Should America fight this war against our enemy on they're terms ?

Question

Question is asked because, Japan wanted nothing to do with a war after the (2) 2 bombs were dropped. I feel that if we stop fighting a war, based on morality against a foe that has none, and start putting they'er women and children in body bags, that this might end very quickly. Ever heard of low level Nuke warhead ? Think if we just leveled Iraq, with one, then let Syria, Iran, North Korea and the rest of the enemy know we are actually serious about "ALL MEANS" including these weapons, that the tide would change in a heartbeat. How about sailing a rocket over japan to N. Korea and letting it drop 100 miles or so off the coast ? Think that would get attention ? There is enough weapons on (1) one of the (7) seven aircraft carriers to end this war in less then a week. Thank God I am not President.

Answer 1

Which country do you plan to nuke? The terrorists are borderless.
The nation of Japan was at war with us when we dropped the bomb on their cities, and the destruction from that war prior to those 2 bombs destroyed countless cities and hundreds of thousands of lives, not 2 buildings.

We have no nation with which we are at war, and the only government and military in Iraq is the one we put there.

Thank God you are not President, indeed.
The world would unite against us if we nuked a country to 'show' somebody we could.

Answer 2

I would advocate this approach if it werent for the very delicate condition of the world. On a planet where so many countries have nukes and many more are getting there, its easy to think about laying nuclear fallout over the middle east, but that would probably provoke a lot more people than just iraq.

I do think that geneva convention was the most idiotic thing every imagined by men. They say "its a step in the right direction." But unfortunately, iraq, afghanistan and terrorists arent bound by idiotic rules. War is terrible, and we should let it be so terrible that people will do anything end the very idea of it. Instead of dumbing it down so it can continue while we feel a little better that its now more "humane"

Answer 3

You mean "THEIR" terms?
..."they're" means "they are"!
"There IS enough"?
...You mean to say "There ARE enough" weapons!

Educate yourself.

What about the consequences to the environment? Did you consider the repercussions of contaminated water and the lost natural resources? Do you believe nuclear fallout will stop at the boarder and not continue on to our allies in Israel or Europe or have damaging consequnces in the good ol' USA?

You cannot process crude oil that is radioactive!!!

Damn good thing you are not the president!

PS: Bush should have attacked our real enemy, (his families X-business partner Bin Laden), not the empty-promise bully Saddam (that Ronald Reagan created, remember the Iran-contra scandal?).

All Bush did was send a message to weak nations that if they do not acquire the means to protect themselves, they will be put at risk. Thus, Bush pushed the "axis of evil" countries to obtain nuclear weapons. Now we must deal with the consequences for years to come.

The world cannot afford YOUR foreign policy!

Answer 4

I understand your point but to do so would mean to lose what little morality Americans do still have. We can't. You are talking about killing women and children. The killing won't stop there, that is why revenge happens.

Answer 5

we lost over 56 thousand in Vietnam and didn't do it. I guess that would be a last resort but I like your thinking.

Answer 6

you think