War
Muslim extremist started a war with us and the general consensus is that they will soon obtain nuclear weapons. When this happens, they will use this weapon to destroy New York, Washington, or some other major U.S. city.
Maybe Denver. Maybe multiple cities at the same time. They will do this because they believe we will not retaliate. They truly believe they will defeat the United States and the rest of the world in their religious war.
During the cold war, the United States and Soviet Union were both ready, willing, and able to destroy each other with nuclear weapons. As crazy as it sounds, this threat of mutual destruction is what kept both countries from attacking the other. It was imperative that our plan was announced in advance - keeping our plan a secret wouldn’t have been a deterrent.
In order to save our country, the president and every presidential Candidate should tell the American People (and the rest of the world) what they will do if we are attacked by weapons of mass destruction by these religious fanatics in their attempt at world domination. If necessary, we should be prepared to destroy every city in the world that protects, supports, or harbors terrorist. I know a lot of innocent people would be killed, but how many innocent people in the United States will be killed and how many would have been killed if we would have gone to war with the Soviet Union? We must be prepared to go to war to save our country - otherwise, others will start a war and we will be defeated.
This letter has not been edited.
Don't be so scared; how exactly will Muslim extremists launch a nuclear weapon on the US, much less on a major city? There is no Muslim country in the world that has that capability, much less bands of terrorists hiding in caves.
Posted by Roy on July 12, 2007 02:58 PMHarry Whitenight needs counseling. Bad. I expect the people in London and Paris might have some objection to our nuking those cities because there are some terrorists there. He makes Bush look like a saint. If it weren't for free speech, it might be illegal for people to aid and abet the terrorists as Whitenight is doing. But we probably should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he just wants to see what being a provocateur feels like.
Posted by Truth on July 12, 2007 03:36 PMRoy,
I don’t mean this in a cutting, insulting way, but I think you are naive if you think that terrorists could not obtain a nuclear device. Besides, weapons of mass destruction are not just nuclear. So, even if it’s not a nuke, they could yet obtain or produce some biological or chemical devices (which are other forms of WMD) that would be extremely deadly. I think you might be lulled into the belief that because they have values from the caveman days that they don’t have the intellect to use modern technology.
Truth,
He never used the work “nuke” when he referred to destroying every city that protects, supports, or harbors terrorists. But you might ask the people in Europe how comfortable they are these days with the Muslim flood that has occurred there.
so why doesnt bush, oh, I don't know, maybe try to secure loose nuclear materials? Oh right. That would require leadership.
Furthermore, how are "we" going to destroy every city, and what would that accomplish? It would ensure america's downfall, no doubt.
Posted by Tbone on July 12, 2007 05:36 PMWhen one serves the "PEOPLE", there are never any "Acts of God". Accountability, responsibility, and oversight. The Pearl Harbor attack happened, soley due to the negligence, malingering, and shirking of his official duties, by FDR. The same is true for Bush and 9/11. A leopard doesn't change his spots. When NAM boke-out, Bush broke for Barbara's dresstail. When America was attacked in the east, Bush flew AF1 northwest, again, to protect his own "buns".
FELON PARDONS FELLOW FELON (Scooter). Bush is a UCMJ-felon (illegal separation and discharge) and 40 year AWOLee and deserter.
FELON APPOINTS FELLOW FELON. Judge Alito is also a UCMJ-felon (illegal separation and discharge) and 30+ year AWOLee and deserter. Alito joie the US Army's ROTC program and his JD/undergrad college degrees (7 years), courtesy of taxpayer funded scholarships. Alito incuurred a 11 year active duty military service obligation as a result of these "gifts". Like Boy-George, Alito blew off his active duty military service obligation. Alito's ruse for blowing off his obligation is that he was a federal law clerk. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), doesn't mention federal law clerk. Therefore, Alito should be sentenced to 3 years in federal prison. Ill address Uncle Mitty tomorrow.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandvetbennies on July 12, 2007 05:47 PMDo Uncle Mitty (surrender monkey, communist-sider, and draft dodger) owe us 3 years in federal prison? When NAM broke-out, Mitt (separation of church and state) broke for his Mormon mission. His pappy was a cabinet member in the Nixon administration. Elijah Muhammad (Muhammad Ali's religious advisor) sought a religious draft deferment and he was rewarded by being sentenced to 3 years in a federal prison. His son, Wallace D. Muhammad (1960"s), sought a religious draft deferment, and he too was sentenced to 3 years in federal prison. The SLC Mormon Church has referred to me and members of my tribe, as "black devils". Rev. Al Sharpton, keep on apologizing to these racist "freak-a-zoids".
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandvetbennies on July 12, 2007 05:55 PMMountain Cat: "Truth,
He never used the work “nuke” when he referred to destroying every city that protects, supports, or harbors terrorists."
Darn, you are right, Cat. He said "destroy" instead of nuke. You think people don't mind being destroyed but they just don't want to be nuked? Good point.
Posted by Truth on July 12, 2007 07:19 PMHarry Whitenight 's letter is soooo 2003 -- I love vintage stuff, even if you call be a sentimental fool. Those were good times back then, thanks for helping bring back happy memories.
Posted by on July 13, 2007 07:39 AMRoy: You can smuggle the components of a small nuke in a few suitcases or boxes from Mexico or whereever. Truth: Does everyone who disagrees with you need counseling. This letter was well presented and you revert to your typical spiteful attacks that do nothing to advance a debate but only make all your arguments look silly.
Posted by on July 13, 2007 07:39 AMWe must be prepared to go to war to save our country...
No one will dispute this as a general statement. But given the worst-case scenarios that the letter-writer conjures he would also have to admit that America, now with its military sapped in a quagmire, a $500B tab for Iraq, isolated in world opinion, and deeply divided at home is at its most vulnerable, financially, militarily and politically to 'save our country' should it come to that.
Any litmus test the letter writer requires for candidates should include the requirement that they denounce the Bush administration as the most incompentently destructive in terms of national security that America has seen in generations.
Posted by on July 13, 2007 07:47 AMMr.Whitenight said ” Muslim extremist started a war with us and the general consensus is that they will soon obtain nuclear weapons.”
Not so fast there mister.
Are you saying that because you think the Sassenid capture of Jerusalem in 614 CE marks the start of a war with the US, or are you saying that the US inherited the conflict between the British Empire and the Ottomans?
If you aren’t using those as starting points then you would have to explain why you think “they” started it. After all, we chose to inherit all the meddling that the Brits had been up to in the Middle-east, including the CIA overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadeq. Perhaps the silliest involvement was dumping the jihadists once we no longer needed them in Afghanistan, and continuing to have bases in Saudi Arabia and providing weapons and support for a handful of nasty dictators in the Middle-east.
All the propaganda we used to stir up fundamentalists against the Russians promptly bit us in the arse.
So the claim that “they started it” isn’t going to wash well because we have been up to our eyeballs messing around in “their” backyard for ages, and voluntarily took over from the Brits who had been in there even longer. To cap it, the selfsame jihadists that are now baying for our blood are the ones we revved up and mobilized against the Russians, and they are upset about exactly the same reasons we gave them for hating the Russians.
Now the nuke part really is a concern, and we have made this way more risky by doing three interestingly short-sighted things.
Firstly we pursued technology for compact nuclear weapons for MIRV technology to push the Soviets into spending resources into keeping up.
Then when the Soviets broke up, we decided not to fully fund the operation to secure fissile material, weapons information, and even worse, the weapons and scientists themselves.
Finally, we failed to pay attention to what our friend Pakistan was up to and they went nuclear and then started exporting weapons information and materials to other countries.
It is actually quite a wonder that compact nukes have not wound up in the hands of clandestine and guerilla groups up to now. It isn’t for lack of money, availability of the weapons, or difficulty in the concept.
One conclusion is that these groups don’t actually want them.
Another is that the joint US, Russian, and European intelligence services have been 100% successful in thwarting attempts to procure and use these backpack-sized systems.
Feel free to decide which one to believe, but if there is any lesson in all this it is that we and the Brits stink at geopolitics and should sit on our hands the next time we are tempted to overthrow somebody or incite some group of crazies to achieve some Machiavellian goal that we think we want.
We suck at this game, and we should stop it before we get hurt … oh, we already did, didn’t we?
geting more of them to hate us is always a good idea
Posted by just sayin' on July 13, 2007 12:51 PMjust sayin'
While I think it’s a totally outlandish idea to begin blasting away at any and all cities in the Middle East, I think I'd rather have them hate us and fear us than have them come over here to kill us.
One the other hand, the letter writer did have a good point that the major reason why the Soviets didn’t attack us is that while they hated us their fear for us was even greater because they thought we were nuts enough to completely destroy them. There is a guy I used to work with that seemed so vicious that nobody ever messed with him. It turned out that much of what he said about his military career (time in Vietnam, CIA agent, etc) was a total fabrication. He may not have ever harmed anyone at all, but his demeanor was such that he was treated like unstable dynamite.
Luckily the Soviets finally backed down. They seemed to be more level headed than the nut-cases we are dealing with today. The radical Muslims get outraged if someone claims they are a violent group. And to show how wrong someone is about that, they will vent their outrage by going out and decapitating people.
Truth,
I thought the point you were trying to make is that if we did nuke Middle Eastern cities it might create nuclear fallout in Europe. I sure as heck would not want that to happen. But then again, if we begin destroying the Middle East with conventional weapons the first place Middle Eastern people would likely run to would be Europe. That’s not a good option, either.
Mr.Cat said ” One the other hand, the letter writer did have a good point that the major reason why the Soviets didn’t attack us is that while they hated us their fear for us was even greater because they thought we were nuts enough to completely destroy them.”
Yup, this is the Kissinger “madman” doctrine. Luckily as you pointed out, the Soviets were rational and didn’t play out the same game plan. In fact, if it wasn’t for a single dissenting Soviet sub-commander during the Cuban missile crisis, our cities would now be molten glass. We owe our lives not to the madman doctrine but to Commander Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov but for whom few of us would be alive today.
The problem is that if we stick to this game plan, eventually we must encounter an actual madman with big enough weapons to doom us, or a “normal accident” leads to mutual annihilation with an adversary that simply is reacting to our posturing. We have already escaped at least one such mistake when Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov prevented us from being turned into vapor in 1983.
I would say that two saves by foreigners is enough, wouldn’t you?
Contained in this thread is all the information anyone needs to understand why we're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.Start with 40 acres,etc.As an African-American,he's angry,angry,angry-and for good reason.When one considers that the Serbs are still excercised about atrocities committed upon them some six centuries ago,it's pretty logical to figure that America's largest persecuted minority will stay angry for a very long time.That persecution has inflicted subtle but real damage on the national mindset.Out of shame at what has been done,we have decided that racism is the vilest of sins.Racism does have a usefulness,however: If a people goes to war,it is easier to damage the enemy if they can be seen as the Other,the non-human,perhaps even demons from Hell.Because of our history,we can't allow ouselves to view our enemies as non-human,so we can't fight very effectively.
They have no such handicap,and use racist/religious hate as a most effective weapon against us. I do sort of wish that those who excoriate America for its sins would reserve just a little of that anger for the hideous deeds of the enemy.
Something strange happened during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iranian troops were told, and believed, that bullets would pass harmlessly through them because their religious leaders told them so.
I am afraid some Muslims might think that Allah will protect them from radiation. Hopefully the leaders know better.
But some nut job with radioactive material not only doesn`t care if he and even other Muslims get nuked along with us.
I don`t see how the Iranians leader would think he could nuke Israel and not get the fallout eventually.
Has anyone heard something on this subject? Would appreciate any info. Thanks.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 15, 2007 10:45 AMSharon,I'm not completely sure what the reality is, but I think the threats are partly propaganda,meant to scare the Israelis-and us.....If one stops to consider the utter ruthlessness of Islamic doctrine in the context of the antiquity(and consequent,ahem,situational ethics) of the Persian culture,believing that their leaders would lie and bluster to the rest of the world is fairly easy.The other side of that coin is the Israelis.If Israeli Intelligence believed that a nuclear threat was imminent,or even likely,there's no doubt that they would act quickly.They've done it before.
Posted by Jimminy on July 15, 2007 11:31 AMBollocks Jimminy, complete and utter bollocks.
Bigotry makes it easier to be cruel, but it doesn’t improve the ability to fight with intelligence and either tactical or strategic effectiveness.
Bigotry blinds.
Dunno about that,Bango.Sure worked on Japan. I kinda remember reading about "The Huns" in WW1 writings,too.Non-persuasive?OK.....But are you absolutely sure and can you stone guarantee the Islamics won't pull the trigger?I just think a little preparedness might be a good idea,and I definitely think Harry's suggestion about vigorous and constant examination of the candidates is very well-founded."Bollocks" might be English shorthand for a comprehensive and oh-so-to-the-point disquisition that will immediately enlighten us all to the blindingly beautiful logic of adopting "Not for Country,not for King" here at home against a fanatical enemy who says he wants to destroy us. How'd that work for the Brits?
Posted by Jimminy on July 16, 2007 12:43 AMActually Jimminy, bigotry was what made the Japanese think they were superior, and it made them vulnerable because of their bitter disregard for the round-eyes. It is also what made the US imprison thousands of Japanese-American citizens who could have provided invaluable information and assistance and this probably cost a few thousand US lives.
Bigotry was what gave the Brits a drubbing at Isandlwana, and lost them the first Boer war. It also got the French a thrashing by the Germans because they thought the Germans unequal to the great French army and the Maginot line.
It got the Brits a beating by Rommel’s forces in North-Africa, and then got Rommel’s forces a beating at the hands of the South-Africans, and it’s what got the Germans a route at Stalingrad. Bigotry got the Portuguese a whupping in Angola and Mocambique, and is what doomed the French in Indochina. Same as what got the US a taste of humility in the same place.
Being cocksure and thinking the “other guy” is some inferior species of human, or thinking them demons increases the likelihood of failure. If you think they are inferior you will be poorly prepared, and if you think they are demons then you will be too cautious or overprepare in the wrong areas.
Talking about “fanatics” is a mistake and doesn’t give an accurate depiction of the reality.
Our current methods make things worse for us, not better, and your prescription for a little bigotry to help things along would simply make us waste resources and engage in inhumane treatment of people who we think might be the “enemy”. This kind of behaviour is unlikely to bleed resources and support for the real enemy, and is more likely to be a recruiting bonanza for them.
Maybe,maybe not,but I think we're getting somewhere.There is a difference between thinking the enemy an inferior breed of human,as did the Maginot-era French,and seeing them as a kind of dangerous and intelligent species of non-human,as we did with the Nazis (and by extension all Germans during the war and for a little while after their surrender) as well as the Japanese. While your point about the Nisei internment as a civil rights catastrophe is well taken,one must also observe that we did not throw any of them into the ovens.We also had no problems with sabotage in the areas of former Nisei population.One must further observe that our present distaste for the Nisei internment is partly driven by the ferocious bravery of the Nisei soldiers in Italy and elsewhere,who showed that they were the best kind of Americans and most worthy of much better treatment than they got.HOWEVER,that assessment could only have been made after the fact,and could not have been made at all had the powers that be not extended the opportunity to serve.
I do stick to the idea that fanaticism should be called by that name when it manifests itself.I'm a little chagrined,though,at seeing the PC media not using the word"Kamikazi" in reporting suicide attacks,and I'd suggest that Japanese kamikazi attacks in WW2 had a good deal to to with the decision to use atomics on that country.Postwar information on Japanese resistance preparations as well as Soviet invasion plans show that that decision was the very best possible choice.
What bothers me about the current debate is that since we're not in a good old-fashioned set piece shooting war,we sort of fumble around and don't take advantage of the opportunities we have to score public relations victories.For example,the video of Daniel Pearle's head being chainsawed off should have been all over network news,as should the video of the people jumping off the Twin Towers and falling,hand in hand,for a thousand feet.As well as Israeli footage of mangled women and children(civilians all) blown to pieces by Islamic kamikazi suicide bombers,some of them children themselves.If we would allow ourselves to see the mayhem perpetrated by the enemy,maybe those here at home who say we're the bad guys might have a reason to moderate their views.Perhaps not,but those who do think we're the good guys might have a reason to restrain those who don't.I always did think that if President Richard Nixon had tasked Attorney General Mitchell with vigorously prosecuting Jane Fonda for treason( remember the pix of Miss Fonda manning the anti-aircaft cannon?),we'd have been spared Watergate and its legitimization of disrespect for mainstream America and the canonization of those who would trash us.
Jimminy - Help us out and break your dissertations into paragraphs for easier reading!
Posted by carl on July 16, 2007 07:27 PMOK.Thanks.
Posted by Jimminy on July 16, 2007 08:06 PMJimminy. That should have been.
OK.
Thanks.
simply could not resist. Love s.b.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 16, 2007 08:16 PMJimminy said ” Postwar information on Japanese resistance preparations as well as Soviet invasion plans show that that decision was the very best possible choice.”
Really?
So their women and children were also demons that needed to be exterminated and the loses and long term suffering due to cancers and birth defects was an entirely acceptable cost from your point of view.
Splendid, so that leads us to two direct inferences:
- You have no moral objections to the Jihadists bombing our civilian populations
- You aren’t a Christian
My view is that we created a precedent that we may yet rue, since some day that precedent might be used by somebody else to vaporize entire US cities on the grounds that we are just a bunch of madmen who cannot be reasoned with.
”… we sort of fumble around and don't take advantage of the opportunities we have to score public relations victories…”
Public relations aimed at whom?
Let’s be straight here bud, the American public are the prime target of the US media, and the Arabic media focus on the Arabic population. Both try a little foreign targeting but minimal really. It is amazing at how effective they really are in shaping perceptions.
Look at how many Americans think that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, that WMD were found, that the rest of the world were fully behind the invasion, and that the Iraqi population mostly want us there.
Likewise al Jazira says nothing about reconstruction attempts, humanitarian attempts, and the attempts by US forces to provide security.
We say nothing about the 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq, they say nothing about how the real fight is between rival groups to gain ascendancy.
It is important to understand that “they” don’t see us as the biggest objective to attack, they see us mainly as a tool to provide recruiting against the current leaders who they don’t like. The US death toll is very low and the Iraqi toll very high mainly because we aren’t the primary target.