Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Well, we found out that Al-Qaida were in Afghanistan, and we waged war on them and the Taliban. This is where it gets to be a grey area. If they nuked us, but they are a pathetic pushover in conventional warfare (like the taliban), do we have the right to nuke them back? Similarly, if Saddam uses Chem or Bio weapons in war, do we have justification to level Baghdad and put in a parking lot? In my opinion, it is yes on both counts. Firstly, once ANYONE escalates to the nuclear level, retaliation is all but guaranteed. If NYC was hit with a nuke instead of two planes, perhaps there would not be much of Afghanistan left, other than radioactive cinders. Again, with the chemical or biological weapons used in combat, we would be justified in using nukes in retaliation, because any WMB counts, even if the WMB used does little or no damage (US forces are very well prepared to fight in a WMB environment, and such an attack would be well nigh useless). During the Gulf War, the threat of massive US retaliation kept Saddam from using chemical weapons.
As for "faceless terrorist Groups": name one. Really. We knew it was Osama and gang pretty quickly after 9/11.
[ February 26, 2003, 18:34: Message edited by: Instar ]
__________________
When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet, and when toast is dropped, it always lands with the buttered side facing down. I propose to strap buttered toast to the back of a cat. The two will hover, spinning inches above the ground. With a giant buttered cat array, a high-speed monorail could easily link New York with Chicago.
|