Originally posted by Backtothemac
You know the only person that has posted anything with intellegence in this thread is Duke. You people just don't friggin get it do you. For the love of God, open your eye and see the stupidity of your statements.
First peter, you are saying that Bush said that, and he did not. That is a strategy report, and they are issued to the executive branch of the government by no less than 10 different agencies in the government. Furthermore, what would you have us do if Saddam used a WMD against us, all hold hands and sing peace on earth? Lets see, you have a madman using chemical and biological weapons and you want us to send in more Americans so they can get toasted? Wait, where not supposed to be there. But wait, if he uses WMD's then is he not in violation of the UN resolutions? Would we not be justified in being there?
Look, i don't like nukes anymore than the next Republican 
, but you have to understand that nuclear retaliation is justified, and would be used.
You don't have to have a slide ruler to figure that one out. For real, wake up and smell the roses people.
Real nice. The warmonger has spoken.
So lets say we decide to use force against Iraq in the coming months or year. Subsequently, Iraq uses a chemical or biological weapon (mustard gas?? We know he has that and yet is not in violation of the UN doctrine.) on our troops (or allied troops).
What do we do then? Admittedly, the action of using bio or chemical weapons is a VERY bad thing. But would that justify using nukes? Who would we nuke?? Would we drop one Baghdad to get Saddam? How many innocent people would that kill? How is that amount of collateral damage not considered terrorism?
In other words, how can you justify ending millions of innocent people's lives as a consequence for a military action--no matter how horrible--against our troops. And especially when the military action against our troops was preceeded by a US military strike against Iraq. And ESPECIALLY if our action happened without the UN's approval. That has "warcrime" written all over it.
I would argue that nuclear retaliation is NEVER justified and should never be used. Further, US action against Iraq is not justified. They pose no threat (from credible and public sources) to the US or its troops outside of the Mid-East as they have little to no means of delivery for any of their weapons to our soil. How are they our problem? I've been saying this from the beginning.
And splitting hairs over who said what from the report is asinine. It is a policy approved and adopted by this administration, the head of whom is...Bush! Even if Bush didn't say it, he supports and endorses it. Period.
Maybe YOU should open up your eyes and smell the roses of a more peaceful reality that are swaying silently below your olfactory senses. You hawks won't be happy until the world has bent to the US's will and serves our short-sighted and petty needs. I don't want to see a world in which that happens.
Taft
