If we get nuked?

[Eadora]

Yoh! M45510G1C,

I respect your thought.

If anybody feels that the present administration is not involved in interventionist policy.

I would ask them to acquaint themselves with the policies of:

Edited December 22, 2004 by Eadora

[ted]

And remember, Jesus was more than willing to die, he could have fought the Romans with violence and escaped, but He choose to lay down His life in peace. I hate to think what followers of Christ would do if He had waited until now to perform such a sacrifice. I can see it now, a cross on a hill, a man on that cross, ready to peacefully die for the world's sins, when suddenly bombs rain from the sky, engulfing everyone nearby in flames, killers and innocent alike......

Uh..M4, Christ was sent to us to die, remember? He could no more choose to escape His purpose than I could vote for John Kerry. Remember His Prayer asking God to "take this cup" from Him? Never the less, He went on to do the Father's will.

It just wasn't in the plan. He had to lay down and die, so that He could raise again and pay the debt for us all.

Have we been sent here to die by the hands of muslim extremists?

You have brought up some very interesting points in the course of these debates in the past, but this one is impossible to justify.

Peace,

t.

BTW- His death was in no way "peaceful". Where do you get the images of bombs raining down, engulfing everyone nearby in flames?

You're inventing images of something that could have never happened.

[dgolvach]

Wow! I started this topic 6 weeks ago and still going. I live in Houston. A major port full of refineries. A good target I would think. I suppose if we get the old nuke treatment you guys will have to decide for me.

Dan

[Eadora]

Yoh Rebel

It was my contention

That to push the button on all the possibilities, would be to adopt the policy,

[Ovedya]

Be reminded who we serve, saints. Don't make me edit posts here. It's not something I enjoy doing.

~O

[dgolvach]

Ovedya,

I don't think sending ICBMs just anywhere is the proper responce. However, their are a few countries that allow and even push these Islamic schools that stir the pot. Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran are a few I can think of. Maybe they should be told that if they can't control their little Islaminazis than they can expect us to do what ever it takes to protect ourselves and I would not take tactical nukes off the table. We really won't have time to go door to door trying to weed out nuke terrorists.

Regards

Dan

[Ovedya]

Ovedya,

    I don't think sending ICBMs just anywhere is the proper responce. However, their are a few countries that allow and even push these Islamic schools that stir the pot. Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran are a few I can think of. Maybe they should be told that if they can't control their little Islaminazis than they can expect us to do what ever it takes to protect ourselves and I would not take tactical nukes off the table. We really won't have time to go door to door trying to weed out nuke terrorists.

Regards

Dan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dan,

I think you've confused me with another poster. I did not advocate nuking anybody.

[dgolvach]

Dan,

I think you've confused me with another poster. I did not advocate nuking anybody.

Ovedya, I doubt anyone really wants to see the dreaded mushroom cloud. I realize you feel this way. My point was that the certain nations that breed Islamic terror should concider themselves targets for retaliation by us if we get nuked by some of the nut cases that graduated from their schools. The thing for them to do is simple. Stop it. Enough with the Islaminazi Schools. They put everyone at risk. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists,even most Muslims. Tactical nukes would be a reasonable responce in my view if they send a atomic terrorist over here. The best way to not be a suspect is to not allow "Terrorist Schools" in your country. Then if we get hit we won't have to look at your country as a possible target.

Dan

[Arthur Durnan]

Politically speaking, it is imperative that America do precisely what it's doing: pursue the Muslim mass-murderers to their place of training (Afghanistan) & obliterate them. This is a time of (real) war, not some socialists' - read Kennedy, Kerry, Hillary - imagination. And, of course, the capture of mad-dog Saddam H. was A-Plus. He had already employed WMD against his own kith & kin as well as the Iranians. Ask the Kurds how they felt.

President Bush's re-election was a God-send over Kerry. I picture President Bush alongside a Roosevelt & a Churchill. For starters, America is much safer by this one factor alone than if the Senator from Massachusetts had won. But America must intensify its home-ports protection. Plus deal with the many thousands of Muslim IMMIGRANTS seeking U.S. entry. What Islam cannot do via warfare, it can seek to do via IMMIGRATION. ITEM: France, Germany inundation by Muslims. Start by drastically reducing, if not elimination Muslims from "studying" in the U.S. National profiling is surely necessary....racial profiling as well. Those who seek to do no harm to America will not have reason to complain. Examine this observer for starters. National security will always & ever come far before privacy concerns. How can privacy concerns be considered when one is indubitably murdered? Excellent query indeed.

Continue to radically alter U.S. forces' make-up with this new type of conflict in mind. Get the ultralib news media elite out of Iraq for six months. That'll halt Al Jazeera-type reporting militating against America & its courageous troops. Employ military tribunals re Muslim terrorists and where found guilty, execute without delay. Strategic warfare times require strategic wartime responses minus a legion of advocates & delays. And why all the delay, delay, delay re that Iraqi mass-murderer's trial? Isn't America simply giving him & his fellow-vermin ample time to stir up further anti-American & anti-liberty dissent? Withhold any & all monetary, diplomatic and/or trade,etc. connections re European states standing opposed to the protection of America. Exit the disastrous U.N. (better DIVIDED Nations) and build a new Union of Freedom-Loving Nations with America & Britain in the forefront. Send Kofi Annan back to Ghana forthwith. And cease kow-towing to Canada, an ultralib country which contributes nothing much at all, but desires much from America in return starting with Canada's call to be protected by the U.S. in case of war.

Get serious with Syria & its porous border with Iraq. Send them a strategically-placed message as a vivid reminder of America's military might. Keep every option "on the table." And keep Hillary C. from ever becoming a President of any entity except perhaps "The Center For Reproductive Choice In America."

GOD BLESS AMERICA! LIBERTY FOR IRAQ!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Guest Hasek]

After spending the better part of a hour, reading this thread, I wonder just what the point is?

Yes if the United States was hit with a nuclear weapon, we would get some pay back. But to launch against people with out knowing a target would be suicide on our part.

We would go form being justified in our endeavor to ferret and hunt this evil called

Edited December 22, 2004 by Hasek