In article .com,
"Darn Good Intelligence" wrote:

Defendario wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
"Diplomatic buildup"? **** that, it won't work. Just nuke their sites
now or pay the price for a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the
future.
Are YOUR balls big enough to deal with the threat, or do you advocate
appeasement?

How quaint.

Someone who thinks any sort of conflict short of all out nuclear war is
'apeasement'.

How stupid will you look if Iran already has nukes and one goes off in
a
shipping container in New York City AFTER the US drops nuclear weapons
on
them?

For that matter, how stupid does he look advocating the senseless
murder of hundreds of thousands of human beings?

Well they'd want to do the same to us, it's dog eat dog as far as I'm
concerned.


You probably call yourself a Christian, too.

Look, I'm not calling for all muslims to be destroyed, just the ones
that want to destroy us and actively participate in plots to do just
that. Unfortunately it seems there are too many of these types of
brainwashed individuals in the M East.

And about Iran, I want to clarify that I am most definitely NOT calling
for Iran to be totally and utterly destroyed by nukes. What I am
calling for is the use of TACTICAL nukes on a number of sites where
Iran is working on nuke technology.

For what purpose? The IAEA says there are currently nine nuclear states,
and another forty who have the technical expertise to become nuclear
states quickly. Do you expect that the US using tactical nukes in Iran
is going to *reduce* those numbers?

The world is dangerous enough now, man... let's leave something for the
kids, okay?

Anyone who knows anything about nukes knows there is a distinctiom
between *tactical* nukes that can destroy things within relatively
confined areas and big daddy nukes that take out entire cities.

On Iran we should use the tactical nukes on their facilities just to
shake them up a bit. That's all.