Please--I want everyone's opinion:

[TeflonTalons]

My question to you is a hypothetical one:

Suppose there was a country that was fairly well-developed on the other side of the world. Let's say that they hated America and all we stand for, and they have decided that we no longer need to exist.

My question to everyone is, after hearing this country say it wants to exterminate us--and knowing that they can get their hands on a nuclear weapon sooner rather than later--how close to building a nuclear device would you let them get?

--would you launch an attack upon them after HEARING about the threat, but not seeing the bombs themselves, at this point?

--would you launch an attack when they started drawing up definite blueprints for the bomb, imported nuclear scientists from an ally, and was actively seeking uranium on the black market?

--would you launch an attack to take them out if satellites reported they had detonated a test bomb?

--would you launch an attack after intelligence had reported they had completed building a delivery system for that bomb?

--would you launch an attack if you knew all this today and the leader of the country had said he is going to drop the bomb on us on Valentine's Day?

----would you never launch an attack on them until they had attacked us on our own soil?

At what point would you, or would you not, launch an attack?

[leftstreet]

1. Why do they hate us?

If it's "for our freedoms," no worries mate.

We're losing those pretty rapidly, so the nuk-yu-lar option should be obsolete.

[TeflonTalons]

9. Can you answer the question I asked?

[snowbear]

12. Why not leave us alone?

http://echotalon.blogspot.com/

Please, you don't like our responses -- you just bitch, bitch, bitch.

Run along, will ya?

[TeflonTalons]

18. You're not obligated to read my posts, nor answer them.

[leftstreet]

47. Evidently not without more information. n/t

[TeflonTalons]

51. That's fine.

Some can't and some can....

[leftstreet]

54. Holy Shit. I think this is my first encounter with a Troll on DU.

Welcome to America.

Clowns to the left of me - jokers to the right.

[Crunchy Frog]

72. Congratulations on your first Troll encounter.

I always kind of enjoy them.:toast:

[ClayZ]

2. It is one Big Blue Marble we are ALL on together.

Take a look at PLANET EARTH from space.

We are all on the SAME BUS!

[TeflonTalons]

11. Can you answer the question I asked?

[ClayZ]

26. I did!

[TeflonTalons]

45. Your reply doesn't address anything I asked.

This was my question:

My question to everyone is, after hearing this country say it wants to exterminate us--and knowing that they can get their hands on a nuclear weapon sooner rather than later--how close to building a nuclear device would you let them get?



This was your answer:

It is one Big Blue Marble we are ALL on together.
Take a look at PLANET EARTH from space.

We are all on the SAME BUS!

War is costly. Peace is PRICELESS!

[ClayZ]

52. I did not hear a country say anything.

I have heard a lot of stupid mean men and women say lots of things. Countries can not speak ... some of their/our evil leaders, however do speak. LOTS of Lies, mostly!

O peration
I raqi
L iberation

[ClayZ]

33. Start reading here:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/PNAC_101


PNAC 101 The Rise of the NEOCONS

[snowbear]

3. Why do you support what Mr. Bush has done?

I'm just asking...







"Keep Bringin' them On!!!!"

[Posteritatis]

8. Uhhh, what?

Where did you get Bush supporting out of that post? It's a perfectly reasonable series of questions to ask.

Bush made his own response to this situation clear enough a couple of years ago; he'd attack on hearing about the threat, or possibly upon seeking blueprints/uranium/engineers/etc, depending on how generous you feel like being with his side of the story. (For argument's sake, I'm talking as though Bush actually believed there was a threat. As I believe he jumped on Iraq for opportunistic and not defensive reasons, I doubt he thought so, but it's a way to keep the discussion on the topic of the original question. Bear with me, or something.)

Now, I think that's jumping the gun to say the least. I gave my own response, where I'd launch the attack much further down the danger line.

Personally, I'm curious as to what other people would say. Simply asking the question hardly makes TeflonTalons a Republican drone-unit. It's a relevant and important thing to consider, even if the odds of the scenario playing out like that are low. Not everyone who has a low post count and asks controversial questions is a disruptor.

[TeflonTalons]

16. THANK YOU SO MUCH!

Everything you said was right on! I appreciate you giving me a chance!

[snowbear]

17. Oh geezuz.... Teflon Dude has a newbie standing up for him...her...

whatever.

Good friggin night Freepnoids.

[TeflonTalons]

19. I can't believe you're cowed by a simple little question!

If I can't come here and ask them, what use is a message board?

[snowbear]

21. For a member here for 2 days----

You certainly are short with members.

Is it any wonder you're not met with the warmest of receptions?

Try chilling out a bit and not jumping on people here when they don't provide the answers that you want to hear.

We don't work that way here.

[TeflonTalons]

28. So far...

...it is only YOUR response that hasn't been 'warm'. Everyone else pretty much has been VERY pleasant.

[snowbear]

32. Wow.. you missed a few... But hey.

Why not take a moment and tell us about yourself.

Introduce yourself.

We don't know you yet.

Not a damned thing -

[Crunchy Frog]

82. I can't believe the cowardly way that you ran out on the other thread

that you started. People gave you answers and asked you questions that were too much for you to handle, so you turned tail and ran into a new thread to re-ask your hypothetical question in a more clearly outrageous fashion.

It's no wonder that you support a coward who went AWOL on his draft dodge.

[TeflonTalons]

84. I can't type on both threads at once.

I am only typing with one hand due to surgery on the other. I've had over 70 responses here to respond to--the other thread is going to need to be patient.

[Crunchy Frog]

96. Well I'd get in the answers pretty quick if I were you.

Otherwise I expect you will run out of time and won't be able to give any answers at all.

[Posteritatis]

20. Hm, I wasn't aware newbies weren't allowed to hold opinions here

I also wasn't aware that a low post count automatically made me a conservative.

Funny, the amount of things I don't know..

[snowbear]

25. No one said you were a conservative--

But just like Teflon, you jump on here with a negative, short attitude with people you haven't even taken the a moment to introduce yourself to.

Who are you? Try talking to us before you start bashing us. :shrug:

[Posteritatis]

30. Please explain where I bashed anyone

You are taking offense where none is offered - from me, anyway. What "short, negative" attitude? I simply said it was a question that wasn't as worthless or as threatening as you claim it is. Is that "bashing" now? I am talking, I'm hardly saying anything controversial, and I'm being attacked - bashed, if you will - based purely on my post count. What's up with that?

(And if calling me a freeper isn't saying I'm a closet conservative, what is?)

[TeflonTalons]

31. I have not bashed a SINGLE poster here.

I have only asked that you have some patience with my slow typing before you declare I've 'run off' and I've asked people to please answer the question I asked first, before going off in another direction.

There has not been ANYTHING wrong with my posting what I did.

[Crunchy Frog]

90. Nonsense!

I just participated on a thread this evening started by a complete newbie with about a dozen posts. He made a wonderful, thought provoking post which set off a very interesting discussion and was given a very warm welcome indeed. The reaction to a person with a very low post count very much depends on the sorts of posts that they make. If the posts are thoughtful and respectful, the newbie is generally treated very well. After all, all of us started with low post counts too. It's when people with low post counts come in here with very aggressively, with an attitude, and begin making accusatory statements that people begin to get suspicious. Especially when there's more than one of them on the same thread.

I'm not accusing you of anything. You may simply have gotten caught up in something that you're out of your depth on. Generally when you're first starting out though, it helps to not come on too aggressively. There's plenty of time for that later, once you've gotten a little oriented to the place and people have gotten a little more acquainted with you.

[TeflonTalons]

91. Too aggressive?

That's why I asked QUESTIONS rather than just dictating my opinion.

[Crunchy Frog]

98. Umm, I think you're responding to posts

that were directed to somebody else. That's unless you are both the same person.:shrug:

[murielm99]

22. Ohhh....tag team.

:rofl:

[Crunchy Frog]

80. His behavior on another thread

has already made the nature of his presence here very clear. After you've been here for awhile, you will get more of a feel for how they operate and how to spot them. In the meantime, you'll just have to trust us.

Here's the other thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2339179

He ran out on it when his attempts at entrappment failed, and decided to make a new thread rather than continuing his little game on the old one.

[TeflonTalons]

13. Can you answer the question I asked?

And please reread my post--nowhere in it did I say I supported what Bush did.

Let's not make this into something it's not.

I just asked a question, a simple little question. That's all.

[Vektor]

39. You've been answered by 20 different people.

And all you have done is keep rewording and repeating the question. You also have a "buddy" backing you up...

Hmmm. Never seen that before.

[Posteritatis]

4. Insert annoyingly imprecise answer here

No, no, no, no, possibly (leaning towards probably), and no, respectively.

The line between hearsay and speculation (the type of stuff we've seen in the buildup to the Iraq war) and actual attacks like 9/11s, Pearl Harbors or post-long-weekend Mondays is both broad and kind of fuzzy. If I were actually in that position, with the authority and responsibility to respond militarily, I'm not sure if I could say for sure in advance when that line would be crossed.

It would certainly be crossed by an actual attack! It would probably be crossed at some point before that, but I'm not sure where. From where I'm sitting, a confirmed enemy with a confirmed weapon and delivery system giving a specific time to use it is probably on the Lockheed/Martin Official Valentine's Day Card side of the line.

Obviously I'd be watching said country like a hawk from the moment it appeared they were serious about things; what I heard through the process would affect my willingness to use force, though I would try to delay using it for as long as was safely possible.

There's definately a big difference between preemptive and preventative war, though; I do consider the former acceptable, in certain circumstances. Nations do have, and have always had, the right to defend themselves, of course. "Preventative" war, on the other hand, strikes me more as an excuse than a justification.

(And since I'm willing to bet that your question is considerably less hypothetical than you state, Iraq only marginally qualified for the first of your conditions. They'd be getting Strongly Worded Statements(tm) until they pushed things a hell of a lot more than they did.)

[TeflonTalons]

24. I think that the biggest dilemma.

War used to be lines of men or ships or planes fighting each other. We could see them coming (usually) and marshal our forces for defense. Thus, it made sense to wait until we saw 'the whites of their eyes' before engaging. Nuclear weapons changed all that and will forever bring into question the difference between a pre-emptive strike vs. a defensive one.

I have no idea where to draw the line either; we can't be sitting ducks, but we can't be the world's bully either.

Thanks for your response!

[neweurope]

49. I'm just wondering which of the many, many wars you fought

you fought in order to "defend yourselves"...

As to your questions: To me that sounds lika Iran, not Iraq.

I'm not certain if I ever would attack first, no matter under which circumstances. By your measure Germany would not be guilty for starting WW I - war was inevitable, everybody knew that at the time. Americans often have one rule for themselves and one for the rest of the world, I don't.

What I would certainly do is work for peace until the very last minute - an option you didn't mention. What you also didn't mention was international allies who could help - with their diplomacy, not with their guns.

Neither did you mention whether the intelligence that the other state wanted to attack was true - or another invention of the military-industrial complex, like most in the history of mankind.

In the case of Iran IRAN was certainly threatened first - by the US. Their head of state is being severely critized by Iranians, and most don't take him seriously. The world - and I'm especially talking of a strong United Nations which seem to be the LAST thing your present administration wants - could take care of that problem, I'm sure.

I have no idea who you are and whom you vote for. But I get the feeling your questions are meant to be provocative.

--------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Hekate]

79. Good post re: allies and war as a last resort

Our leaders here used to value allies as respected partners in peace. Bush's "my way or the highway" attitude is highly destructive of the interests of the American people.

I'm not a pacifist, as I believe anyone (including a country) who is attacked has a right to defend themselves -- but I also believe war should be a last resort, never used as the primary instrument of foreign policy.

Hekate
who believes we shall live to see better days

[cdsilv]

5. I would say .......

A gas is a germ is a nuke is a WMD. Since we (supposedly) don't use gas or germs, our response to any WMD attack would be a massive nuke response. I'm rather surprised we didn't
find somebody to nuke after the anthrax attacks on congress.

If we want to, we can turn the ME into a tar-pit, and really, if we want to we can occupy
any place that has oil. Should we do so? NO, of course not.

We may not be skilled at occupation anymore, but we'll relearn how to do it.

We really need a rational, UNcorrupted government, servants to the people.

We really need term limits. And the outlawing of the profession known as 'lobbyist'.

[Tikki]

6. Hypothetical and intelligence reports...

...that part sounds really familiar....

[northofdenali]

7. Are we back to the Cold War AGAIN?

n/t :P

[drdtroit]

48. Yep, TERRORISM = RED SCARE n/t

[Submariner]

10. We didn't bomb the USSR when they got the bomb

so why start a war when it can be prevented? On the boats we had missiles targeted that could flatten the former USSR, but we didn't need to use them because our military strength deterred the Soviets from launching, and in the meantime diplomatic relations --- talking out the problems --- resolved the crisis.

Unfortunately, at this time in our history, our leadership has no leadership or diplomatic skills, and as chickenhawks who never served their country in uniform, they are a scared bunch of incompetents that decided to shoot from the hip first, and ask questions later. As a result Bush has got EVERYTHING wrong from day one of his crusade and has made the world a more dangerous place rather than safer, and has turned the world against us while doing it. All the idiot-in-chief has done has made a lot of dead people for no reason.

Actually, if I got a PDB that said Bin Laden was looking to strike inside America by hi-jacking aircraft, I would have warned the airlines to step up security rather than clearing brush at the Crawfish ranch.

Smart people avoid war. Dummies like Bush and company make war.

[Posteritatis]

36. The Cold War not going hot is why I'm unsure about what I'd do

After all, we basically spent fifty years sharing the planet with another regime that had copious amounts of nuclear weapons - really threatening amounts, not just one or two warheads - along with the ability to build them, massive hatred (at the government level), and an ideology which didn't lend much credit to the idea of coexistence.

And yet we spent half a century not getting nuked by one another, and are still around today. And that was a country powerful enough to actually put up a fight in either a conventional or a nuclear exchange, not some two-bit former middle power that would collapse like a house of cards in a hurricane when push came to shove.

I think that's a bit telling about what exactly constitutes a threat, myself. We definately don't need to be a tithe as eager to enter smackdown mode as Dim Son down in DC seems to think, anyway.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

14. Welcome to DU, Teflon Talons

Before I can answer your question, I must have an answer of my own: does your hypothetical presuppose that the country of evil-doers on the other side of the planet will *actually* use said device? If so, I must suggest that it is a highly unlikely scenario. Even the most psychopathic tyrant would not use nukes on a first-strike basis. It would assure his own destruction by nuclear retaliation.

Saddam was a "bad man" who "gassed his own people" and he didn't use the goodies in either Bush War I or Bush War II. A genuinely blithering idiot-crazy like Kim Jong Il hasn't used them, and he already has them. And is the avowed enemy of the U.S. Pakistan and India have them and haven't used them on each other, and they *hate* each other.

Iran wants them because Israel has them, and scares Iran half to death.

As Robert Frost noted: "Good fences make good neighbors."

[JohnnyRingo]

15. How about assemble the UN Security Council and go about it the right way?

Does the first reaction HAVE to be holocaust?

Economic sanctions, diplomacy, and political pressure goes a long way to keep peace among such aggressive nations.

Anyone who says otherwise just likes to see things blow up....on the other side of the world.

Does anyone believe that if India launched on Pakistan that the world community would shrug it's collective shoulders and look the other way?

[Posteritatis]

23. That too, yeah

Though I rather imagine that if the world community knew that India was just about to launch on Pakistan, they wouldn't shrug their collective shoulders either.

Force in a situation like this would definately either be a last resort after a lotta UNSC goings-on, or more of a split second "hey, cool, I've got a surprisingly limited amount of time to make a decision" sort of thing.

[Vektor]

27. You already started a thread like this.

And you cut and ran.

[TeflonTalons]

40. No--I can't answer posts from both at once.

And I had some minor surgery on my left hand, so am typing only with the right hand--and that takes awhile.

[Vektor]

46. I'm not sure that makes sense.

You find it easier to juggle TWO threads rather than one?

[TeflonTalons]

57. My other question was about Saddam.

This question here was not strictly about Iraq--as another poster pointed out, my hypothetical actually suits Iran better.

[Crunchy Frog]

94. Are you sure there's not another reason

you're only typing with one hand?:evilgrin:

[Grateful for Hope]

29. some pretty good answers in this thread

you obviously didn't provide all viable alternatives, such as diplomacy. All your alternatives have the word "attack". This is black-and-white and pretty simplistic thinking.

[TeflonTalons]

34. Yes, it IS simplistic...

Even with me boiling it down to a few very simple alternatives, I STILL can't get an answer...

It's just a simple little question--I had no idea it would cause so much angst.

[Grateful for Hope]

37. Because your alternatives

are not the only alternatives. Simple.

[TeflonTalons]

63. I'd agree with that.

However, the alternatives I posted might be the only ones upon which millions of Americans might have to decide the issue. You know that not everyone educates themselves politically. I chose the alternatives I did because they're some of the ones most likely to show up in our morning newspaper--and people may not have anymore info than that. (Which IS a scary thought.)

[JohnnyRingo]

93. No country is going to attack the US....

Anytime a politician uses the words "national security" his following sentences are suspect at least. It usually precedes a plea for military spending.

Canada has no nuke capacity, no one expects them to be attacked.
Sweden...ditto.

A nuclear attack would suit no purpose without a full scale invasion. To that I'd say "we'll meet them at the shores of Long Island".
I personally don't think any tinhorn Middle Eastern country could get past the street gangs.

Anyone who envisions a unilateral attack by the US would be willing to trump up a threat from a weaker nation...And probably wish the United Nations out of the way to facilitate their lust for victory and blood.

Your original question is akin to asking whether we should invade countries if they're unAmerican. That's the policy of neo-cons and Bush-bots alone, and lives in a fantasy world where war is likened to a sport where the victor goes to a super bowl of world dominance.

You seem to have a very simplistic view of world politics where might makes right.

[TeflonTalons]

99. Not at all...

I don't have a simplistic view of politics at all. It took nearly 70 posts to get a well-thought out answer from anyone here--I'm SURE not going to ask anything MORE complicated than I did...

[snowbear]

38. You haven't taken the time to read every thread...

There were answers sent your way.

Maybe you're choosing to ignore the ones that don't jive with your own theory?

Which is.....?

[Vektor]

44. Ooh! Clever tactic! Declare that you have "caused angst" when what you

have really done is ignore everyone's answers and try to pretend we couldn't come up with anything good to say in response to your brilliant question. It's you who appears to be anxious, because your fallacy that Bush is a "great leader" clearly isn't true, and there are several cases here to back that up. You're just pretending not to see them.

Like we don't get asked the ol' Iraq question by disruptors DAILY and can't answer in our sleep, angst free, by now.

It's getting old, and WAAAAY too transparent.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TeflonTalons]

41. Why are you so afraid of an itty-bitty question?

[neweurope]

65. WE ARE NOT AFRAID. Are you? Evidently you don't read most

of our answers.

-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[TeflonTalons]

68. Sure I read them...

However, I've never been in a group that tried so hard to get me to NOT ask questions, so the message I'm getting is that there's a tremendous fear of them, or that they are seen as very, very dangerous--and I fail to see why.

The question I asked was a couple dozen words on a page--that's ALL. I think all of you can handle that much.

[neweurope]

75. We can. You can't handle the answers. Is has been pointed out to you

that your questions are not sufficient. All of your questions concern "attack", none any measure for peace. On top of that you totally neglect the FACT that the USA are the most dangerous country on earth. Your questions are not only hypothetical, they're not making much sense because they are concentrating on one aspect only - and since you are still sticking exclusively to your original questions they are therefore provocative. Wonder how long DUers will have patience with provocation.

------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[TeflonTalons]

81. If you don't have the answer to my original question...

...what good would it do for me to post others that come afterwards?

[neweurope]

85. After all the answers you got you still don't understand that there

is such a thing as false questions? The questions you asked only left ONE answer open: ATTACK, in various degrees. Thats demagogy, and a very poor effort at that.

I have no more patience with you.

---------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[TeflonTalons]

89. That's not true at all.

My question mentioned launching an attack--or NOT launching an attack. Several posters here have already stated that they would not use aggressive means to handle the issues, so launching an attack couldn't possibly the only alternative I posited.

[snowbear]

43. Ok good.... finally AntiCoup is here!!

Helpppppppp!!

Freenoids are out tonight AC... :scared:

Sending out an S.O.S... http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

[MessiahRp]

59. LOL good call, I agree

and damn it those pizzas look good too. :)

Rp

[Shipwack]

42. Sure, I'll play the theoretical game...

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Pre-emptive strikes are not morally justifiable;at least not in the vague scenario above, and probably never.

On the off chance you are trying to make an analogy with Iraq, Iraq was not roughly equal to us in power,and there was much (ignored) evidence that he was nowhere near making a bomb.

[TeflonTalons]

50. I agree...

I wasn't really thinking solely of Iraq--for just the reasons you name. There are several other countries that are more developed and have nuclear capability--I kinda rolled them all into one!

[snowbear]

58. Hence my answer that Kim Jong-Il was more dangerous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2339179&mesg_id=2339226

You read the posts - yet you still say we don't answer you.

Why?

[Hekate]

53. Ask Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon...

Oh right, they're all dead. You'll have to read the history books.

The rush of irritation I feel is offset by wondering how many decades you've logged on this planet so far. You are describing the Cold War, where I spent my childhood and a chunk of my adulthood.

Your naivete could be a product of your youth and inexperience, or it could be caused by drinking far too much Kool-ade. Either way, please believe me when I say that the Cold War was no picnic to live through, but in hindsight it beat the hell out of a nuclear holocaust.

The USSR joined the US in the so-called "nuclear club" and BOTH countries enthusiastically developed and tested such weapons, both above ground and below. We spied on each other. We stole each other's plans if we could. We both recruited the best Nazi missile scientists still alive after Germany's defeat. Why didn't this insanity progress to planetary death? One answer is negotiations, coupled with threats -- but it really was touch-and-go for years.

Our presidents were not afraid to negotiate with the Soviet Union, in varying degrees of toughness. The USSR planted missiles in Cuba. Did JFK bomb Cuba into a glassy parking lot? No. Did JFK level Moscow? No. Did JFK back down? No. Premier Krushchev backed down and the missiles were removed. I thank all that's holy that Bush was not president then, or large portions of the USA might still be too radioactive to drive through. JFK talked tough and threatened when he had to, but he wasn't stupid enough to think he could "win" a nuclear war.

And finally, finally the US and the USSR began to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties with each other, complete with inspections for both sides.

Being a president is hard work, but not for the reasons Bush thinks. He seems to think it's simple black and white, when instead it's complicated as hell.

George W. Bush and his PNAC pals have brought back the worst of the Cold War all by themselves. They've brought back the threat of nuclear war. They salivate at the idea of "usable tactical nuclear weapons" called bunker busters, which are in fact the size of what leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They live in a fantasy world of unchecked power that in the real world could kill us all.

Don't buy into their false either/or world. That way lies death.

Hekate

[MessiahRp]

55. I would not attack until I had exhausted all possible discussion

with the opposing country's leadership. I would put myself in their shoes and try to establish who the leadership was trying to build consent from and work for a common ground.

IF, there was absolutely no way to reach consensus I would fire only when a confirmed attack was about to commence. Of course with THAT much notice our intelligence would have to be improved greatly, but if we're talking about nuclear war building a coalition of countries to help stop the war and form allies would be an easy task.

I would not let them get to the point of attacking us on our homeland, but I certainly would not strike until they made a move first, i.e. confirmed attack formation.

Rp

[lvx35]

56. We would deal with them the same way we dealt with the soviet union.

With the idea than an attack would mean their total destruction, and not worry about it. It WORKED with the soviet union. Yet we sit around having this dialogue about this fictitious country that is going to launch a nuclear attack on the worlds largest nuclear superpower. Yet no OTHER nuclear armed country has done that...So why will this one?

[TeflonTalons]

60. There's a first time for everything.

That's what we've always been told we should be afraid of, so I thought I'd ask what posters here would do if it actually happened.

[w13rd0]

62. Most of us wouldn't be in any position to do a damned thing...

...faced with certain destruction of the planet via nuclear stupidity, I myself would probably shit myself and then hunt down the people on my "people that must die before I do" list and start marking them off.

[neweurope]

67. Jesus! It's the USA and ONLY the USA who isists on the

"preemptive nuclear strike"! And they want to be the ones to define "preemptive"! NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH has this policy! I am much, much much more scared of the USA than of any other country on earth!

---------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[MessiahRp]

69. Thank god for Kennedy...

I am just imagining what the asshole Neocons would have done in this situation. If not for him and the USSR ambassador Tommy Thompson we might have nuked first and asked questions later... or not since we'd all be blown into powder.

Preemptive nuclear strikes are NEVER an option.

Rp

[lvx35]

71. Fair enough.

A bit more detail then. We should continue to develop anti-ballistic missile weapons, we should gather good intelligence about they're delivery capability, and we should focus homeland security efforts almost entirly on WMDs coming in through wierd means. In other words, we should prepare to defend against an attack, so we have a defensive stance rather than leaning over and stirring up hornets in their country, which will likely create more enemies and isolate friends.

[TeflonTalons]

76. Thank you--and good answer!

Yours is the best one of the night! And what you said seems quite do-able, too! It doesn't leave us sitting ducks, but it doesn't have us as aggressors--yeah, this is about where I'm at with this.
Thanks!

[w13rd0]

61. What would you do...

...if a giant flying purple people eater decended from space and told you that he must eat one in every three people, or he'd blow up the planet?

Would you volunteer so that two others might live? Would you call its bluff and await it's moosey doom? Would you have the US just volunteer a country we don't like so much with brown people for the alien to lunch upon?

JUST ANSWER THE F'N QUESTION!!! WHat would you do? Huh? Huh?!?!

[ClayZ]

66. LOL

:rofl:

[MessiahRp]

73. Actually I just thought of something...

If I were President I would have signed a comprehensive nuclear weapon treaty that eliminated up to 75% of our nukes as well as those for other nuclear countries and would have bought the loose nukes that are still out there in the Ukraine and such that the Bush Administration refuses to address (especially after all that BS about a dictator giving terrorists the nukes when they can just go get them on their own).

When I was done there would be so many fewer nukes out there and so much less aggression over the concept that this would not be something I would heavily fear anyways.

See what being peaceful gets you and how it changes the equation?

Rp

[neweurope]

78. Bravo!

:thumbsup:
:applause:

---------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[tenshi816]

64. Well, one thing for sure...

I'd make sure I invaded the correct damn country instead of trying to play out my unresolved daddy issues on the world's stage by going into the wrong place without an exit strategy.

Edited to finish my sentence.

[Posteritatis]

74. After the London bombings

One of my friends declared that the United Kingdom clearly must now invade - a pause while she covered her eyes and gestured at a map at random, and then looked at where her finger landed - Finland!

I'm increasingly unsure whether that's parody or an accurate look at what the White House was up to in 2001...

[Crunchy Frog]

70. Are you trying to say that we should nuke Iran?

By the way, what sort of pizza toppings do you like?

[TeflonTalons]

83. Gawd, NO!

I think nuking Iran would be a horrible situation.

[Crunchy Frog]

86. But they hate us, and want to destroy us

and they are very clearly and obviously working on getting nuclear weapons. How long do you want to let this situation continue, until they become a nuclear power, and with a radical Shiite Islamist Iraq as their new ally, thanks to Chimpy's incompetence? Are you saying that you intend to just let them nuke us?

[julianer]

77. Personally, I would

advise abiding by international law under all circumstances.

These counterfactual arguments are silly and designed to ease the way for illegal aggression.

[TeflonTalons]

87. Only if you read that into it....

I actually am very conflicted about our going into Iraq. I think, in the future, we're going to have other dilemmas just like that one--and I'm attempting to get feedback, find more information, and hear other opinions about it all.

I didn't think that would be a wrong thing to do.

[neweurope]

88. How can ABYBODY still be "very conflicted about our going into Iraq"?

------------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[TeflonTalons]

92. Because...

I thought Saddam was a monster to his people. At the same time, I don't know whether that gives us the right to remove him from office. It all kind of hinges on what kind of a threat he was to us--and the intelligence on that was obviously quite faulty.

In the future, this issue is going to come up again--with all the same room to be ill-advised. I simply wanted to know where others would draw the line...

In college, we'd sit around in big groups and debate all manner of things. No question was off limits--we kicked around everything.

I thought I could ask anything here, too.

[neweurope]

95. Poor boy. A good rule to go by is

STAY THE HELL OUT OF OTHER COUNTRIES!

If there are problems let the UN handle it. That's what the UN were created for. That's also what the International Court of Law was created for. Of course the USA don't accept that for US-American evildoers.

Start there.

----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[julianer]

97. Then you should be 'conflicted'

about criminality IMO.

If you are so worried about 'other dilemmas' you should be more determined in your support of international law. It is breaking the law by powerful countries that gives the opportunity for 'other dilemmas' to arise.

[ingac70]

102. Hear this from who? Our own government?

I'd call bullshit.

Launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack is not defending oneself, it is initiating the end of the freaking world.

Even the assholes running the "Axis of Evil" don't want that. They are expanding their nuke programs based on your exact arguments, though.

Geesh, the world is full of shitheads.

[rman]

103. Threat of mutual annihilation worked well for decades -

why would it fail now?

At any rate, "preventative" or "precautionary" strike is against international law. And since we're the good guys, we'll follow the law, right?

on edit:
As long as they don't actually attack, we should try find out if and why they really hate us so much.
I just don't buy this "they hate us for our freedoms" or "what we stand for". Can you imagine all or even most Americans wanting to risk their lives trying to exterminate another people simple because all of us hate what they stand for?
It may work like that in a neocon's reality, but not in ours. "The People" never start wars, it's always the (political/economic/financial) leaders who do so.

If push comes to shove and they do launch their nukes at us, then we launch ours.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

104. My opinion is that it's not a question of would you, could you.

The responsibility for eliminating the risk of this happening lies on all of our shoulders. It is up to us to choose a leader who is knowledgeable and well versed in the history and politics of all the nations of the world, especially to those who are hostile to our country. To choose a leader with impeccable credentials and diplomacy skills that are necessary to unite our allies for the purpose of peacekeeping in our fragile world. To choose a leader who displays curiosity and passion and intellect. If WE don't get that right on election day, everything starts to fall apart shortly after.

[fujiyama]

105. In such a situation, good intelligence is key...

If I were in charge of the US in such a situation, I would make an overture of making it clear that the country issuing such threats, is itself not a target and should not consider itself threatened, but I would also make it clear that threats by that country would not be taken lightly and that if any actions were to ever be used against the US that country would a great threat...I hate to use the quote, but "Trust, but verify" comes to mind...

Regarding the development of nuclear weapons by that "other country", it's really a matter of how close that other country is to developing them, whether any weapons could safely destroy any nukes being developed without causing harm to the civilian population, and whether the US itself would face any major retaliation for destroying those nukes. Of course, that's only if the threat was so great and immediate that it required such force. A better route would be to operate through the IAEA in getting that country to be cooperative with inspections. As a concession, the US and other UNSC and nuclear members would agree to cut down the number of nukes, if not commit entirely to the elimination - a bit idealistic, but this situation is pretty nutty regardless...

I suppose, you are trying to relate this to the situation with Israel and Iran. If I were in charge of Israel, I would make it clear that threats my nation's existence would not be taken lightly, but I would make a pledge of refusing to escalate any tensions, and not using a first strike.

In Israel's situation, it will be quite difficult to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, without facing retaliation. It won't be as easy as taking out Osirak. Iran is much more advanced militarily than Iraq was. It has missiles capable of hitting Israel.

I believe Israel has some sort of missile sheild, and of course they are advanced with military technology. They might be able to fend off an attack. But the outrage an attack would bring (along with an increased risk of provoking more terrorist threats), should cause reconsideration from Israel regarding any preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

[zanne]

106. Wow--You're so obvious.

Don't you think that, being members of DU (and some of us for quite some time), we'd know a leading question when we heard one? It's an old tactic and a transparent one. Find a dumber website to troll.

[Binka]

107. He/She/It Got The TombStone

Nasty bit of work that one. Sent me a vulgar disgusting reply that practically begged for Ben to be sent back to Iraq so he could get killed. Oh and he/she/it disparaged my mothering skills and my mouth. Very classy post. Hey TT if you are still reading this...BITE ME!

[maddezmom]

108. locking

OP is no longer with us