betsy

We couldn't afford to miss. If we do, it will be our own millions of innocents who will be unnecessarily pulverized. We dont need to use a weapon that will destroy a 300km radius to ensure we take out a small facility. We wont miss with a smaller bomb. The use of a nuclear weapon here is the biggest overkill possible. Darn Brad, how do you know we won't miss with a smaller bomb? What makes you so sure that you wouldn't say..."ooops." But just in case the location that intelligence provided was not exactly accurate....better be sure! I don't want to take a chance! Why should we? At such a terrible cost? It's not as if we could just get up, shake the dust off our hair and life is back to normal again! It might be the only chance we get! Clock's a-ticking. No such thing as overkill, when they're going to use the same method on us!

Luckily...because I am not qualified at all! But if you mean ,"luckily for the civilized world someone who thinks like me is not in charge of defense"....I'd say, what do you know? We have not experienced that kind of an intense situation when every minute is of the essence, a race for survival....so what gives you the know-how? I'd say hopefully....for the sake of our civilized nation, someone who thinks the way you do is not in charge of our defense. You are willing to gamble with our existence. I am determined for us to survive...at all cost! If your life's hanging on the balance...which method will you want to apply? Yours or mine?

You've got to be kidding! If you're surrounded and being ganged up on...and they're out to make your race extinct, you can use anything! You don't need the permission of anyone to live!

Another character of his is Ali G. I think Cohen is brilliant. I would like to see the movie. Kazakstan said it has no intention of stopping the movie. That although the movie makes fun of Kazakstan, they're hoping the movie will give interest to tourists to visit the place. Wouldn't it be something if in the end we find out it was the government of Kazakstan who brilliantly financed this movie to gain the attention of the world?

The UN should explain why Saddam got away with that, 15 years ago.

We couldn't afford to miss. If we do, it will be our own millions of innocents who will be unnecessarily pulverized.

Well, at this point when we're scrambling to save our own neck....you think the consequences of whacking out entire cities would play so much importance? What is the most important is whacking that nuclear facility for good...with no chance of missing! It's either their civilians or our civilians! Their children or our own children! Who is more important to you?

Whether the strategy was flawed or not....you still cannot know more than I do that non-state actors wouldn't be coming to conduct their business. Once they know they've got a good plan to penetrate and cripple us....do you think they wouldn't do it...if Iraq did not happen? They know they've got a good strategy. They're "invisible." That's how they'd like to fight this war.

Well, I just don't see the point why I would give my enemy the chance to do me harm later, if not now. If we can take out their nuclear facility with a nuclear bomb.....why shouldn't we. If we're supposed to grapple with our conscience and feel "guilty" about anything...it should be grappling with guilt once we've realized we've just sentenced our future with the dire consequence of mass scale death....or near total annhilition....by placing the enemy's welfare above all else. I'd feel guilty looking at our children and the future generation. I don't think I'd even be able to look them in the eye. It's either us or them!

Well I don't need to see anymore evidence! (although long way back I gave a link that stated Saddam was recruiting and paying the families of suicide bombers to help Palestinians against Israel). Knowing that he'd done a mass massacre and attacked the kurds with chemical weapons is one good reason enough!

You can't say for sure anymore than anyone could that NOT REMOVING Saddam will not allow for anymore spread of terrorism! For all you know, more terrorist attacks like 9/11 would've followed if the US did not react the way it did! You know what most likely stopped any more serious attacks on the US after 9/11? The fear of Bush! They fear Bush will be nuking them out of kingdom come! They didn't want to test him any farther....fearing he might do just that! Strike now and explain later! What was surely happening though was...terrorists were becoming bolder in their attacks before 9/11!

Because of 9/11, the US declared a war on terrorism. Anyone harboring, recruiting, training, breeding, funding, supplying terrorists with weapons, are included in that package.

Exactly. That's why no one can conclude and make a definite claim that Iraq is an "immoral" war! Yes they can make a claim that Iraq is "immoral" by their definiton. I stand corrected. I failed to add, "...but that doesn't make it so. Universally, that is."

No, it isn't a different story. It is PART of the story! Removing a dictator like Saddam was just a bonus in this part of the story! 9/11 woke the sleeping giant! It just so happened that the leader when it woke up is a guy who hates to be woken up in that manner! Remember the axis of evil? He is gunning to aim for all three...and if he'd had the time, he would have!

Exactly. That's why no one can conclude and make a definite claim that Iraq is an "immoral" war!

You do realize you've got a limited time. What if your tactical non-nuclear weapon fails?

From what I heard, this guy who plays Borat is really a Jew in real life. He comes from England. There is a law suit launched on him according to the news because of this movie, and if I'm not mistaken it's because some people in the movie were allegedly unaware of his stunt.

deleted

Btw, how can it be in self-defense if you're doing the first strike? Okay Brad, here's the scenario: If intelligence gave vital info that the ENEMY is launching a nuclear attack in 24 hours. What will you do? a) Wait and see if it is true. Launch your attack NOW. (this is option b. I can't get rid of this icon. I didn't even choose this icon!) c) Engage in diplomatic talk now and try to negotiate. d) Pray that they miss. e) _________ (you may have another answer that I couldn't think of, so fill in the blank if you do).

Israel is surrounded by enemies. Although they've proven in previous wars that they can as easily hold their own, and they had won...I find it hard to just walk away. It's like seeing someone getting ganged up and mugged...and just looking the other way. It is the idea and the reality that their enemies just want to see them all dead. How can we turn away and just let that happen?

Sorry, but I just have to get back at the media again. I need to get this off my chest. Remember the recent incident when that kid on a bike got killed by our soldiers in Afghanistan? Oh everybody was screaming for an inquiry! How did that happen? Our soldiers just got attacked and just had a combat on their hands at that time...and here comes this youth on a bike going towards our soldiers! It is normal to assume he could easily have been a suicide bomber with bombs strapped on his waist! Why would not any soldiers think that? But what infuriated me was that, not one....not even one of the numerous journalists and talk show hosts I've seen on tv had asked: What kind of parents would let that kid go biking at such a time. What was that kid thinking? he was not that young, as I recall...besides, with all the things happening in Afghanistan on a regular basis, you'd think even children know well enough to duck or to take cover once the shooting starts! The accusing eye is quick to pierce at our soldiers! Why do we make our soldiers walk on eggshells....at a time like this?

We're way past 9/11. I think the lefties and the liberal-thinkers were just in shock then. I'm referring about Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan now. Some Liberal leadership candidates are one proof. Obvious media coverage, is another. Yesterday, newscaster Matheson (I think it was him on ctv newsnet) interviewed a guy (I can't remember his position) who appears to have knowledge about the Gaza incident. Of course the pre-requisite norm of the media showing the baby with a bloody face...the feelings of disbelief...abhorrence to the fact that 7 children were killed. Translation: Oh, Israel is such a monster! But the telling part was when Matheson asked if the people of Gaza are okay with the fact that Hamas is launching attacks on Israel right from their midst. Oh yes, said the guy....it's been known for a long time. They're okay with it. But, he was quick to add after he realized what that statement meant...that's their only way they can show their protest against Israel. Bingo.

While I, too, would not want to see any countries using nuclear weapons, I am not however, too quick though to condemn the idea of a "first strike."

Again, moral by whose definition? I see the atack on 9/11 as an act of aggression. I see the US was only defending itself when it launched war on the terrorists! That the war had to be launched in Afghanistan...and Iraq...was just a matter of course. Since the terrorists are funded, and trained, and harbored, and bred, and recruited in those mentioned places...and we know, not necesarrily confined to those mentioned places alone.

Yes. Since we don't go about blowing up innocent civilians deliberately just to get the attention of, intimidate and be feared by the whole world.....and we don't deliberately use our own civilians, and any other innocent civilians as human shields. Most powerful nations of yesteryears (and those practically same ones of today), had always shown a "moral highground". But then, really using the word "moral" as THE main thrust of your argument is using the word quite loosely. Because, if we really delve into morality....I'lll also argue that lefties and liberal-thinkers' definition of what is moral is relative. That is for another topic.