It is a matter of order.

WE WENT into Iraq and freed the people.

Now, the liberals are trying to roast those with the noble ideal. So the question to them (and which they avoid like the plague):

Ok, so do we nuke em to take care of the problem?

No more loss of American life that way. And no more problem.

The other way - freedom and eliminating terrorists - costs lives. American ones.

So you are left with 3 points of view.

1. Free them! Let them defend themselves! (Current policy).
2. Forget them! Brown lives are not worth white ones! (Liberal ones)
3. Nuke them! Let them all burn (frustrated one)

I don't know who is in serious favor of nuking Iraq.  Do you have any examples?

But I do believe in the concept of unlimited retaliation.  Put another way, the lives of my friends, family, and neighbors, outweigh the lives of every man, woman, and child in the middle east.  If a major US city were destroyed by terrorists coming from the middle east, I would support the wholesale destruction of any nation whose citizens or government provided even token resistance to US policy at that point.

 

Are you eliminating terrorists? Are their number lowering?

Um, do we have a 21st century Jesus? raising a bunch of Lazaruses?

I think that question is lame. Perhaps you want to rethink it?

However, it would be o.k. to destroy completely any foreigh city without any kind of retaliation against the US? Like, you would nuke France if they say "no" to the attack of a country that has nothing to do with the destruction of your city? Or Canada, for that matters..?

Huh? 

France or Canada or Zimbabawe for that matter can say whatever they want.  Why should the US care one way or the other?

Let's use a hypothetical that is likely to occur at some point:

Islamic terrorists from say Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt infiltrate the United States and detonate a nuclear device. 

And when this occurs, Iran happens to have nuclear weapons. We can't prove that Iran had anythign to do with it.

My response would be that Iran would have 48 hours to disarm and be occupied by the US military or be wiped out.

France and Canada would object all they want. But given they can barely muster doing anything about someone like Saddam, who had violate over a dozne binding UN resolutions, there's no reason to take their opinions seriously. There certainly would be no reason to attack them.

I'm not in favor of hurting anyone. But at the same time, if my family is put into physical danger, there is no limit to what I would support to protect them even if it meant the annihilation of swaths of the earth's population.  And since the US has that capability, I would expect my government to act accordingly.

The best thing that could happen would be for countries that produce radical Islam to take a step back and look at the logical -- predictable end game for their work and put a stop to it. 

The reason I am against Iran getting nuclear weapons has nothing to do with wanting to keep Iran down but rather to protect them.  Because WHEN Islamic terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon, the retaliation focal point will be the Islamic nation (or nations) that have nuclear weapons and ties to terrorism.

That's the thing about democracies that people don't recognize -- they don't always act rationally.  The US nearly wiped out Japan in World War II. Most Americans in 1945 (according to a poll in Life magazine) supported the extermination of the Japanese race (i.e. genocide). 

Human beings, not just Americans, will stop at nothing if they think their "tribe" is endangered.

Some people, which we'll call "dumb people" for brevity, will start ascribing monstrous intentions to me personally for what I am posting.  But I'm merely the messenger. I am saying what will happen, based on a cursory glance of human history, when Islamic terrorists destroy an American city with a nuclear weapon.

I would prefer nobody gets hurt at all and that people would just live in peace with one another. I don't have anything against the people in Iran or Pakistan or anywhere else. Every person I've got to know from other countries I've liked.

But when my family is in danger, I'll do anything to protect them. And that's how most people are -- worldwide.  So the Islamic nations of the world need to A) Start trying to put a stop to Islamic facism and B) Make sure none of them have any nuclear weapons that could make them be a target in the event of a nuclear terrorist attack.

And when this occurs, Iran happens to have nuclear weapons. We can't prove that Iran had anythign to do with it. So you would kill million of people based on assumptions? What rules out North Korea?

He didn't rule NK out. And I'd have to say he's correct in his thinking. I've been saying the same thing over and over. If and/or when it comes down to, they destroy an American city with a nuke....a "large group of Americans in general are going to call for blood! Make no mistakes here, the government will more than likely give it to them. As a general rule, down thru history this is what usually happens when really bad things happen to a large group of people. The American populace in general were not prepared for the horror of 9/11. I think they'll find a horse of a different color waiting for them now.

There is quite a difference between an attack that killed 3000 peoples and a nuke that will wipe millions. Come on, you overevaluate 9/11. It's like a kick in the balls, it hurts, but you'll live. You caused the death of hundred thousands of people worldwide because 3000 of your fellow citizen died in a sneak attack. That is a lot of overreaction

That is "your" opinion. And you seem to have missed my point entirely! Let me try again!

I've been saying the same thing over and over. If and/or when it comes down to, they destroy an American city with a nuke....a "large group of Americans in general are going to call for blood

"If" they do it to us, you can rest assured it'll be paid back in spades!

Come on, you overevaluate 9/11

I over-estimate "nothing"! If you'd do a "little" more comprehending rather than typing you would understand what I said. We (America) were not ready for 9/11. Let them try the same kind of crap a second time and see what happens.

But I would say that if another 9/11-like events happens, your people will be also calling for a lot of blood. "No one does that to America".

Which is "exactly" what I said earlier. Now, that being said....I bet that given the exact same circumstances (IE: event like 9/11 and then possibly a nuke to a major city) that you'd find other countries would feel the same and "not" just America.

Right. But why is it better to bomb a civilian city?

I never said it was better. However, it makes military sense to do so. If you hurt the civilian population, they will be even less inclined to help the insurgents.

Oooké.. so.. you actually support targeting civilian population in order to achieve a military success?

I wouldn't call what we did in WW2 terrorism. Although you might.

Except the budget needed, I do not see the moral difference. I do not say that is not a military good option, perhaps it is needed quite often, with justification...

Ours is done usually in retaliation to an overt attack against us. Their's is just to strike fear and while planned, I would consider most of their attacks done on a whim. In other words...ours (US) is done for a "military" reason with a clear objective in mind! Can they say the same? I don't think so.

Ours is done usually in retaliation to an overt attack against us They could say the same. Many extremists lost a close one because of military actions done by occidentals or Israelian. They see it as retaliation Their's is just to strike fear and while planned, I would consider most of their attacks done on a whim That's a contradiction. How can you plan an action done on a whim? In other words...ours (US) is done for a "military" reason with a clear objective in mind! Can they say the same? I don't think so. Morale is a clear military objective. For them and for us.

It is very obvious to me at this time that "nothing" I can write will make a dent. So for now we'll have to agree to disagree. You want to stick up for them that's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But at the same time do not try to make the US look like the bad guys.

Where is that different that terrorism, except your way cost millions, where the terrorists' cost thousands?

How dare you consider us to be anything like terrorist? Time and time again we do our best to help the world and what do we get? Insults, nothing but insults. Sure, now you gonna tell me how no one asked for our help; but what happened when the Tsunami hit Thailand? All I could here was how long it took the US to get there and how little we gave compared to other countries. I'm tired of having the responsibility of safeguarding all those who can't fend for themselves just to have our help be thrown back in our faces.

The day you can show me a terrorist who actually wanted to help someone other than themselves then I will give you the comparison as fair. God forbid the US would chose not help give when others need.

Wanting a city destroyed? Killing innocent civilians in the process? Not what I dream of everyday, but when push comes to shove and those we consider innocent sit back and ignore those who kill other innocent people in their name, they no longer are innocent and retaliation is not about killing the same number of theirs, but too shock them into thinking twice about coming back for more.

Totally. Like you were not ready for Pearl Harbor. However, did you went around the world to topple every single regime that was hostile to you, or you focused on the job to fight the ones responsible?

Yes. The United States went around the world and toppled every regime that was hostile to it.

Japan wasn't even the primary focus of the US in World War II. Every single regime, hostile to the US, even undeclared enemies, were removed.