"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with
porous borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer
casualties than 1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't
insurgents who killed those 3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not
insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and countless Iraqi civilians
since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine.
Google says there are over 2 million hits.
There's no requirement that an insurgent be a native of the country in
which he or she is fighting. Further, NOYB is suffering from "old
think" here. The Muslims are bound together by religion, not by
geography. It's a Muslim insurgency.
That's a good argument to nuke the whole region, eh?


No, it is not.

Let me know when one arises then. The plans are already drafted to
destroy Iran should another 9/11-type attack occur...particularly if it's
with WMD. After 9/11, even you were calling for "bombing Afghanistan into
the stone age". I suspect that we'll strike while the iron is hot next
time.


You keep bringing that up, and you never mention the fact that I changed
my mind after a few days and said so.

That's OK, Harry. As an internet arm-chair quarterback, you're allowed to
vacillate. As the leader of the US, Bush must respond with conviction.
Should a WMD/nuclear attack occur, Tehran will be reduced to ashes before
even you have a chance to "change your mind after a few days".



We aren't going to be tossing nukes at anyone, unless we are attacked with
nukes by a nation-state. Bet on it.

If we're attacked with a nuke, Tehran will be gone. No investigation. No
trial. And you can bet on that.