Dead on, Gautam. Though I would say that Rob has a
better idea in using FAE if we're going to go with the
'big boom' retaliation, nukes are a political hot
potato we can easily avoid. I'd also like to add that
a lot of people in our peaceful and perhaps overly
politically correct society forget that war is
diplomacy by other means, and it *can* work. We
bombed Qadaffi's <sp?> house (along with a few close
relatives) and he suddenly had a change of heart.
Make no mistake, this will be war, possibly with
multiple states if they are tied to the perpetrators.
If we do this right we can eradicate the bulk of the
entire world's terrorist organizations, at a time when
we have the international community solidly behind us.
The ones who are *really* our friends, anyhow. =)
dean
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Let us assume that the US were to act impeccably
> in international
> > relationships. Wouldn't it make enemies by doing
> the right
> > thing? Wouldn't
> > it still be at risk for this type of action?
>
> Surely what you say is true, but I am equally sure
> of our imperfection. To
> forget that we aren't perfect is to assure no
> possibility of reconciliation
> or peace. That was what I was saying.
>
> Nick
>
> Echoing what Dan said - why would we possibly want
> to reconcile with
> someone who just killed 10,000 Americans? I don't
> want Osama Bin Laden's
> forgiveness. I want him dead. I don't want to
> reconcile with him. I want
> anyone who ever thinks about doing such a thing ever
> again _to know_ that
> he's dead because of our justice. Why do you insist
> that we bear some
> responsibility here? The only way we could have
> prevented this is to
> abandon Israel - and thus condemn it to destruction.
> I refuse to be
> complicit in the completion of what Hitler started.
> If we are under attack
> because we refuse to abandon the Israelis, then we
> should defend ourselves,
> not abandon the only democracy in the Middle East.
>
> On the issue of nuclear weapons - I said that if
> another state had done
> this, a nuclear response would be appropriate. I
> stand by that. I haven't
> said that we _should use_ nuclear weapons - that
> would depend on the exact
> circumstances. But it would be appropriate.
> Concede that, or concede that
> deterrence is nonsense and go join up with John in
> defending NMD. If
> another government killed 10,000 American civilians
> yesterday - then that's
> the number killed that you could expect from a
> low-yield nuclear attack.
> There is nothing particularly special about dying
> from a nuclear bomb.
> Either it is okay to use nuclear weapons to
> retaliate in this situation -
> or it is never okay, and deterrence is nonsense, and
> the _only_ thing that
> can defend us from other country's ICBMs is NMD,
> since it is "insane" in
> Jeroen's words, to use our nuclear weapons to defend
> or avenge American
> citizens. Pick one.
>
> Gautam
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
