Would we nuke the middle east?

Well, a whole lot more NOW than there were before we invaded Iraq!
Unfortunately, after a misguided Middle East policy kills a few 100,000 people, regardless of fault,
there will certainly be a whole new generation of people who aren't very fond of Western
civilization.

Fear of family reprisal is what keeps men like Bin Laden protected,
but most CAN be bought for a price.

Well heres what the goverment would do straight from the people that know what they are talking about. From Larry Johnson, a former terrorism expert at the State Department.

"the options are everything from conventional air strikes to cruise missiles up to and including tactical nuclear weapons."

Thats pretty plain and simple I think

www.fourthfreedom.org...

First of all,it would have GRAVE effects in the US...as you persive it happening..that is..
2'nd there's Russia,China,N.Korea,Pakis...,Iran..etc,etc...all with Nuks...
this is as close we managed to c
ome again to the Cuban Misil crisi ,,,,Again I SAY..but this time it's not JFK .Who by the way handled it best even though he might have been HigH!! yes that's right....
We shall all loose from such a great happening!! let's not kid ourselves!!

I guess you didnt look into the link I provided "The U.S. Air Force is quietly spending millions of dollars investigating ways to use a radical power source -- antimatter,"

Keep laughing as they are spending millions on it right now. Its real enough for the airforce but hey believe whaever you want. I just provided the information.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Cant debate this like a adult without this childish BS? What a mature post

Let's see,

Living 50 miles from D.C. should give me just enough time to cover myself
with sunblock 2000, grab the shades, grab the woman, a lawn chair, a few Margaritas
and hope like hell the wind is blowing from West to East!

Could someone translate this into english please?


[edit on 14-11-2004 by Amuk]

Bunker Busting?? Which bunkers is he taling about this Larry guy...
The ones in Afgan..Which by the way were never there to start with..!
I did'nt read the whole article but i get the picture he's painting..It's a surrealistic one ..right!!

Thats what the guy said and I would say he knows better then any of us. Unless you happen to be a terrorism expert at the State Department by any chance?

If you are not please tell me why you would know more about it then this guy. I mean you thought anti-matter was only in star-trek even though it actually exists and has been intensively studied by physicists since the 1930s.




[edit on 14-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]

How self-centered... most Moslems didn't react because, guess what, a lot of countries in the Middle East have gone through years of Intifada, attacks, coups and so on. They're USED to it. Why should they react specifically because it happened on American soil?

Yes, 9/11 was a horrible tragedy, but if you'd look up from your navel you'd see there are massacres and tragedies happening all over the world.

I think that no matter how hard people try to say it is otherwise this is not anything like a 'world war' as we knew it to be.

In a war where the 'threat' previously was from the axis or imperial powers as they were, the nuclear option was - with on-going reservations (to say the least) - accepted.....especailly as 'the race' was between us and them over who got it 1st.

I can see no possible justification for the use of nuclear weapons unless one is or they are (or genuine equivelent 'WMD) first used against against 'us'.

Sorry but IMO fighting many gangs of zealots armed with kalasnikovs, motars, and suicide car and truck bombs in parts of Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia and Africa just isn't a World War.

It's bad enough but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, WW3.

......and 9/11 for all it's genuine horror and tragedy isn't a night blitz bombing campaign lasting months and years either.

It's not a World War and I can see no justification for first use of nuclear weapons.

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

....and many Muslim countries did send messages of condolence after 9/11. Iran included.

Some might even say this was surprising and have expected a very muted response considering the conduct USA in supporting Israel's, at times, outrageous 'terrorist' behaviour in the ME over the years.





[edit on 15-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Me neither thats why I said if we were hit first. Do you think we would NOT strike back?

Ok whatever, it seems that all they had to say was "gee we are sorry that 3000 people were murdered" meanwhile, the people are dancing in the streets.

B.S. - They were not truly sorry for it, hell some of the 19 came through Iran and since Iran did not mark Saudi Passports, no one knew.

Edsinger - can you really be sure that people filmed dancing in the streets after 9/11 really represented a majority? A camera angle can imply many things... we never knew how many people were there when Saddam's statue was toppled. It might have been 300... it might have been 30.

Besides... it's obvious that in our sensationalist world, some people dancing in the street because of 9/11 makes better TV than people mourning it. It's a clear editorial choice.

The 3000 were murdered by their own government, the street dancers were celebrating some other occasion, the 19 were invented by the not-so-intelligence services within the wake. Iran has nothing to do with it
Do get back on the point and less of the old lies please

Are you kidding what other occasion did they just happen to be celebrating?

Also alittle proof for any of your claims would be nice, Our should we just believe whatever you say

Sorry - your wrong. America has a very good nature - right now we believe that we can live together in peace with the ME/muslim world. The moment a nuke goes off in a US city that feeling will be gone INSTANTLY.

It will be more of a matter of "do we use B-2's dropping GPS guided nuclear bombs, Minutemen II missles in the mid west, SSBN launched nukes, or should we try out that new anti-matter death bomb that we can't test in New Mexico because it would blow up the whole state?"

Think about it - at that point the politics will FORCE the US to use nukes, otherwise we show weakness. So we nuke Iran and Syria at least.

Keep thinking that the US won't use nukes to retaliate - if it makes you feel better about your pathetic, low life, scum of the earth terrorist brothers then keep thinking it.

I can promise you though that the WORST thing for every muslim in the world would be to nuke the US. It would send a GIANT wake up call to the rest of the world that Muslims are a danger to world stability.

At that point you could expect the largest backlash the world has ever known.

EDIT: to add in the anti-matter bomb.

BTW people, discount the development of such a weapon at your own risk. If the AF is willing to poor millions into it instead of it's other toys (F/A-22, F-35 etc) I think you should take it as serious as cancer. The US military doesn't have a trillion dollars to blow on cool future weapons like it did during the 80's. If they are willing to spend money on it is because it is doable in their eyes, and we all know that what the US military wants it gets.....

[edit on 14-11-2004 by American Mad Man]

Guess I'll state this again...

"...policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and
hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

Do unto others before they do unto you...

The US will not use nuclear weapons when aggression can be stopped by conventional (non-nuclear) means. Do you know why? Because that statement is part of the plan.

Laying aside everything else do you HONESTLY believe GW Bush would NOT nuke a few random cities if nothing else? I know the Policy used to be called a measured response (or something like that) in other words as long as they dont use nukes we dont. When they do we do. It would be easy enough to fordge if need be documents to show they were helping the Enemy.

We invaded Iraq under even less cause