Dropping a NUKE in the middle east.

[Labrocca]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

I just spent a few minutes reading up on the Japanese bombings. I wasn't born yet so I have to rely on history books for my info.

Some interesting things on the wiki page are the mentality and the choices the US made before the bombing. I really feel that a NUKE into a major city of the Middle East (Tehran) would be the ultimate solution to our problems. Invasion at this point will NOT do us any good. We have to show these people we mean freaking business. Their rhetoric, anti-american babble, and support of international terrorism must end.

The nuke must come from the US and NOT Israel. Even though if Israel does it I will support their decision. If Iran gets the nuke technology it will be all over for any hopes of peace. We need to nip this in the bud NOW.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The fundamental, and often overlooked, difference here is that in the past we were dealing with a mainstream government. One that concerned itself with the present well being of its people (well, to some extent), with its own survival (and not simply the survival of its ideology), and with short term victory instead of justice or long term victory (even if its next century.

It's like fighting a snake and fighting a box jellyfish. Japan was a snake, dangerous, but grab hold of the head and you could force it into peace. But, now, it's more like fighting a jellyfish. While the governments are not the driving force here, even if they were, you can grab hold of the head but there are so many tentacles that such brute force will not control them all.

Terrorism involves so many independent players, with conflicting ideologies, many of which oppose the very governments you want to attack. There's no one thing to crush.

And I still say, if you look at techniques the nazi's tried, they don't work. They enacted policies to kill multiple villagers every time one nazi soldier was killed by a resistance group. In the end they actually wiped out villages and still couldn't stop the attacks.

We aren't fighting a mainstream foe. We're fighting a small but powerful group of extremists. They're not the ones who are going to be stopped, excluding specific incidents, with force. For that group, the threat of death is not a threat.

[Buck Laser]

I can't think of a worse mistake than using a nuclear weapon in the ME. Oh, yeah, it would produce immediate fear, but it would bring the justified wrath of the rest of the world, not just the Muslim world, on the US. The real miracle of the last century is that more than 60 years after the only uses of nuclear weapons in the world, no one else has dared to use them.

When the cold war was going on, the US and the Soviet Union maintained a policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD). It was crude and brutal, but it worked somehow. If the US were to act unilaterally against any country in the Middle East, I can absolutely guarantee that there would be hell to pay from that point on. I think I can understand the frustration that leads you to think a nuke would help--certainly I get the feeling sometimes that it might be easier to just "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out," but I try to be a grownup about it.

What scares me so much about the Bush administration is the predominant juvenile cowboy philosophy that you can just make your problems go away by blowing them up. It reminds me of the way my three-year-old grandson acts when he doesn't get his way.

I think that YOU need to realize that the US and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the western Europeans bear a lot of responsibility for the frustrations of the Arab world. It can't all be blamed in Islam, no matter how easy that might be. One of the big sticking points with the Arab world has been the one-sided support Israel has received from the West. That, along with the way the western world has used the resources of the ME on its own terms, has helped to create this situation.

By the way, I spent months studying the US decision to drop the bomb in Japan when I was in graduate school, getting much of the information from the primary sources available at the time, which just happened to be the same time as the Cuban Missile Crisis. I've lately come to believe that the USSR's decision to enter the Pacific war was a tipping point that led Truman to use the bomb in the hope that they would be deterred a bit in their territorial ambitions. Dropping those bombs was by no means a clearcut moral decision, although Truman was remarkably at peace with his decision.

Again, I have to say that I'm truly appalled that you'd suggest this with a straight face...or maybe your face isn't so straight. But this is a matter that I don't joke about. And I never will.

[Jaaaman]

I don't believe nuking the middle east (Tehran for example) would be a good solution to our problems there.Â*Â*However, I am for doing something big to get their attention (Iran).Â*Â*Maybe a couple of 500 pound bunker buster bombs to hit each of their nuclear underground facilities and research sites for starters.

[slappy]

Iranians are generally viewed as one of the most westward-looking peoples in the Muslim world. More than two-thirds of their population are under thirty, and they boast a staggeringly high literacy rate. I think that it would be a monstrous tragedy to use nuclear weapons against any population, but the notion of attacking these people in particular with any sort of WMDs strikes me as especially wrong. The Iranian regime is so brutal and repressive just because it fears its population so much. They are not our enemies. We need to do whatever we can to help them get organized and positioned to tear down the Islamic Republic from within. The next republic in Iran could very well become the best friend the West ever had in that region.

[Thirdparty]

I think that if Iran does not heed the call of the UN and the West, than surgical strikes to take out ONLY their nuke facilities, ala Osirak in Iraq by Israel ca. 1981 would be good.

I would also exhaust all diplomatic means first.

[Stoner]

Dropping a nuke in Tehran would be the absolute best idea if it came time for us to get serious.

The neolibs will of course say it's a bad idea but then again libs are anti-war. When wanting ideas about a topic it's best to ask someone with an open mind and not one who follows the moveon.org handbook to the letter. Better find someone who actually thinks for themselves.

[Elrathin]

The neolibs will of course say it's a bad idea but then again libs are anti-war.


Wrong, it would be bad because in the long run we could be killing the sames civilians that would be supportive to overthrowing the current Iran government and only uniting Iran against the west all the while gaining us even more worldwide grief.

Even the economy has to listen to the world at some point and time.

And the liberals are against war crap needs to stop. I know of VERY few liberals who were against the war in Afghanistan. The only thing liberals are not supportive of is the "It's coming right for us...BANG" (South Park reference in case you didn't know) attitude of some in the administration.

[bobbylien]

I really feel that a NUKE into a major city of the Middle East (Tehran) would be the ultimate solution to our problems.

Thankfully, you don't have power and your views are radical. Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians wouldn't help our cause, it would unite the entire muslim(if not the entire world) against us. I really can't think of an idea thats more rediculous than this one. I and I suspect a great many other Americans would revolt if anything like this happened. Any American leader who would vote for something like this would/should be hanged. Unless of course the Iranians attacked us first.

[Viper2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

I just spent a few minutes reading up on the Japanese bombings. I wasn't born yet so I have to rely on history books for my info.

Some interesting things on the wiki page are the mentality and the choices the US made before the bombing.Â*Â*I really feel that a NUKE into a major city of the Middle East (Tehran) would be the ultimate solution to our problems.Â*Â*Invasion at this point will NOT do us any good.Â*Â* We have to show these people we mean freaking business.Â*Â* Their rhetoric, anti-american babble, and support of international terrorism must end.Â*Â*

The nuke must come from the US and NOT Israel.Â*Â*Even though if Israel does it I will support their decision.Â*Â*If Iran gets the nuke technology it will be all over for any hopes of peace.Â*Â*We need to nip this in the bud NOW.


Gee, I thought I was the "agressive war monger" here.

Sounds like a plan - however, please do not forget the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

IMHO, if we did that - All the radical Ayatollahs, Mullahs, Clerics and Imams would scream we have declared war on all Islam and you would see the Jihads comming forth like water over Niagra Falls - and we would end up within a week or two fighting these assholes in our own city streets.

[Viper2]

I don't believe nuking the middle east (Tehran for example) would be a good solution to our problems there.Â*Â*However, I am for doing something big to get their attention (Iran).Â*Â*Maybe a couple of 500 pound bunker buster bombs to hit each of their nuclear underground facilities and research sites for starters.


I was thinking more along the lines of

MOABS

[Viper2]

I think that if Iran does not heed the call of the UN and the West, than surgical strikes to take out ONLY their nuke facilities, ala Osirak in Iraq by Israel ca. 1981 would be good.

I would also exhaust all diplomatic means first.


I agree, however, I would go after the supply facilities and labs as well. Might as well make a clean sweep.

[Labrocca]

We killed an immense amount of civilians in Japan...and I can't imagine that when we did the world wasn't horrified. But we gained respect for our resolve. While a nuke would be unimaginable horror...it's what the middle east imho needs to see. They need to see we can annihilate them at any moment for their transgressions. Not only that we can...but we will. It's obvious to me we can't occupy, invade, or topple their governments for various reasons. If we nuked...it might push the middle east into chaos...but imho it practically is already. There is a chance that the people who are moderate might rise up and finally take control of their government fearing the US nuke more than their own governments control. It's a forced hand situation...basically an ALL-IN move. And the great thing is the cost would only be some jet fuel. We have plenty of nukes laying around.

Heck we can even give them a 48 notice to evacuate all civilians. DESTROY THAT DAMN CITY...level it to the ground.

[Labrocca]

Gee, I thought I was the "agressive war monger" here.

Sounds like a plan - however, please do not forget the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

IMHO, if we did that - All the radical Ayatollahs, Mullahs, Clerics and Imams would scream we have declared war on all Islam and you would see the Jihads comming forth like water over Niagra Falls - and we would end up within a week or two fighting these assholes in our own city streets.


In WWII we rounded up the Japanese-Americans...can't see why rounding up the radical muslims would be a problem. Yeah...I know I am starting some debate with that comment but it's how I feel. If WWIII is going to be a religious war...let's get it started so it can be over faster. It seems inevitable at this point. No one is going to say that America started it but we will say America finished it. F them.

[Buck Laser]

In WWII we rounded up the Japanese-Americans...can't see why rounding up the radical muslims would be a problem. Yeah...I know I am starting some debate with that comment but it's how I feel. If WWIII is going to be a religious war...let's get it started so it can be over faster. It seems inevitable at this point. No one is going to say that America started it but we will say America finished it. F them.


You're just gonna round up the radical Muslims? How are you gonna tell which is which? I liked FDR as a president, but the Japanese internment in WW2 is almost universally viewed as one of the most immoral things anyone did in the war. I can fuckin' guaran-damn-tee that the public won't stand for a roundup of Muslims if word gets out. And if anyone plans that kind of shit and I find out about, I'm gonna raise some of the nastiest hell you ever saw. Honestly, it makes me SICK that anyone would propose something like this in this day and time. I guess since you own the board, you can say anything you please, but that's going too far for me. If this is your idea of a democratic solution, then count me out!

Do I make myself clear?

[Stoner]

You're just gonna round up the radical Muslims?Â*Â*How are you gonna tell which is which?Â*Â*I liked FDR as a president, but the Japanese internment in WW2 is almost universally viewed as one of the most immoral things anyone did in the war.Â*Â*I can fuckin' guaran-damn-tee that the public won't stand for a roundup of Muslims if word gets out.Â*Â*And if anyone plans that kind of shit and I find out about, I'm gonna raise some of the nastiest hell you ever saw.Â*Â*Honestly, it makes me SICK that anyone would propose something like this in this day and time.Â*Â*I guess since you own the board, you can say anything you please, but that's going too far for me.Â*Â*If this is your idea of a democratic solution, then count me out!

Do I make myself clear?


Another kool-aid drinker who doesn't get it.

This is exactly why a lib in charge of the country scares the living sh1t out of me. Afraid to take action if it is remotely controversial.

[Buck Laser]

Be afraid, Stoner.
Be very, very afraid.

[Elrathin]

Another kool-aid drinker who doesn't get it.

This is exactly why a lib in charge of the country scares the living sh1t out of me. Afraid to take action if it is remotely controversial.


So you're in favor of internment camps for all Muslims?

[Stoner]

Be afraid, Stoner.
Be very, very afraid.


I have been absolutely baked out of my gourd since 0600 and am still twisted. Sorry, "afraid" isn't one of the feelings I'll be feeling anytime soon.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Another kool-aid drinker who doesn't get it.Â*Â*

This is exactly why a lib in charge of the country scares the living sh1t out of me.Â*Â*Afraid to take action if it is remotely controversial.


Well, I guess the thought of not rounding up people and locking them up in concentration camps is a scary thought to some conservatives. Put that as reason #1 that I'm not a conservative.

I can fuckin' guaran-damn-tee that the public won't stand for a roundup of Muslims if word gets out.

Eh, somehow I think that it wouldn't be very difficult to convince somewhere between 35-55% (with 60-65% if another major attack occured) that it's either a good thing, or that it's not a big thing one way or the other.

I'd guess a sizeable minority may already support this, or at least something on the idea of a yellow crescent.

Personally, I'm prefer to put people who propose this in camps though.

There is a chance that the people who are moderate might rise up and finally take control of their government fearing the US nuke more than their own governments control. It's a forced hand situation...basically an ALL-IN move. And the great thing is the cost would only be some jet fuel. We have plenty of nukes laying around.


Which would do what? Do you think extremists like al qaeda are going to change their view because their lifes are threatened or because infidels take over the government (something which many seem to think has already happened, take syria or saddam's iraq as examples).

You have groups that will kill fellow muslims, even their own followers. They're not going to back off just because we start joining in.

Ho Chi Minh famously said:

"You can kill 10 of my men for every one I kill of yours, yet even at those odds, you will lose and I will win."

Groups like Al Qaeda don't care if it's 100 to 1, and I'm not sure if victory is even an ultimate concern either. They are more concerned about justice and what they view as right than about practical things like politics and nationality, which is what governments and the likes of ho chi minh were concerned about.

[lily]

Labrocca, you are forgetting two things.

1. Truman did what he did, because he thought it would save Ameican soldier's lives and put an end to the war. What you are proposing is going to start a war. You can't despite what some here think, just go in and bomb a country, even if it's "stategical" and not expect the other country to call it an act of war.

2. When Truman did this, we were the only ones with nukes. Now everyone has them.

[Stoner]

Labrocca, you are forgetting two things.

You can't despite what some here think, just go in and bomb a country, even if it's "stategical" and not expect the other country to call it an act of war.

It is an act of war. Period. Doesn't make it wrong, however.

When Truman did this, we were the only ones with nukes. Now everyone has them.

Everyone has nukes? Really? Huh. I never knew that. Where does Ethiopia keep their nuclear arsenal? How about Haiti's? Peru's?

[Labrocca]

No an act of war was 9/11 and the previous years attacks by radical Islam on Americans and others. The continued acts of radical muslims must end. They are being supported by governments. We attempted to topple a government (Iraq) in hopes of stemming terrorist support. It didn't work and no one is gonna dispute that. I say we straight out threaten them with extreme ultra violence (nukes) and carry out our threat if need be.

Basically it would be a huge STFU dropped onto their heads.

[lily]

[quote]It is an act of war. Period. Doesn't make it wrong, however.

Well, actually it does to anyone that has a conscience and anyone that will know what the results would be.



Everyone has nukes? Really? Huh. I never knew that. Where does Ethiopia keep their nuclear arsenal? How about Haiti's? Peru's?

Point taken, but I do think you know what I ment.

[Stoner]

I do think you know what I ment.


I just go by what you type. I'm not psychic.

[lily]

No an act of war was 9/11 and the previous years attacks by radical Islam on Americans and others.Â*Â*

I wasn't aware that Iran had anything to do with 911. I do know that Afghanistan did and we reacted. I also know that 13 of the 19 hyjackers were Saudi, but I've heard nothing about Iran's involvement in 911.

The continued acts of radical muslims must end.Â*Â*They are being supported by governments.

Iran in particular?

We attempted to topple a government (Iraq) in hopes of stemming terrorist support.Â*Â*It didn't work and no one is gonna dispute that.Â*Â*I say we straight out threaten them with extreme ultra violence (nukes) and carry out our threat if need be.

Oh, I think I have your strategy finally figured out. It would make a great exit strategy out of Iraq. We can't win in Iraq, so we should bomb Iran.........that makes a lot of sense. Almost as much as rounding up all Muslims and putting them in detenion camps.

Basically it would be a huge STFU dropped onto their heads.

Until the bombs started to drop on our heads.

[Stoner]

Until the bombs started to drop on our heads.


Who would initiate a nuclear attack against the US in retalliation for dropping a bomb on Iran?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Until the bombs started to drop on our heads.


Who would initiate a nuclear attack against the US in retalliation for dropping a bomb on Iran?


Maybe someone who got ahold of an old soviet nuke. Ya know, that may be a problem since we cut funding to programs that tried to secure them.

I heard al qaeda had been in the market for one.

[lily]

Off the top of my head, Russia and China.

[potter]

Sure, go ahead and nuke Tehran. Just remember turnabout is fair play and there will be no sympathy when we are nuked in response.

[Cobra]

Iran couldn't nuke us back but still a bad idea. We really don't need any more pr problems and that would cause a landslide. Seeing how Iran hasn't attaked us or anything of the sorts. Maybe helped Islamic militiants but nothing to warrant us nuking them.

[Stoner]

I heard al qaeda had been in the market for one.


They would nuke us regardless of what we do with Iran so your example is wrong.

Off the top of my head, Russia and China.

Why would you think Russia or China would attack the United States of America with nuclear weapons in retaliation for of us nuking Iran?

[potter]

Because both have business interests in Iran...just like we have in Iraq.
They also have a right to protect their national interests.

I'm thinking the propaganda campaign to raise support for nuking Iran has more to do with euro petrodollars vs. US petrodollars than a real threat. But then that's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions and belly buttons....

[Stoner]

Because both have business interests in Iran

Not even close to being a valid reason for a retalliation.

Anyone else want to give this one a spin?

[slappy]

I think that retaliation is rather beside the most important point: the extermination of millions of people is an act of unmitigated evil. There's no positive spin here.

[Stoner]

the extermination of millions of people is an act of unmitigated evil

Sometimes extermination is necessary. Japan is a perfect example of that.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I heard al qaeda had been in the market for one.


They would nuke us regardless of what we do with Iran so your example is wrong.

I'm not so sure about that. The Al Qaeda leadership went out of their way to reign in Zarqawi because they felt his methods were causing the people to turn against them. And, after 9/11, they suffered PR damage since many saw the attack as unjustified. Their support boomed once the Iraq war took place.

It's debatable whether they'd use a nuclear weapon in the u.s. as it is, since it seems to hold little benefit to them. It would put a scare into middle eastern governments (most of which al qaeda opposes) and prompt them to be more aggressive, and, like 9/11, risks causing sympathy for americans. If we go first, those risks are minimal.

[Stoner]

It's debatable whether they'd use a nuclear weapon in the u.s. as it is, since it seems to hold little benefit to them.

Are you fucking serious?!?!?! You really don't think they would use a nuke against us? Holy freakin God, dude!

Of course Al Qadea would detonate a nuke on US soil. Their goal is to inflict as much death on Americans as they can.

[potter]

Because both have business interests in Iran

Not even close to being a valid reason for a retalliation.

Anyone else want to give this one a spin?


Many people believe we destroyed Iraq only to protect our business interests. I don't think it's so "out of the question"....

[AlonzoMourning23]

Not if it risks losing muslim support, muslim recruits, causing crackdowns by middle eastern governments, and creating sympathy for american civilians and america.

Al Qaeda and similar groups aren't stupid. 9/11 turned into a disaster for them, and reports indicate that al qaeda realized this. Iraq changed everything for them though.

[Stoner]

Many people believe we destroyed Iraq only to protect our business interests

Many people believe in Bigfoot too.

[potter]

Many people believe we destroyed Iraq only to protect our business interests

Many people believe in Bigfoot too.


And many people believe Bush is a good president.....

[Thirdparty]

:D


Many people believe we destroyed Iraq only to protect our business interests

Many people believe in Bigfoot too.


And many people believe Bush is a good president.....


And many people believed Ford and Reagan were horrible, and they are now lionized. Carter always sucked. :D

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I believe Bush to be a great President!
2. I also believe Clinton to be a bad one, who liked to do the desk mumbo numbo.
3. But I bet most Liberals here like Clinton.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[BoogyMan]

And many people believed Ford and Reagan were horrible, and they are now lionized. Carter always sucked. :D

You beat me to it 3p! bwahahahahahahah

I cannot justify in my mind a blanket nuclear attack on Iran. I could however justify using tactical nukes against the nuclear facilities they are feverishly building while feigning attempts to engage us in discussion.

[Labrocca]

I think that retaliation is rather beside the most important point: the extermination of millions of people is an act of unmitigated evil.Â*Â*There's no positive spin here.


I said we should give them a warning...give them 48 hours to get the freak out. We can drop just one small nuke to take out about 5 square miles. Destroy the city entirely.

Al-Qaeda would use a nuke in a heartbeat. China, Russia, and the rest would be screaming bloody murder but so what. They pretty much already are. Israel would support us I believe and ultimately so would the UK. Fuck France. Japan would protest lightly imho.

Like I said..give them a heads up. Make it a plan to destroy infrastructure and the city itself...not the people. Tell the people to get out. Seems fair to me. Americans weren't alerted to get out of the WTC before it was destroyed.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And the reason al qaeda's behavior towards us has bearing on how we behave towards iran?

[lily]

I said we should give them a warning...give them 48 hours to get the freak out.Â*Â*We can drop just one small nuke to take out about 5 square miles.Â*Â*Destroy the city entirely.



I'm curious........what about the fallout? I know you don't care about the fallout from other countries, but what about the nuclear fallout?

Like I said..give them a heads up. Make it a plan to destroy infrastructure and the city itself...not the people. Tell the people to get out. Seems fair to me. Americans weren't alerted to get out of the WTC before it was destroyed.

Again, I have no idea what Iran has to do with 911?

Cheney......is that you?;)

[Drocket]

And the reason al qaeda's behavior towards us has bearing on how we behave towards iran?

'cause they're all Muslims, silly. Everyone knows that Muslims are like the Borg.

[Drocket]

I said we should give them a warning...give them 48 hours to get the freak out. We can drop just one small nuke to take out about 5 square miles. Destroy the city entirely.
America, one of the richest nations on earth, was unable to evacuate New Orleans despite having about 72 hours warning. Assuming that Iran even cared enough to TRY to evacuate the city (far from guaranteed, as having the US kill a couple million people would help them immensely), there's absolutely, positively no way that Tehran could be evacuated in 48 hours.

The vast majority of people there don't own cars. Imagine evacuating New York city in 48 hours - and then imagine doing it essentially without cars, just a random assortment of buses and maybe some railroads. You have hundreds of thousands of senior citizens who would need to be helped and tens of thousands more in hospitals. You have cripples and shut-ins.

Assuming absolute best case scenario, you'd probably have at least 2 million dead. That's not even counting long-term effects from radiation fallout. Millions dead, all so we can show that we're 'serious'. Even putting aside the pure *evilness* of even considering this course of action, you don't imagine that there wouldn't be a MASSIVE outpouring of absolute hatred towards the US from the middle east? Assuming Saudi Arabi even wanted to ever trade with us again (they're probably not going to be too happy with the radioactive fallout blowing into their country, at the absolute minimum), do you really think we'd ever get any oil from the region again? Continuous terrorist attacks against any and all US-allied entities in the region would be a given.

And because you told me to take it to this thread, I'll just point out the massive hypocrisy in pretending to care about one life (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3092) when you're willing to kill millions. I guess, as Stalin would say, one death is a tragedy, a million a statistic.

[Viper2]

Labrocca:
We killed an immense amount of civilians in Japan...and I can't imagine that when we did the world wasn't horrified. But we gained respect for our resolve. While a nuke would be unimaginable horror...it's what the middle east imho needs to see. They need to see we can annihilate them at any moment for their transgressions. Not only that we can...but we will. It's obvious to me we can't occupy, invade, or topple their governments for various reasons. If we nuked...it might push the middle east into chaos...but imho it practically is already. There is a chance that the people who are moderate might rise up and finally take control of their government fearing the US nuke more than their own governments control. It's a forced hand situation...basically an ALL-IN move. And the great thing is the cost would only be some jet fuel. We have plenty of nukes laying around.

Heck we can even give them a 48 notice to evacuate all civilians. DESTROY THAT DAMN CITY...level it to the ground.
In WWII we rounded up the Japanese-Americans...can't see why rounding up the radical muslims would be a problem. Yeah...I know I am starting some debate with that comment but it's how I feel. If WWIII is going to be a religious war...let's get it started so it can be over faster. It seems inevitable at this point. No one is going to say that America started it but we will say America finished it. F them.

What we did in the bombings of Japan was a direct result of their attack at Pearl Harbor, and their subsequent aggressive actions. Additionally, America the country was behind the government, and supported everything up to and including “personal sacrifice� that we haven’t seen since.

Today we are politically and ideologically split down the middle – there is no cohesion in government or society.

Well, I have to admit I am as sick & tired of all the bullshit being espoused by the liberal, left-wing, panty-waisted appeasement minded wimps perhaps more than you. And I am probably more blatantly up close and personal in your face than you – however, what was done during WW II was more able to be accomplished then it would be today.

Now you have all the bleeding-hearts, the ACLU et’al to contend with, and how do you tell the “radical� Muslims from the rest ???

What we need is another Teddy Roosevelt who would kick ass and take names, and run roughshod over the wimps.

[Elrathin]

What we did in the bombings of Japan was a direct result of their attack at Pearl Harbor, and their subsequent aggressive actions. Additionally, America the country was behind the government, and supported everything up to and including “personal sacrifice� that we haven’t seen since.

Hence the key words in what you said, DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR ATTACK. Iran has not officially attacked us Viper.

I'm sorry but unless there are nuclear missles getting ready to actually launch from Iran or we have had war declared on us by Iran and troops engaged, I could not support a nuclear strike against Iran. PERIOD.

You want to take out their nuclear capability via air strikes, even though I don't even agree with that, I could understand it. But not nuclear under any cases except what I have said would I support something like that.

[gpruitt54]

It is pleasing to see that a good many of you have real grown-up points of view on the subject of killing millions of people (yes, it would be a bad thing to do). Answering the "what next" questions that has gotten us in this position. For you who think dropping nukes are good ideas, answer a few questions please:

Would oil prices reach $500.00 or more per barrel oil?
How long would oil prices remain at distressed prices?
How long will the economies of the western world survive on $500.00 per barrel?
Do we then attack and seize oil fields in other nations in the region?
How do you stop oil speculators from hedging, and there by preventing oil prices from rising?
What happens with the nations in the region call on their allies for assistance (economic and military)?
Who are the allies in the region? For starters, both China and Russia have economic interest in the region.
How do you stop those nations from coming in to protect their interests?
Will the combat escalate and spread within the region and beyond?
Is your job depended on stable fuel prices?
Will your mortgage holder allow you not to pay for a couple of months, or until the economy recovers?

Only a fool or a lunatic wants to start a nuke exchange. Once you start something like this, there is no real way to tell which way it falls, and how do you stop the cascade of untended consequences.

Yeah, after a few beers, people become very brave in deed. But the drunken stupor eventually fades. How many of us really wants to wake up to discover that we’ve burned down our own homes? But after all, this is just bar room talk, tough but stupid.