> At 09:46 AM 3/4/01 +0200, Charlie wrote:
> >> Let's put it this way - *I*, a conservative, if President of the United
> >> States, would not retaliate with a nuclear weapon after losing a city
to a
> >> nuclear weapon of a rogue state.
> >
> >Would you consider a change in policy, however, to allow an airstrike
(LGB,
> >or similar) directly at the person responsible for the attack? If such an
> >attack was carried out by a country, for example, would the head of
state's
> >life be forfeit?
>
> Such a policy change would be almost irrelevant. The US has notably
failed
> in every assassination attempt that it has made, including Castro,
> Qaddahfi, Hussein, bin Laden, etc.
Whether or not you have any faith in the ability of the military/CIA to
carry out such a policy, would you consider an official change in policy to
allow overt direct action against a person giving the order for the use of a
weapon of terror against your country, if you were in a position to give
such an order?
YES/NO <delete as appropriate>
Back up your answer if you wish, but it's a simple yes or no.
I would.
Charlie
