Quote Originally Posted by Torog
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.
GHoSToKeR Reviewed by GHoSToKeR on . Giving the president authority for a preemptive nuclear strike! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: This is really scary giving the president authority for a preemptive authority for a Nuclear strike against weapons of mass destruction? Umm, if I remember correctly we (the United States government) are not very good at finding which countries have banned weapons in the first place. This really scares me. If we were to nuke somebody in this day Rating: 5