Peace and Pacifism at all costs :) This idea kills me. Why should we consider the use of tactical nuclear weapon? Why should we send our men and women under arms into harms way if it's not really needed?
We are not trying to change the regime in Iran (right now), we are trying to shut down their nuclear option. If we can do that with a minimum of fuss and mess, what's wrong with that? Something I don't think people realize is that there is a MAJOR difference between a multiple war head ICBM (strategic) nuclear weapon, and a small cruise, artillery or aircraft (tactical) delivered nuclear device. -- Timothy Heald Analyst, Architect, Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: 202-228-8372 C: 703-300-3911 -----Original Message----- From: Chesty Puller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:20 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Bush reconfirms nuking Iran, sorry :) This reminds me so much of thoseWayne Putterill threads. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:06 PM Subject: Re: Bush reconfirms nuking Iran, sorry :) > Why? > > On 4/18/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It should always be an option > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204687 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
