Giving the president authority for a preemptive nuclear strike!

[BobBong]

"It's the end of the world as we know it"

[GHoSToKeR]

You thought, no you BELIEVED that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and you were wrong.

So to nuke a country on the BELIEF that they don't have weapons of mass destruction with which to retalliate would be taking a very big risk indeed. That's all i'm saying.

Pressing that fabled Big Red Button could be the end of the US.

I'll ask again, why would you want to risk that?

[GHoSToKeR]

"It's the end of the world as we know it"

"..and I feel fine".

[Torog]

You thought, no you BELIEVED that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and you were wrong.

So to nuke a country on the BELIEF that they don't have weapons of mass destruction with which to retalliate would be taking a very big risk indeed. That's all i'm saying.

Pressing that fabled Big Red Button could be the end of the US.

I'll ask again, why would you want to risk that?

Howdy GhostToker,

Well..it's my belief-and there's some evidence for it,that the russians and the french,helped to git rid of any wmd's that may have been present and advanced weaponery,and took it to Syria or back to the country of origin. The russians are very skilled at covering their tracks..and the french ain't far behind.

To me,the choice is clear-either stand and fight for the Free World..or be prepared to become a dhimmini(muslim slave),or a commie slave..if that appeals to ya..rather than fightin..then by all means..you best git started on yer conversion to Islam or join the communist party..if yer just interested in staying alive.

Have a good one ...

[GHoSToKeR]

But don't you have enough conviction in the West to believe that it would survive without blowing the crap out of everybody else?

I mean, when somebody questions your religion you don't shoot them do you? No, because you have conviction in your religion, you believe that it is right and that it will prevail in the end. So why do you beleive that if we don't blow the crap out of all the Muslims and Communits then we'll become Muslims or Communists? Can't we just defend ourselves when necessary instead of having to throw the first stone? Can't we all just coexist until somebody tries to threaten psychically threaten us? Ever heard of Peace through Strength?

[Az.]

In my last class this afternoon i was reading the Telegraph and read i little bit about this...the reasoning behind them plotting to use nukes is because
"only a nuclear blast is sufficiently powerful to destroy some biological agents"
so they are really doing this to protect themselves....but it is most blatently going to result in an even worse mess....

my theory of what is going to happen is...
US Bombs....Everyone bombs...war over and everyone is dead....happy days
(population of the world decresed by half )

[Torog]

But don't you have enough conviction in the West to believe that it would survive without blowing the crap out of everybody else?

I mean, when somebody questions your religion you don't shoot them do you? No, because you have conviction in your religion, you believe that it is right and that it will prevail in the end. So why do you beleive that if we don't blow the crap out of all the Muslims and Communits then we'll become Muslims or Communists? Can't we just defend ourselves when necessary instead of having to throw the first stone? Can't we all just coexist until somebody tries to threaten psychically threaten us? Ever heard of Peace through Strength?

Howdy GhostToker,

I git what yer saying..believe me-I do believe in peace through strength..maybe even trust-but verify..but there are certain folks intent on delivering the first blow to us,as was done on9/11/01..and we ain't gonna let em git away with it again..we are saying-that we do not want to sacrifice thousands more of our civilians,by taking another blow from the enemy..why should more of our civilians die-just so we can say they hit us first ? Iran wanting to nuke Israel..is a given..but if we know of a pending attack that we can stop,and it needs a nuke to stop it,especially when total incineration is required for biologicals or chemicals,then we should act to save our citizens. How many attacks on our soil,must we endure before we act to save our lives ? Or on British soil or anywhere in the Free World ?

I don't want to blow the whole world up and I hope that we don't have to use any nukes anywhere-ever again..but if the choice is the end of the Free World and the beginning of a New Dark Ages,under Islam or communism..maybe it would be best to blow everything up and start over from scratch..what say you ?

Have a good one ....

[jonhy2536]

instead of nukes, Bush should smoke a big joint and think of peace, not war...

[BobBong]

instead of nukes, Bush should smoke a big joint and think of peace, not war...

As much as we don't want to admit it.. Americans just love a fucking war.

[GHoSToKeR]

Howdy GhostToker,

I git what yer saying..believe me-I do believe in peace through strength..maybe even trust-but verify..but there are certain folks intent on delivering the first blow to us,as was done on9/11/01..and we ain't gonna let em git away with it again..we are saying-that we do not want to sacrifice thousands more of our civilians,by taking another blow from the enemy..why should more of our civilians die-just so we can say they hit us first ? Iran wanting to nuke Israel..is a given..but if we know of a pending attack that we can stop,and it needs a nuke to stop it,especially when total incineration is required for biologicals or chemicals,then we should act to save our citizens. How many attacks on our soil,must we endure before we act to save our lives ? Or on British soil or anywhere in the Free World ?

I don't want to blow the whole world up and I hope that we don't have to use any nukes anywhere-ever again..but if the choice is the end of the Free World and the beginning of a New Dark Ages,under Islam or communism..maybe it would be best to blow everything up and start over from scratch..what say you ?

Have a good one ....

Torog, I hope you can understand that this is a hard debate for me...

As you probably know by now, i'm against any kind of violence or war. I've even gone so far as saying that in an ideal situation ALL military worldwide would be disbanded, all weapons destroyed, etc, but i've come to my senses and can see that isn't possible. If we all went back to fighting with our fists, somebody would pick up a rock..

So when it comes to launching pre-emptive strikes against other nations, I don't know what to say. I understand that there are alot of countries (or groups of people) who would love to destroy the United States and the United Kingdom (and other countries too), and to murder every one of their citizens... so, the safest course of action would be to take these people out before they could take us out.

However, I could never bring myself to agree with one human being striking down another human. Never, no matter how necessary it may seem. I guess it comes back to that old question, doesn't it? You know the one... if you could go back in time to 21th April 1889, the day after Hitler was born, would you kill him as a baby years before he was able to do what he did?

In this scenario I can see the reason for doing it, and I may even argue why it should be done.. but I would never agree with it. Why should somebody be punished for something before they've actually done what they're being punished for?

Like I said Torog, this is a hard one for me. I could never condone (though of course it will never be entirely up to me.. thankfully) nuking anybody, but I could also never let somebody else do the same to us first.

Thank fuck i'm not a politician. Excuse my French.