[Mulder]

Without getting into the merits (or lack thereof) of attacking Iraq, it's time this adminstration came out with a clear and public policy of how we will respond to a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack.

Preferrably, it would involve the total destruction (using nukes) of the nation (and anything they value) that launches, funds, or provides material for the weapons.

Our enemies and the rest of the world needs to know exactly what the consequences would be for engaging in hi-tech barbarian warfare against the United States.

Also, the treasonous policy of Klinton to "launch after impact" needs to be reversed immediately, if it has not already been done.

[Momaw Nadon]

Check out the Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

The pool is still open and predictions are still being accepted!

[palmer]

Also, the treasonous policy of Klinton to "launch after impact"

Do you mean the ineffectual policy of Klinton to lob a few missiles into an empty tent? I believe we should keep our policy of retaliation for events like 9/11 along with whatever pre-emptive actions we can take against terrorist networks. But I also realize that pre-emptive actions are difficult and need to be chosen wisely.

[PLMerite]

"Also, the treasonous policy of Klinton to "launch after impact" needs to be reversed immediately, if it has not already been done."

I tried to ignore everything that idiot did, so enlighten me: U.S. nuclear war-fighting policy went from "launch-on-warning" of a incoming attack, to "launch-only-after-impact" of whatever stuff was inbound?

Another reason to try that bustard for treason...