemies, even our non-nuclear ones like Iraq, is demented at best. Such a concept is right there in line with Hitler's Holocaust. The only proper use of nuclear weapons is against the military forces of our enemies. That is why the use of tacnukes against an enemy army would be justified assuming we were fighting a just war, which we will not be if we re-invade Iraq this time without provocation. However, using tacnukes against an enemy force we could defeat without them would be a stupid move that would bring an inordinate amount of condemnation upon us and result in the use of such weapons against our own forces in this or a later conflict.