2007-08-15 18:37:52 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Those are exactly the kind of nimrods I avoid. It's people like that who refuse to turn the tables and look at it from the opposite position, which makes them completely arrogant and ignorant to a way to correctly and relatively HUMANELY solve issues.
2007-08-15 18:53:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Since the Islamo-Fascists haven't nuked us yet, I will advise against initiating a Nuclear First-Strike against them. We Westerners as a whole should work to help muslim-moderates who want freedom and democracy succeed while the Jihadists are isolated defeated. I'm not sure that we will be successful though and the nightmare scenario illustrated in the Belmont Club Blog's Three Conjectures and Fourth Conjecture comes to mind. A Jihadist Nuclear (or Plague) First Strike would be catastrophic to the Islamic World whether or not the U.S. Government retaliates or not.
The Belmont Club goes into a lot of detail on this scenario.
2007-08-17 00:25:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Our enemies in Iraq are hiding among 10 million Sunnis. Shall we nuke half of Iraq to kill a few thousand men?
Our enemies in Afghanistan are not in Afghanistan, they're in Pakistan, living with hundreds of thousands of Pakistani civilians. Shall we nuke Pakistan?
If it is good for the U.S. to nuke other countries, then it is likewise good for other countries to nuke the U.S. We're not a special people with special rights.
2007-08-16 01:47:45 · answer #3 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It would only create more problems. Hopefully one realizes that the US's adversaries are located in just about every corner of the world. (In fact, one is almost at our doorstep.) Imagine all that nuclear fallout being spread across the globe. ANyone who truly believes this to be the best solution is clearly asinine.
2007-08-16 07:36:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sadistic is the term that must be applied to someone who wanted to nuke the enemies of the US.
2007-08-16 01:45:54 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why would you waste your breath speaking to such people. Their ignorance is only exceeded by their abject stupidity. Might I suggest that anybody who thinks being irresponsible where nuclear weapons are concerned is smart,should read Neville Shutes , "On The Beach." It's nearly 50 years old and is written in a quaint style but it remains one of the greatest horror stories ever written.
2007-08-16 02:06:09 · answer #6 · answered by Ted T 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ask them how they'd feel if our "enemies" -- who, as our enemies, clearly believe we're the bad guys -- were to say that about us? War should remain be between combattants, who signed up to risk themselves. Nuclear bombs take out too many innocent civilians, as well, AND have long-lasting repercussions on the health of vast stretches of the world.
2007-08-16 01:45:15 · answer #7 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I generally ignore them. Those are the comments that only an ignorant person or a flamer would make. I also think it's a sign of cowardice. Some people are so terrified of terrorists, that they believe that even the most extreme measures are acceptable in combating terrorism. These people are consumed by their own fear and want to make it go away. I'm not afraid of them and I think most Americans aren't afraid of them, we can win this fight without having to resort to such extreme measure.
2007-08-16 01:46:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I say they should be exposed to intense UV light for several hours, so they get an idea of what it feels like before the radiation comes back home.
2007-08-16 04:10:26 · answer #9 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If you had asked about Iran, my answer would have been, "Go ahead."
But no, you can't nuke Iraq in the foreseeable future and you can't nuke Afghanistan just yet.
2007-08-16 03:37:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋