Congressman: “Nuke Syria”

he was making a joke, i'd think its obvious but apparently noone can see it in this thread, first f-15 arent attack planes, second nukes are too big for any fighter, third he isnt a pilot.

Originally posted by namehere
he was making a joke, i'd think its obvious but apparently noone can see it in this thread, first f-15 arent attack planes, second nukes are too big for any fighter, third he isnt a pilot.

If there is one thing I have read repeatedly from media sources since 09/11/01 is that nuclear bombs can be put inside briefcases these days. The yield of course would be smaller, but I'm sure you can get a decent sized nuke on an F-15. Especially if you can stuff one inside a briefcase now.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Frith]

I dont see a problem with nuking Syria its what should have happened to Iraq in 2003 alowing the US and its allies to fight the war on terror.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by xpert11]

Originally posted by Frith
If there is one thing I have read repeatedly from media sources since 09/11/01 is that nuclear bombs can be put inside briefcases these days. The yield of course would be smaller, but I'm sure you can get a decent sized nuke on an F-15. Especially if you can stuff one inside a briefcase now.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Frith]

but no nuke bombs that size are designed for any fighter, jyou cant just stuff a suitcase bomb into a bomb casing and use it.

Could it be like a secret message to them like you mess with us WE will NUKE you going out to Syria, N.Korea etc etc?????? its like they are warning them in somany ways but not dam right out politicaly saying mess with us we nuke you to cinders, which i think they cant really say as its not very diplomatic is it?? but the warnings sent non the less through others as it seems to have reached papers an news??

Know what pisses me off? When you have crowds of thousands in Iran screaming "death to america" the same people who are condemming ths congressman for saying "nuke syria" come out and explain how "death to America" doesnt really mean "death to America" it means the Iranians are opposing the US administration in a colorful yet peaceful way. But when a US congressman says "nuke syria" its part of a neo-con plot to take over the world and proof that the US should be disarmed.
You cant have it both ways.
This is war, and I for oneam ready for a Holy Crusade agianst the infidels who wish me dead, not because they waorship a false God, thats thier business, but because they want me dead.

Wage a Holy Crusade, fight for God and Country.

nuke- em all Arab world is a race of people with a very hateful mindse, so true the most thing i hate about them is they wash their ass with their hands and eat after yuck! can you imagain goin with a muslim girl wearing that black thingy ! ~ under the sun .

nuke sirya,nuke iraq nuke em all bush. by the way i wouldnt mind if i pressed the nuke ka Booommmm , i personally believe they are really the problem in the world wouldnt mind seein them all nuked ¬! supportin BUSH cuz he the man

cant wait to hear on the news, BREAKING NEWS AMERICA HAS NUKED EM ALL hahaa



[edit on 2-3-2005 by Mr Alexander]

Ace of base says,

The guy had the nerve to suggest something tantamount to genocide in a Church

Dr funk concurs,

that's genocide!

Look people, i have a personal guidline that i use to keep myself from sounding like an ass....its simple
DONT USE A WORD THAT YOU DONT KNOW THE MEANING OF.

Lets look at genocide
from dictionary.com
gen·o·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Now as im reading this thread, and the cited article, i cant infer anywhere where the congressperson advocated using nukes to commit genocide, he mearly said that with 2 nukes, he could lessen the "worry" from Syria. I never heard him say anything about leaving no survivors.

While its trivially interesting to note that this remark was delivered to a church audience, which appears to have been receptive...whats the problem? Christians cant get mad or harbor feelings that there is an enemy that needs to be dealt with sternly? Please.
Back to inserting things that arent stated eh?

Veltro says,

Imagine if those in charge of the nukes on both sides during the cold war thought like this guy.

Umm i think THEY DID, thats the whole point behind the cold war!!!! The point being we have and WILL USE nuclear weapons.
This is NOT a secret and has been known for many decades.

The use of nukes will and should NEVER be taken off the table as a diplomatic tool (use of force when diplomacy breaks down)
I am NOT saying the USA should make threats with nukes, but that it should be clear that USA policy always includes the option to use a nuke.
I would only reccomend the use of this weapon in a dire straight, and not just because we could.


Part of the feeling many Americans express when saying "nuke em" is one of frustration....we're frustrated that our enemy wouldnt hesitate to do this to us and has said so, yet we restrain ourselves.....
frustration that we are not pursuing a millitary doctrine where the maximum force will be used against legitimate targets to destroy or defeat them.....doing less only prolongs the conflict potential as it allows your enemy to not have to deal with your full capabillities and keeps our troops in harms way longer.
Syria IS a big part of the problem and the world is watching....specifically the USA.....IF they step out of line, i can see millitary action, but not nukes from the USA.

There seem to be two possibilities. The first is that the WMD are destroyed by one means or another and no longer exist. That would make this nothing but a dirty ploy to continue the war. The second is that the government knew from the minute we got into Iraq that Saddam had moved his WMD, but that it was not politically viable to make that claim after being embarrassed once already. Either way would mean that political agendas are getting in the way of the truth which if revealed would make it crystal clear what America should do. Apparently, we the people can not be trusted with the governance of this nation, and so we have no need for information relevant to the decisions facing our government. That's the message I get from Mr. Johnson's comments.

If Mr. Johnson is to be believed, our government falsely admitted to being wrong about WMD in Iraq because they couldn't present the prospect of another war before the election. This would make our government one of liars who endagner our security for their own job security (and that includes democrats, because congress gets intel. too and they haven't blown the whistle). The right thing to do would have been to bring the evidence and say, "here is what our satellites and aircraft have seen, and here is what it means. This is frustrating, this presents problems, but its the truth and we have to formulate our policy based on it. Instead they shrugged their shoulders and said "oops, but we did a good thing for the iraqis anyway. We won, we closed the book on the WMD threat" and that falsely implied a prospect for peace in the next term.

If Mr Johnson isn't to be believed then this all speaks for itself. It would be a very audacious bold faced lie designed to continue a war under false pretenses. This is a major problem. The goal of a military mission dictates the means by which it is carried out. If we go in with another little force just to look for WMD, and it turns into an occupation and rebuilding effort, it is going to be Iraq all over again. Over 100 billion dollars and something like 1500 American lives.

I understand war, I can deal with it, and I'd just as soon not lose at it, but our government owes us the truth so that we can approach it properly. Last but not least, since Mr. Johnson talks such a good fight about getting sent to Iraq, I say we all pitch in to buy him a rifle and a plane ticket and see what he's really made of!

Vagabong conveniantly avoids a third possibillity because it doesnt fit with a blame game,
the 3rd possibillity is that most of the intelligence gathered before the war pointed to nations believing the WMD threat was legit and took actions based on their unanimous UN resolution pretty much saying there was.
Once there we discovered the truth that Saddam was hiding all along but couldnt lose face for saying he DIDNT have any WMD's.
The weapons were either not there or have been moved to syria or other places.

There are many other scenarios i could concoct for 4th 5th and more possibillities here.

Syria can and has made plenty of trouble for itself, it wont take much from the USA to need to show to expose their support of terrorism. One wrong move with the lebanon situation by trying to surpress the protesters and not withdraw will only but Syria closer to having acts taken against them.

Originally posted by CazMedia
]Look people, i have a personal guidline that i use to keep myself from sounding like an ass....its simple
DONT USE A WORD THAT YOU DONT KNOW THE MEANING OF.

The intentional use of WMD's against a small nation like Syria which IS a national group would be genocide. In his dialogue he gave an example of how easy it would be 'drop one or two nukes in an f-15, shut them up' but what he is calling for is the use of nuclear weapons against a particular race that has been made sweeping generalisations of as a nation full of nothing but hatefilled muslim extremists that are terrorists and enemies of america.

Millions would die, without justice, regardless of whether they are innocent or not, men, women and children just because they are of Syrian descent and they reside in Syria.

We can fight on semantics for hours on end but it'll get us nowhere.

You American's may want to justify the use of nuclear weapons with differing opinions on definitions and by saying "they say death to america so it's okay for us to say death to islam" but by doing this you are just making yourself just as bad as those who call for your own death.

You know nothing about the average joe on the street in the Middle East as much as he knows nothing about you. Show some tolerance and understanding, or at least show that you are of better stuff.

I am sick of whingers on this board "islam is nothing but a religion of hate and evil" and post links to junk like free republic and other hatemonging websites that justify your pitiful hatred.

Do you really think muslims don't feel love?? love for their children, their families and their friends? Do you really think they aren't as human as you and as misguided in their hatred?

What have you ever done to show them that Christianity is a religion of love, acceptance and forgiveness? nothing at all. All you do is continue the circle of hate and death.

You do not reach out to your islamic brothers in tolerance and forgiveness of their sins but you all are the cheersquad to support the use of military force against muslim nations. You call for the reaching of the gun to combat their hatred instead of reaching for tolerance, brotherhood and understanding and constructing a better world for all our children.

You need to show these people that you are of better stuff and that their hatred is unfounded and misguided!!! Because they are just as blinded by the use of American bombs and missiles on children as you are by their hatred and use of extremism. Because this is the only way it's going to end, through peace , understanding and constructive relationships.

Reach your hand out to a muslim brother, help him out and you will become his friend. He will love you as his friend and as a brother, as you do love your best friend. If everyone did this the world would be a better place


thanks,
drfunk

Millions would die, without justice, regardless of whether they are innocent or not, men, women and children just because they are of Syrian descent and they reside in Syria.

Should military action be taken against Syria isnt it better that the Syrains are killed rather then American and allied service men?
Note Im not saying America should take military action I am saying nukes are the best option if they do.

Originally posted by xpert11
Should military action be taken against Syria isnt it better that the Syrains are killed rather then American and allied service men?
Note Im not saying America should take military action I am saying nukes are the best option if they do.

It's better that NO-ONE dies. I understand the reasoning for such actions, for instance the logical reasons for using nukes over Japan however it doesn't take away the fact that it was an awful crime against humanity.

thanks,
drfunk

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>YAWN

It's better that NO-ONE dies. I understand the reasoning for such actions, for instance the logical reasons for using nukes over Japan however it doesn't take away the fact that it was an awful crime against humanity.

I argee it would be better if no one had to die but it isnt a perfect world.
If you nuke a military target how is it a crime against humanity?

Originally posted by xpert11
I argee it would be better if no one had to die but it isnt a perfect world.
If you nuke a military target how is it a crime against humanity?

The world is only what we make it Xpert11. Nobody ever has to use nuclear weapons militarily, they should only ever serve as a deterrent for others not to. What people don't realise is that we already live in Eden.

Nuclear weapons usually aren't used to take out military targets. It's much cleaner and I guess much cheaper to use conventional strikes against them.
I'm not saying that they don't get used as a tactical nuke against a carrier battle group would prove very effective. Nuclear weapons are usually used in a strategic role against cities full of innocent people. That is a crime against humanity. The use of a nuclear weapon has a lot of side-effects, so even as you say a use of a nuke against a military target is not a crime, the fallout that spreads on cities and towns is.

thanks,
drfunk



[edit on 2-3-2005 by drfunk]

drfunk the cold war is over so nukes have a less of deterrent role. It might be cheaper to use convental weapons but if you use nukes the target wont be rebuilt in a hurry. Nukes dont have to be used against cities I read somewhere that during the cold war nuclear depth chargers were developed . I see no reason why nukes cant be used to destory military targets. Civilans arent the target but for example if a naval base gets nuked there may be some collateral damage.

Originally posted by xpert11
drfunk the cold war is over so nukes have a less of deterrent role. It might be cheaper to use convental weapons but if you use nukes the target wont be rebuilt in a hurry. Nukes dont have to be used against cities I read somewhere that during the cold war nuclear depth chargers were developed . I see no reason why nukes cant be used to destory military targets. Civilans arent the target but for example if a naval base gets nuked there may be some collateral damage.

But a nuclear weapon, even a tactical one used against a military target releases an incredible amount of radiation and causes charged dust particles in the atmosphere, fallout. This can have major effects on the population and cause a lot of environmental damage not only in the short term but the long term. Nuclear weapons are evil, they should never be used. Nukes still have a major deterrent role, but what has happened today is that there is a new player, small rogue nations and terrorist groups that get hold of nuclear weapons and that use them in a nonconventional way.

Just because the cold war is over is no justification for the use of such weapons. Let's keep it conventional and let's show some principle to never as a people of any nation resort to such things ever again.

Look I really don't want to get into a fight over the legitimacy of nuclear weapons, I have stated my points and you have stated yours, I respect them. I am not in a fighting mood atm

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 2-3-2005 by drfunk]

Only complete idiots that have no clue about long term consequences of nuclear bombs would say or go along with an idea like that. You think throwing a nukes in Syria would not harm the rest of the world? Do these morons want acid rain and nuclear dust for their children and grandchildren? How about some nice mutations?

I presume they cant look that far into the future, as their mind is clouded with nothing but hate. I still think no one in real power is actually that stupid, not even Georgie-boy, Rumsfield on the other hand looks like Dr. Strangelove that likes to play with dangerous weapons, i think it gets him off or something.

TRY VIAGRA MORONS! I hear it works miracles


And still there are people here that will find 101 reasons why droping nukes is OK. Crap, im sharing this planet with some really dangerous individuals, that have no empathy for their victims whatsoever.

Originally posted by nukunuku
Only complete idiots that have no clue about long term consequences of nuclear bombs would say or go along with an idea like that. You think throwing a nukes in Syria would not harm the rest of the world? Do these morons want acid rain and nuclear dust for their children and grandchildren? How about some nice mutations?

I presume they cant look that far into the future, as their mind is clouded with nothing but hate. I still think no one in real power is actually that stupid, not even Georgie-boy, Rumsfield on the other hand looks like Dr. Strangelove that likes to play with dangerous weapons, i think it gets him off or something.

TRY VIAGRA MORONS! I hear it works miracles

And still there are people here that will find 101 reasons why droping nukes is OK. Crap, im sharing this planet with some really dangerous individuals, that have no empathy for their victims whatsoever.

your compassion warms my heart nukunuku