"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support
for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why
are
his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even
if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd
have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might
ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become
what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND
ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists.

Then what's the point?


Survival! Losing this war means annihilation and extinction for the
losing
side. It's not about land or geographical gains like other World Wars.

And because of nuclear weapons, the stakes are a lot higher than
religious
wars of the past.



There are ways to win a war against hydra-headed terrorists without
ending the world, which is what your position would entail. There are
many nations with nuclear weapons now...and if we started using them,
we'd start catching them.

I don't think so. Who would have the capability and motive to hit us back
if we responded with nukes to the next state-sponsored terrorist attack in
one of our major cities? The only Middle Eastern country that I'm aware of
that has nuclear weapons is Pakistan...and Musharraf's on our
side...especially after al Qaeda tried twice to assassinate him. Which
nuclear power concerns you?